Roy Moore / Al Franken

[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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

who said anything about their behavior being current this isn't the argument. but please keep trying to defend them


(peoples displeasure with such displays of bad behavior that occurred in past are affecting the present ..

definition of present : existing or occurring now.

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

Originally Posted by wdmso

who said anything about their behavior being current this isn't the argument. but please keep trying to defend them


(peoples displeasure with such displays of bad behavior that occurred in past are affecting the present ..

definition of present : existing or occurring now.

Your the one who said:

"He [Jim in CT] 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 .. "

The "current round of bad behavior" is not current. The behavior is not current. There is no current round of Moore's or Trump's sexual behavior. It is old behavior which is being accused now. Hillary's and Bill's bad behavior did not stop them from being Party leaders. Neither did JFK's or Ted Kennedy's. And if, as you say here "peoples displeasure with such displays of bad behavior that occurred in past are affecting the present ..", how does Bill Clinton's proven sexual predation in the past not affect the present? Aren't some of the women he "assaulted" in the past still suffering from not getting "justice"? And so why do you say that pointing out Clinton's sexual behavior in the past is not affecting the present? That it's not, as you say, living "in the present"?

The Dems NOW saying that the Clinton's or the Kennedy's discretions were wrong and that they should have been convicted of something is too convenient (no political damage to the Dems in calling out the Clinton's and Kennedy's NOW instead of then when it counted), and, as Jim said, unbelievable.

And it is an obvious ploy to make it sound reasonable, even necessary, that we should do something, make some conviction or resignation happen, for Moore's or Trump's past supposed bad behavior.

[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

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

definition of present : existing or occurring now.

or something you give/get at Christmas

[wdmso]

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


really ?? your to funny now your are just lying.. to deflect your obvious bias on any topic that involves democrats or when someone points out your conclusions are not based it facts or truth . you are a True Republican a 1 trick pony ..

your point is clear YOU took an incident from the the 90's and 60's then you attach Slut-shaming which became a thing in 2000 and applied to an argument in 2017 to attack only liberals with a spinkle of Trump to look not bias ..

Not sure if you know this Hillary isn't running for office and when she was where were you to bring up her slut shaming all i heard was emails and Benghazi why is that?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your the one who said:


Aren't some of the women he "assaulted" in the past still suffering from not getting "justice"? And so why do you say that pointing out Clinton's sexual behavior in the past is not affecting the present? That it's not, as you say, living "in the present"?

all theses women you say were assaulted have the same legal rights as the women who claimed Trump and Moore assaulted them.. the statute of limitations protect all of the accused equally public opinion is a separate matter and if Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton were running for office today (present) those issues would be front and center



The Dems NOW saying that the Clinton's or the Kennedy's discretions were wrong and that they should have been convicted of something is too convenient ( for Moore's or Trump's past supposed bad behavior.

They were wrong the day they happen and still are . the idea that they are not and they were not punished .. is another conservative urban legend ! Ted Kennedy plead guilty. and the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.

so please spare me there was no "justice" for their actions ?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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


really ?? your to funny now your are just lying.. to deflect your obvious bias on any topic that involves democrats or when someone points out your conclusions are not based it facts or truth . you are a True Republican a 1 trick pony ..

your point is clear YOU took an incident from the the 90's and 60's then you attach Slut-shaming which became a thing in 2000 and applied to an argument in 2017 to attack only liberals with a spinkle of Trump to look not bias ..

Not sure if you know this Hillary isn't running for office and when she was where were you to bring up her slut shaming all i heard was emails and Benghazi why is that?

It’s not an ancient incident, if as of yesterday, you are still saying that Hilary didn’t do anything wrong.

