Roy Moore / Al Franken

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The assaults by Clinton and Kennedy took place decades ago, yes. But the willingness of democrat leaders to ignore thisebtransgressions contnued right up until election night of 2016, when the gop elected a reptile and the clintons simultaneously became of zero value. In that second, liberals claimed to care about perversion. If Hilary had won, we would not be having this conversation.

Sexual harassment wasn't the same issue it was in the 1990's like it is today. Trump certainly has super charged the movement. As for Clinton, he paid a dear price for his very unethical relationship even back then.

But Bill wasn't running in 2016 and to hold his issues against Hillary wouldn't be fair to her at all.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sexual harassment wasn't the same issue it was in the 1990's like it is today.

it was for the victims....

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it was for the victims....

I think you can dig a little deeper than that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you can dig a little deeper than that.

In other words, he’s got you and you know you can’t respond.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sexual harassment wasn't the same issue it was in the 1990's like it is today. Trump certainly has super charged the movement. As for Clinton, he paid a dear price for his very unethical relationship even back then.

But Bill wasn't running in 2016 and to hold his issues against Hillary wouldn't be fair to her at all.

It wasn’t the same issue for liberals, last year, as it is today. The difference? The pervert in the Oval Office is a republican, so now all of a sudden, mistreating women is bad. If Hilary had won, your side would still be ignoring this. As with most things, liberal outrage on this issue is very selective, which means it’s fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It wasn’t the same issue for liberals, last year, as it is today. The difference? The pervert in the Oval Office is a republican, so now all of a sudden, mistreating women is bad. If Hilary had won, your side would still be ignoring this. As with most things, liberal outrage on this issue is very selective, which means it’s fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it wasn't the same issue for anyone liberal or conservative... But Trump , Harvey Weinstein, bill o'reilly ,roger ailes, Rupert Murdoch. got caught with their pants down now its everyone's issue

and your stuck on Bill Clinton

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

it wasn't the same issue for anyone liberal or conservative... But Trump , Harvey Weinstein, bill o'reilly ,roger ailes, Rupert Murdoch. got caught with their pants down now its everyone's issue

and your stuck on Bill Clinton

curious choice of characters there given the field...Clinton actually had his pants down...when did Trump have his pants down?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

it wasn't the same issue for anyone liberal or conservative... But Trump , Harvey Weinstein, bill o'reilly ,roger ailes, Rupert Murdoch. got caught with their pants down now its everyone's issue

and your stuck on Bill Clinton

No, I am focusing on Hilary now. She lied to protect bill, and she slut shamed his victims on national tv. And the people who supported her and her husband, lecture me about voting for trump. Spare me the fake moral outrage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, I am focusing on Hilary now. She lied to protect bill, and she slut shamed his victims on national tv. And the people who supported her and her husband, lecture me about voting for trump. Spare me the fake moral outrage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He won't understand your point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He won't understand your point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has no point. He is obsessed with the Clintons ( a wife defending her husband and that sprites you) a
He refuses to live in the present . Or accept the reality of who's involved in this current round of bad behavior .. he sees accusers of republicans as conspiracy. But accusers of democratics are truthfull and rightous and prove liberalism is the cause. power is the cause of sexual harassment and assault not party but that's lost on john

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

He has no point. He is obsessed with the Clintons ( a wife defending her husband and that sprites you) a
He refuses to live in the present . Or accept the reality of who's involved in this current round of bad behavior .. he sees accusers of republicans as conspiracy. But accusers of democratics are truthfull and rightous and prove liberalism is the cause. power is the cause of sexual harassment and assault not party but that's lost on john

So, is Roy Moore doing his bad sex stuff in the present? Is Trump doing his bad sex stuff in the present?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

He has no point. He is obsessed with the Clintons ( a wife defending her husband and that sprites you) a
He refuses to live in the present . Or accept the reality of who's involved in this current round of bad behavior .. he sees accusers of republicans as conspiracy. But accusers of democratics are truthfull and rightous and prove liberalism is the cause. power is the cause of sexual harassment and assault not party but that's lost on john

You might want to take a course in reading comprehension.

I can’t live in the present? How’s this? Presently, you are still bending over backwards to protect Hilary. Presently, I am saying that Trump is a morally bankrupt reptile who should be investigated and dealt with.

You are the one who gives a free pass to scumbags in their own party, not me.

Try. Making. That. Wrong.

Am I going too fast for you?

And it’s ok to slut shame your husbands victims? ‘Standing up for your spouse’ is what you do if your spouse gets sick. Bill was not a victim who needed an advocate, he is a serial predator of women.

Snack on that for a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He won't understand your point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obviously you were right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, I am focusing on Hilary now. She lied to protect bill, and she slut shamed his victims on national tv. And the people who supported her and her husband, lecture me about voting for trump. Spare me the fake moral outrage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...iously-attack/

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...iously-attack/

please dont bring facts into this are you crazy!!!

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

it wasn't the same issue for anyone liberal or conservative... But Trump , Harvey Weinstein, bill o'reilly ,roger ailes, Rupert Murdoch. got caught with their pants down now its everyone's issue

and your stuck on Bill Clinton

I am only surprised it was this quick to get to DJT. I figured they would wait a couple weeks.

For the record, never sexually assaulted or worse anyone. Don't condone it and don't vote (knowingly) for people proven to have. We as a nation need to be real careful about this because people will use this as leverage against legit and innocent people (difficult for me to use politicians as innocent in the same context.

The technology on the near horizon will allow bad guys to impersonate people both audibly and visually blurring reality from technology and the most honest people will be under pressure from this

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I am only surprised it was this quick to get to DJT. I figured they would wait a couple weeks.

For the record, never sexually assaulted or worse anyone. Don't condone it and don't vote (knowingly) for people proven to have. We as a nation need to be real careful about this because people will use this as leverage against legit and innocent people (difficult for me to use politicians as innocent in the same context.

The technology on the near horizon will allow bad guys to impersonate people both audibly and visually blurring reality from technology and the most honest people will be under pressure from this

Your last point highlights one of the most dangerous challenge we all have moving forward, technology allows anyone anywhere to put on the internet whatever message they want; the Russians have known that for years. Now that it might not be as free as it once was, who knows how that is going to factor in, unless the law suits being brought forward are effective in reversing that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But Bill wasn't running in 2016 and to hold his issues against Hillary wouldn't be fair to her at all.

Hilary lied to protect Bill ( blaming the cast right wing conspiracy for framing him), and Hilary used her platform as First Lady to slut shame his victims on national tv. True or false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Hilary lied to protect Bill ( blaming the cast right wing conspiracy for framing him), and Hilary used her platform as First Lady to slut shame his victims on national tv. True or false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So Monica wasn't coached to not was herbr blue dress ?


http://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/889-lewinskydress

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So Monica wasn't coached to not was herbr blue dress ?


http://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/889-lewinskydress

Is this what aboutism? Oh, that's right, you've done a bunch of what aboutism on other posts, but it's only bad when other's do it.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is this what aboutism? Oh, that's right, you've done a bunch of what aboutism on other posts, but it's only bad when other's do it.

seem your not sure what it means "attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"


I directly refuted his argument with Fact based link .. to something he says didnt happen

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

seem your not sure what it means "attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"


I directly refuted his argument with Fact based link .. to something he says didnt happen

Regardless of your verbal gymnastics, your post was a what aboutism.