silentbob1272

The Trump Presidency

79,297 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, mdrake34 said:

Can't we all agree that people shouldn't touch other people without permission and that Jared Kushner should go to jail?

:lol: on the Kushner part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

I don't even know if it's that. I mean, it is, but this situation just seems odd to me.

 

You have people on Twitter screaming that Franken should resign. Not because they think that the offense is horrible, but because they're trying to shelter themselves from any criticism, or being called hypocritical. I suspect that they know that the offense isn't equal, but they have to scream like it is in order to not appear biased.

It is drawing an equivalency between two things that are not equivalent.  False equivalency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual harassment to me is a different type of crime then Stealing an object

29 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

So stealing a car is as serious as murder.

That's silly to me.

No, the analogy doesn't work for me as one is object based and cover by insurance VS a deadly crime against a human. Different

Being sexually harassed is much more of a grey area, depends on the level of harassment, the amount of times it was done, who did it, what mental state the victims was in, their past history of potential abuse.

These are judgments I'm not going to pretend to make as someone who was not the victim.

Don't care either way I'm going to judge accused sexual harrassers the way I want to. 

None of you are going to change my mind, I will condemn every harrasser if they are accused of something that is in the realm of being possible.

Edited by MAD597

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BernieBernstein said:

You're a righteous dude.

And, I guess you're right.  Apologies are in order.  I will edit the above post.

You were never reported ( a teaching moment), but I appreciate that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Bob was convicted, it took the supreme court to overturn his conviction.  Corrupt is as corrupt does. 

And when the Supreme Court makes these decisions they affect all future cases. When they overturned Bob's conviction they made it harder for future corruption charges to be brought against anyone. 

SpongeDad likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Vicious said:

I'm going to speak slowly so y'alls can understand me. Trump was recruited to be president by a group of people that have long had all of the evidence needed to take down the corruption in the swamp of DC. They just needed a POTUS that they knew loved his country, and has been telling us how to fix it for over 30 years. They all got together with him and Sessions to plan it all out, and Trump said that they should use deception. He is a master....

paragraph 

paragraph 

paragraph 

paragraph

X5duZ1p.gif

I'm  sorry my Antifa supersoilder augments couldn't keep up with this one.

lostone, falconsd56 and BrockSamson like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

It is drawing an equivalency between two things that are not equivalent.  False equivalency.

Sure. I guess my hang up is the reason to falsely equate the 2. With the guys like WFW, it justifies their hatered for Franken, and gives them a little whataboutism to use at a later date.

 

With celebs like Kathy Griffin, Alyssa Milano, Mark Ruffalo, etc, I suspect they're just using the false equivalency to avoid being called hypocrites...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Correct. That would be the equivalent to allowing victims to determine the sentence of the convicted in a criminal case, since one victim may recommend the death penalty for a theft conviction, while another would allow probation for an Assault...

Well I'm certainly not letting the victims determine the punishment, that is for the law to decide. 

I'm simply talking about my own personal opinion of those accused of sexual harassment where it is obvious the accusations could have occured. In Al's case yea this could have happened so **** him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MAD597 said:

SEual harrsment is a different type of crime then Stealing 

No, the analogy doesn't work for me as one is object based and cover by insurance VS a deadly crime against a human. Different

Being sexually harassed is much more of a grey area, depends on the level of harassment, the amount of times it was done, who did it, what mental state the victims was in, their past history of potential abuse.

These are judgments I'm not going to pretend to make as someone who was not the victim.

Don't care either way I'm going to judge accused sexual harrassers the way I want to. 

None of you are going to change my mind, I will condemn every harrasser if they are accused of something that is in the realm of being possible.

Who are you to tell one victim that they're better off than another victim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Sure. I guess my hang up is the reason to falsely equate the 2. With the guys like WFW, it justifies their hatered for Franken, and gives them a little whataboutism to use at a later date.

 

With celebs like Kathy Griffin, Alyssa Milano, Mark Ruffalo, etc, I suspect they're just using the false equivalency to avoid being called hypocrites...

I've never had any hatred for Franken, I always enjoyed his comedy (go forward with you (partisanship though) but I don't put much stock in him as a senator though and his party should have nothing to do with this.  It will be interesting to see how this is handled by the scm/fake media.  I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

I honestly don't understand how people compare these things to one another. Look, I don't agree with what Franken did, but he didn't try to rape a kid.