I’m nowhere near a gop drone - i suporybgay marriage and gun control, and I am opposed to the death penalty. And unlike you, I can point callnout scumbags on my side, and I want them OUT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I like when Wayne accuses Jim of being biased when it comes to his party. Like it's a bad thing that he would never consider.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I like when Wayne accuses Jim of being biased when it comes to his party. Like it's a bad thing that he would never consider.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No there’s no way of knowing which way he leans, he’s right in the center.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

all theses women you say were assaulted have the same legal rights as the women who claimed Trump and Moore assaulted them.. the statute of limitations protect all of the accused equally public opinion is a separate matter

Moving the goal posts trick. I responded to your claim that Jim didn't live in the present because he compared the Dems lack of concern over Clinton's or Kennedy's sex predations to the way they are now supposedly so outraged over Trump's and Moore's (notice how the outrage over Moore has disappeared since he lost). And, for you somehow, "public opinion" (which is to a great extent molded by the press and by party affiliation) is to be the measuring stick for judging and comparing. So now, for you, because public opinion supposedly has died down over past Clinton and Kennedy transgressions they should no longer be relevant. But there is still, in the present, a "public opinion" regarding Kennedy and Clinton sex scandals. That hasn't gone away. And the comparison of the Dems lack of concern about those scandals to how they want to now use "outrage" to pursue and get rid of Trump (or any other Republican politician) is too obvious to ignore--unless the object is to restore Democrat Party power.

It is very convenient to say, oh well, statutes of limitations have expired, the Kennedy's have expired, all the countless politicians of the past who were sexually miscreant have expired, but NOW it's a new age. Trump has got to go. But wait. It's still the same old chit. But it's now the Dems who want to impeach and the Repubs who, sort of, don't.

So the "past" is still "present" it has not changed. And the women who suffered "past" Clinton, et al., sex "assaults" and are still alive will get no justice other than an acknowledgement that something should have been done, but, oh well, too late now. Can't remove the guys from office now that we should have then. See ya. Gotta move on and clear the deck of the bad guys today (like Trump and Moore for old supposed transgressions), even remove some Dems whose seats are in safe Dem territory. Today's a new day. Yeah, right.

and if Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton were running for office today (present) those issues would be front and center

Oh, would they now? Those issues were very much up front back when those guys ran for office. But the Dems preferred power to so-called morality. What? All the folks who voted for Clinton are dead now, or are suddenly turned "moral" now? All the politicians who supported Clinton and would not remove him from office then, now see the light? What? There has now been a moral awakening? Surrrre there is . . . And you know this, how? Notice how even many of those (including media types) who accuse Trump are themselves guilty of sexual misconduct. And how many more are but have not been exposed. We are talking humans with their human nature, not saints or angels. And we are talking power. Humans seeking power for its sake are several steps shy of morality. And I'm not seeing how that will change, especially in a world of moral relativity.

They were wrong the day they happen and still are . the idea that they are not and they were not punished .. is another conservative urban legend ! Ted Kennedy plead guilty.

Of sexual "assault"? Was he removed from office?

and the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.

Was he removed from office?

so please spare me there was no "justice" for their actions ?

If you consider "justice" for those women assaulted by Clinton to be a Congressional slap on the wrist (for something secondarily being related to his assaults) and his continuing to remain in power and to get wealthier because of that power, and, as well, his wife who rubbed salt in the wounds inflicted by her husband, gaining power and wealth as well, if you consider that "justice," then what do you consider justice would be for Trump?

[Jim in CT]

And to the liberal apologists who say that there’s no use bringing up Bill Clinton because his abuse isn’t recent...when was Roy Moore accused of behaving inappropriately? I thought his alleged acts also occurred many years ago?

Your hypocrisy has no bounds, and you have no shame. When outrage is so blatantly selective, it’s also fake.

We need One set of rules/standards applied to both parties. Is that really beyond our grasp? Shame on us if it is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And to the liberal apologists who say that there’s no use bringing up Bill Clinton because his abuse isn’t recent...when was Roy Moore accused of behaving inappropriately? I thought his alleged acts also occurred many years ago?

