|
Post by Don on Nov 15, 2017 6:13:33 GMT -5
Why are people surprised when the people they exempt from morality act immorally?
Take politicians. Politicians don't steal, they tax. They don't enslave, they conscript. Maybe they could rebrand sexual assault by politicians as "Pubic Service" and build a groundswell of support for it, since people approve of rebranded theft and enslavement when performed by their elected officials.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 15, 2017 10:02:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 15, 2017 10:03:05 GMT -5
Why are people surprised when the people they exempt from morality act immorally? Take politicians. No, don't. Politicians are not exempt from morality. Neither are cops, celebrities, or government workers. Nobody in the fucking world exempted any of them from morality. Corruption exists. Malfeasance exists. Abuse of power exists. Criminality exists. Your constant griping about how this is a consequence of not living in Libertopia is exactly the same as Christians bemoaning the consequences of our living in a "Fallen World" and claiming that in the new Godly world promised by Christ, we will live in a world without sin. I wonder if you realize how dogmatically theological you have become.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 15, 2017 16:27:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 8:44:57 GMT -5
This is just not acceptable, imo: www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.htmlPeople--on both sides of the aisle--like to talk about accountability and transparency, but all this shit reflects an unwillingness to want or work for either one. Just like it was fair for taxpayers to know about the asinine behavior of a local politician who got pulled over for speeding, it's 100% fair for the taxpayers to know about the bad behavior of Congresscritters and their staff.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 8:48:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 9:15:52 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 9:54:41 GMT -5
I actually did not find Juanita credible. Not because I think Bill would never do such a thing (he is no saint and I don't for a minute think he is), but because her story just did not hang together and the people backing her up have a very clear agenda. On another website, I wrote a very long post about this. If I can find it, I'll cut and paste here.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2017 10:02:27 GMT -5
That's fine. But there are people now who suddenly find her credible, after all of these years.
Personally, I didn't know whether to believe her or not, because the Clintons and the DLC played for keeps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 10:31:12 GMT -5
That's fine. But there are people now who suddenly find her credible, after all of these years. Before they were on team "defend Our Side no matter what." Now they are on team "wait, how can we look consistent and virtuous with our Always Believe Women No Matter What message? I know! Let's throw Bill under the bus! We don't need him anymore -- getting rid of Moore and Trump is The Goal!" I am willing to bet very few bothered at any point to really assess Juanita and her story. I did. When I get some time (prob. this weekend), I'll look for my post (actually, I think it was more than one post). (It had a ton of cites in it, so recreating it would be time-consuming.) Bill's a dog, no doubt. But that doesn't mean Juanita is telling the truth. ETA: Also, for what it's worth, I don't base my disbelief, at all, on Bill's denials. I base it on her own words and facts about the events at the time and with regard to the couple of people who back her up (as well as those who DON'T back her up, including her husband at the time).
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 12:15:03 GMT -5
I also found Juanita Broaddrick non-credible. Still do.
I suspect if Clinton's scandals had broken today, rather in the 90s, though, he wouldn't escape as unscathed.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 12:31:42 GMT -5
I don't remember the specifics of Juanita, so I'd have to rehash that to have an opinion. I don't know if I'd hold against her the fact that she was backed by people who just wanted to take the Clinton's down, because the people who denied it are the same people who wanted to convince us Bill wasn't lying about not have a sexual relationship with Monica because a blowjob isn't sex.
It may not be a point in her favor, but people chose their sides because of politics, not fact. The rest, I'd have to see the points. Bill certainly deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty, so I'm not rushing to judge him on something that serious.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 16, 2017 12:36:10 GMT -5
I don't remember the specifics of Juanita, so I'd have to rehash that to have an opinion. I don't know if I'd hold against her the fact that she was backed by people who just wanted to take the Clinton's down, because the people who denied it are the same people who wanted to convince us Bill wasn't lying about not have a sexual relationship with Monica because a blowjob isn't sex. The people who claimed he wasn't lying because a blowjob isn't sex were a minority and that was not the primary defense. The primary defense was that it wasn't anyone else's business but Hillary's, and even to the degree that it was in the public interest (because the President and an intern is a disparate power relationship and that is certainly something that wouldn't play as well today), the lengths to which his enemies went to persecute him for it were clearly over the top.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 16, 2017 12:37:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 17, 2017 9:38:59 GMT -5
Man, Franken is taking a beating on this. Though I suppose it's fair that he does. I watched Tweeden on CNN yesterday. One thing she said that stuck with me us that she and her husband ran into Franken a few years ago at some event. Franken greeted her like they were old friends. She said hello and immediately walked away. That's telling, I think. It indicates that Franken, for all his apologies now, is no different than the typical douchebag. Here's Franken's second, longer apology (after he caught heat for the first): www.twincities.com/2017/11/16/al-franken-i-feel-disgusted-with-myself-over-groping-photo-says-ethics-committee-should-investigate-him/Some bits in it: I said that it's fair he's catching so much heat for this because he's like the "family values" politician who gets caught stepping out on his wife, or spending way too much time in airport men's rooms. He really thinks he's a "champion of women." I know a lot of people like Franken, but this stuff kinda confirms what I've always thought about him. I've known guys just like him--sorry to go internet psychoanalysis here, but I just can't help it--who play the role of "super-sensitive guy" to the hilt, who use it to get over on women because it's the only arrow in their quiver (which is my way of saying that it's a complete act, top to bottom). It goes beyond dating and sex; it's the only way they can relate to women and reflects a desperate need for their--the women's--approval. Essentially, Franken is Alan Harper (while I guess Bill Clinton is Charlie Harper).
|
|