 

Saying that they are not the same is not saying that they aren't wrong, it's just pointing out that its ok to be more outraged by one than the other.

 

If someone sexualizes a Nun, it's much different than someone sexualizing a playboy playmate...

I missed the part where someone said they're the same thing.

I said your defense of Franken is exactly the same defense Moore's defenders use, and I implied then (and will state outright now) that it's a crock.  Obviously what Moore did is way worse.  Obviously Moore is a worse person than Franken.  But that doesn't mean Franken didn't do what she said he did.  And a big reason why I think he did is the same reason I think Moore did what he is accused of -- in both cases, the accuser could have made up a much more troubling story.  In Franken's case, she could have accused him of grabbing her boob, or feeling her up, or whatever.  She didn't.  What she describes in the big scheme of things is creepy and inappropriate and, yes, assault.  But she didn't say he raped her.  She didn't even say he touched her except the forcible kiss.  So I believe her.  And until someone gives me a good reason not to believe her, something more than "she's a Republican and Al denies it," I'll continue to believe her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Who are you to tell one victim that they're better off than another victim?

I have a different opinion of sexual harrasers/predators VS other crimes/criminals.

My wife was harassed very dramatically when she was a child and I live every day with the effects it has had on her and how it has permanently changed her life and literally killed a part of her.

Like I said don't care the argument or rationalization I'm not changing my mind on this one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I missed the part where someone said they're the same thing.

I said your defense of Franken is exactly the same defense Moore's defenders use, and I implied then (and will state outright now) that it's a crock.  Obviously what Moore did is way worse.  Obviously Moore is a worse person than Franken.  But that doesn't mean Franken didn't do what she said he did.  And a big reason why I think he did is the same reason I think Moore did what he is accused of -- in both cases, the accuser could have made up a much more troubling story.  In Franken's case, she could have accused him of grabbing her boob, or feeling her up, or whatever.  She didn't.  What she describes in the big scheme of things is creepy and inappropriate and, yes, assault.  But she didn't say he raped her.  She didn't even say he touched her except the forcible kiss.  So I believe her.  And until someone gives me a good reason not to believe her, something more than "she's a Republican and Al denies it," I'll continue to believe her.

wfw liking this post is horse  ****.  The post is definitely not horse  ****.

BrockSamson likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

I missed the part where someone said they're the same thing.

I said your defense of Franken is exactly the same defense Moore's defenders use, and I implied then (and will state outright now) that it's a crock.  Obviously what Moore did is way worse.  Obviously Moore is a worse person than Franken.  But that doesn't mean Franken didn't do what she said he did.  And a big reason why I think he did is the same reason I think Moore did what he is accused of -- in both cases, the accuser could have made up a much more troubling story.  In Franken's case, she could have accused him of grabbing her boob, or feeling her up, or whatever.  She didn't.  What she describes in the big scheme of things is creepy and inappropriate and, yes, assault.  But she didn't say he raped her.  She didn't even say he touched her except the forcible kiss.  So I believe her.  And until someone gives me a good reason not to believe her, something more than "she's a Republican and Al denies it," I'll continue to believe her.

Someone on here (I can't remember who) said it was because she was a frequent guest on Hannity.  That's one of the problems we face when discussing both sides of the aisle regarding this matter.  The press is going back and saying they made a mistake not going after Clinton because they were young reporters, I think that is to set up why they are going after Moore (and eventually Trump) but now let's see where they go with the Franken accusations.  Are they going to call for Franken to step down like they so vehemently have done so far Moore?  I'm curious to see how this plays out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

wfw liking this post is horse  ****.  The post is definitely not horse  ****.

Speaking of horseshyt, you now want to control what I "like" ?   Harry, you're fuggin' losing it, son.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

It doesn't take power further from the people, though.  It takes power away from the fringes of the parties and puts in the hands of people who have skin in the game.  

The leadership of the parties want to get enough of their people elected so they can gain the majority.  Being in the majority allows them to govern and enact their agendas.  So they have a very strong incentive to select candidates who represent the people of each district/state adequately.  The leaders, who want to lead the majority, have every incentive to select candidates that are desirable to the people in those areas, in other words.  

And being able to select nominees has another effect...it makes the candidates responsible to the party and the leadership directly.  If someone tries to blow up the party and stop their own party's agenda, the leadership can replace them easily.  So it's more likely that the majority party can actually pass it's legislative and govern effectively.  