Your hypocrisy has no bounds, and you have no shame.

We need One set of rules/standards applied to both parties. Is that really beyond our grasp? Shame on us if it is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So when are the cons. going to force Trump to resign or why hasn't he announced that he will not run for re-election? BC if those 2 things don't happen your hypocrisy has no bounds and you have no shame since the liberals have already done that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So when are the cons. going to force Trump to resign or why hasn't he announced that he will not run for re-election? BC if those 2 things don't happen your hypocrisy has no bounds and you have no shame since the liberals have already done that.

That's the trick. Get rid of a couple of which won't hurt the party's power position, then use that as some supposed moral reason to ask the other party to lose key positions which will help your party's return to power. Like a chess game, give up a few pawns or castles to check mate the King. It's a BS trick and anyone who falls for it is a fool.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So when are the cons. going to force Trump to resign or why hasn't he announced that he will not run for re-election? BC if those 2 things don't happen your hypocrisy has no bounds and you have no shame since the liberals have already done that.

Why the hell should he resign as if now? Nothing but allegations. If there’s credible evidence, let’s investigate.

Paul, TONS of influential republicans have been critical of trump. Did that happen with bill or Hilary? No.

True or false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why the hell should he resign as if now? Nothing but allegations. If there’s credible evidence, let’s investigate.

Paul, TONS of influential republicans have been critical of trump. Did that happen with bill or Hilary? No.

True or false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All the liberals w/accusations have either resigned or have said that they will not run for re-elections due to the pressure being put on them. Trump has been accused and neither of those 2 has occurred.

Your quote was “Your hypocrisy has no bounds, and you have no shame. When outrage is so blatantly selective, it’s also fake.

We need One set of rules/standards applied to both parties. Is that really beyond our grasp? Shame on us if it is.”

Seems like the liberals have a set of standards and cons. another (lessor) set of standards. Looks to me any cons. w/outrage is blatantly selective - appears fake to me (also appears hypocritical and thus you have no shame).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We need One set of rules/standards applied to both parties.

Seems like the liberals have a set of standards and cons. another (lessor) set of standards. .

this is hilarious

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump has been accused and neither of those 2 has occurred.

.

and....don't hold your breath

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's the trick. Get rid of a couple of which won't hurt the party's power position, then use that as some supposed moral reason to ask the other party to lose key positions which will help your party's return to power. Like a chess game, give up a few pawns or castles to check mate the King. It's a BS trick and anyone who falls for it is a fool.

Franken might still change his mind and Conyers is still looking for his pants

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

All the liberals w/accusations have either resigned or have said that they will not run for re-elections due to the pressure being put on them. Trump has been accused and neither of those 2 has occurred.

Your quote was “Your hypocrisy has no bounds, and you have no shame. When outrage is so blatantly selective, it’s also fake.

We need One set of rules/standards applied to both parties. Is that really beyond our grasp? Shame on us if it is.”

Seems like the liberals have a set of standards and cons. another (lessor) set of standards. Looks to me any cons. w/outrage is blatantly selective - appears fake to me (also appears hypocritical and thus you have no shame).

Oh, Hilary has said that because if scandal she won’t run again? I missed that announcement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, Hilary has said that because if scandal she won’t run again? I missed that announcement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She was accussed of sexual assault or being a pedophile?

Ah that's right she was by the right. Comet ping pong!

[Jim in CT]

Paul, when did liberals and the media suddenly start caring about making sure that elected officials treated women with respect? Before the ascendance of trump, or after?? When Hilary ran in 2008, no one gave a damn that she was married to a predator, lied to protect him, and slut shamed his victims. When she ran in 2016, only a year ago, no one cared about those things. Now that she and her rapist husband are f no more use, then and only then, does the media care.