In other words, with the leadership deciding on the candidates, you are more likely to get candidates that are representative of those states - NOT the whackjobs like Roy Moore, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, etc. etc. etc. - who are broadly acceptable within the state/district.  And you further get more collective responsibility where the parties have more cohesion that allows them to govern when they're in the majority.  

Look at Obamacare.  In order to appeal to the fringes of their parties, which disproportionately vote in primaries, Republicans had to promise repeal.  No serious person thought they would do that.  The public at large didn't want that.  But they had to make promises to their fringe base or fear being primaried out of office (ahem, Eric Cantor).  Having spent eight years spouting fantasyland promises, they got the majority.  And immediately the reality of those promises were made clear...if they did what they promised, they would anger the independents and swing votesr.  If they didn't, they would anger their base.  So each individual member of Congress made an individual decision.  Those in heavy red districts insisted on repealing.  Those in swing districts insisted on a credible replacement.  And nothing got done.

So not only did the primaries incentivize the Republican Party collectively to make promises they were never going to be able to fulfill, but the different individual strategies of members created a situation that made fulfilling those promises impossible.  The moderate members will argue to their voters that they stopped the damaging policy and the far-right members will argue they just need to be more hard-right and uncompromising.  It incentivized irresponsible and reckless grandstanding (to appeal to the fringes) AND it shielded members of the party from responsibility for their failure to enact their promised agenda. 

Under the system that I propose, the party would collectively promote an agenda and would be directly held accountable both for fulfilling their promises AND for the consequences of those promises.  Individual members would not be able to torpedo the legislative agenda.  And having enacted their agenda, the voters at large can hold the party responsible for the good or bad consequences of that agenda. 

In which you argue that people who actually get out and vote do not have as much skin in the game as people who do not.

This all presumes that Republicans are entitled to get their policies enacted by fiat rather than by the democratic process playing out.  Yes, they overplayed their hand on Obamacare.  And the result of that is they were unable to keep their campaign promises.  And the consequence of that is that they have to face an increasingly irate base.  In order to fix that, they have to either correct their policy goals or find another base, i.e., pivot on the issues and try to get other people to vote for them.  What you suggest is having done all that, if they could actually choose the people who will govern with them instead of, say, the people of Alabama getting to choose their representative, they'd be able to effect their campaign promises.  True enough, but that is no solution, and ultimately, who cares?  Our system has checks and balances to allow for proper representation of all interests.  And in order to win elections, both in primaries and in the general, candidates have to have broader appeal than the fringes.  If Moore loses in Alabama, then Alabama voters will have learned that the hard way.  And if he wins, the Republican Party will have learned about making wild eyed promises the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

wfw liking this post is horse  ****.  The post is definitely not horse  ****.

Did WFW defend Moore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I missed the part where someone said they're the same thing.

I said your defense of Franken is exactly the same defense Moore's defenders use, and I implied then (and will state outright now) that it's a crock.  Obviously what Moore did is way worse.  Obviously Moore is a worse person than Franken.  But that doesn't mean Franken didn't do what she said he did.  And a big reason why I think he did is the same reason I think Moore did what he is accused of -- in both cases, the accuser could have made up a much more troubling story.  In Franken's case, she could have accused him of grabbing her boob, or feeling her up, or whatever.  She didn't.  What she describes in the big scheme of things is creepy and inappropriate and, yes, assault.  But she didn't say he raped her.  She didn't even say he touched her except the forcible kiss.  So I believe her.  And until someone gives me a good reason not to believe her, something more than "she's a Republican and Al denies it," I'll continue to believe her.

The picture of him pretending to grope her while she's asleep is a form of intimidation.  And because the picture exists, she gets to relive and be embarrassed every time she sees it.  I don't know if it's a crime to photograph people while doing **** like this but it certainly should be.  

JDaveG and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kicker said:

The picture of him pretending to grope her while she's asleep is a form of intimidation.  And because the picture exists, she gets to relive and be embarrassed every time she sees it.  I don't know if it's a crime to photograph people while doing **** like this but it certainly should be.  

I don't know that it should be a crime, but it's sure as **** completely inappropriate and unfunny.

The only allegation against Franken right now that I think is false is that he's a comedian.

AF89, mdrake34 and mfaulk57158 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now