There is zero chance we’d be discussing this if she had won. Zip. If you didn’t call for bill to resign, you have exactly zero moral authority to ask trump to, and that’s even if he admits wrongdoing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

She didn't "slut shamed" She defended her husband as they both had been lied about for years and years by the right (maybe she did kill vince foster??). As has been stated, we (the collective we) did a crappy job dealing w/claims of sexual assualt and impropriety (back even bf Anita Hill). Times change and in this case for the better.

Don't tell me about moral authority when you seem to have no problem not calling for Trump to resign when the left called for Franken to resign. 650K Conserv. in Alabama just told us where their "moral authority" lies.

Bottom line - the conserv. have zero moral authority on this issue as long as Trump is still in office and no on calls for him to resign. The Dems have outplayed the Repubs on this issue and are showing they have zero moral authority. If you want to make the claim that both parties are equally crappy, I might agree but I doubt you are capable of making that claim.

[scottw]

who wants moral authority?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

who wants moral authority?

Exactly. Trump doesn't. Nor does he pretend to. Apparently the Dems now all of a sudden want it and claim that they have somehow made the big switch, like their fake claim that the Southern politicians made a switch on a dime from Democrat to Republican because of Nixon's Southern Strategy.

Nor is there actual evidence of Trump being as depraved as he is characterized by those who hate him. Someone mentioned the Howard Stern interviews with him as showing what a sexual pervert he is supposed to be. So I watched several of them. He was pretty consistently classy. He didn't really admit to all the stuff that was asked by Stern's typical sexually deviant questions. It was Stern who was, as usual, crude and intentionally provocative. Trump said he was always personally respectful to the ladies in his beauty contests. As the owner of those contests, he went into some dressing rooms for various reasons and saw some really beautiful women, wink, wink. OK, but he didn't harass them. With Stern, the interview will usually turn to some perverse sexual conversation. But that's on Howard. His guests go along with the banter. They were the type of interviews and answers one would expect on a Howard Stern show. Most macho men will wink, wink, along with mostly and intentionally false bravado to add to the entertainment.

Stern tried to push Trump in one video to say that he would leave Melania if she became disfigured, or fat and sagging from pregnancy. Trump insisted, in probe after typical Stern probe, that he would not. That she was special beyond her beauty, and would never leave her. Trump supposedly, according to a CNN clip, allowed Stern to call Ivanka a nice piece of a**. I saw that interview. Trump did not "allow" it. Stern does what he wants. Those who go on his show know that beforehand. Trump did not "agree" with Stern's remark. He, barely audibly because Stern was still finishing his remark, said nah, and went on to praise his daughter. You could see the beginning, in those Stern interviews, of Trump's view of the media being fake news.

There were two short videos cobbled by CNN with examples of supposedly crude or sexist Trump comments in the Stern interviews. I had actually watched the full interviews, and the out of context snippets shown by CNN distorted the tone and meaning of the whole conversations.

In the Billy Bush little dialogue, Trump said some women would "allow" you (which is the opposite of assault), if you were rich and powerful, to put your hands on their you-know-what. Which it seems is true. He didn't say he actually did, but one might assume he may have. And he admitted that he was interested in the lady in question, but when she didn't reciprocate, he went no further.

If you want to consider that all to be depraved in the context of the milieu that Trump travelled, you're probably either naïve or ignorant.

And that behavior in that milieu goes back to the beginning of that milieu. And a lot of our politicians, and several Presidents, have come from that milieu. As well did our media moguls and their star talking heads. As we are discovering.

But what Trump does want, not moral authority, but to change the nature and direction of our federal government. And while we are directed to focus on the junk, like that in this thread, he is doing, without much help and with great resistance, quite a bit of changing. The junk is meant to distract us from what he is accomplishing, and to bring him down in order to stop it and get back to creating that all powerful government we so desperately want and need.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nor is there actual evidence of Trump being as depraved as he is characterized by those who hate him.

Hoo boy.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Hoo boy.

Take a breath.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Take a breath.

I breathing quite fine thank you.