menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: How many will kneel at 1:00 today?
Page: 21 of 29
mail
DelBobcat
12/15/2017 1:48 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Please note that about two percent of Alabamians who would have voted for a decent GOP candidate, instead voted for a write-in. This was slightly more than Jones' margin of victory. So the deciding factor in this race was, indeed, morality over expediency.
And yet almost half of Alabamians stilled voted for Moore. That tells you all you need to know.
And how many people voted for that guy from Arkansas,twice,with the accusations against him,including rape ?

Sorry,but Moore,Clinton,and the Democrat and Republican legislators who have resigned recently show that,when it comes to this type of inappropriate behavior, neither side can claim the moral high ground.
This will be my only response about Clinton because it's neither here nor there. John Oliver did a great segment on "whataboutism" that you should watch because it's what you're engaging in. The fact that Clinton did something immoral doesn't excuse Roy Moore's behavior or make it any better that people were willing to vote for him. I'd also note that Juanita Brodderick's rape allegations against Clinton came out after his second election. As far as I know he didn't get a single vote for a third term.

Clinton definitely did some bad things but Roy Moore is accused of sexually assaulting multiple women, making sexual advances/harassing countless more, and of having sexual contact with a woman as young as 14. These allegations were deemed credible by multiple folks who have worked with or known him in some capacity over the years and many residents of his hometown have said that they were public knowledge. Members of both parties called the allegations credible and encouraged people not to vote for him.

So please spare me the "what about Bill Clinton" line and the false moral equivalency. If Roy Moore was a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat there is absolutely nothing you could do to get me to vote for him.
mail
OhioCatFan
12/15/2017 2:20 PM
I don't think rpbobcat was making a false moral equivalency. I think he was pointing out the inconsistencies in the way these kinds of charges have been handled. His point was not to exonerate Moore but to point out how differently these things were handled back in the day when top Dems went on national news shows and said that "lying about sex" was not an impeachable offense but was actually laudable and a something praiseworthy.

In terms of one of Bill's rapes here is a rather detailed description of one of them. Don't kill the Messenger as many of you will find the source disgusting, but the story is accurate and has been repeated in many other places. This is just the most succinct one I could find via a quick search:

https://tinyurl.com/yakzerug

For the record, I'm not a real big fan of this web site or its major actors myself.
Last Edited: 12/15/2017 2:21:33 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
DelBobcat
12/15/2017 2:52 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I don't think rpbobcat was making a false moral equivalency. I think he was pointing out the inconsistencies in the way these kinds of charges have been handled. His point was not to exonerate Moore but to point out how differently these things were handled back in the day when top Dems went on national news shows and said that "lying about sex" was not an impeachable offense but was actually laudable and a something praiseworthy.

In terms of one of Bill's rapes here is a rather detailed description of one of them. Don't kill the Messenger as many of you will find the source disgusting, but the story is accurate and has been repeated in many other places. This is just the most succinct one I could find via a quick search:

https://tinyurl.com/yakzerug

For the record, I'm not a real big fan of this web site or its major actors myself.
Ughh, I said I wasn't going to respond to anything else about Clinton but here I am because you're precisely proving my point.

You say "one of Bill's rapes" when Juanita Brodderick is the ONLY rape allegation against him. It also came to light in 1999. So no Dems were out there screaming that he should be re-elected despite this allegation.

But this is all beside the point because Bill Clinton wasn't running for Senator in Alabama. In fact, he hasn't run for any office since that allegation came out. But Roy Moore has. And 48% of Alabamians decided that they wanted to vote for an accused child molester instead of an honorable man who prosecuted members of the KKK. That's my point. And Clinton has nothing to do with it. Why is it that conservatives have to bring up the Clintons in every single issue? They are not relevant to this.
Last Edited: 12/15/2017 2:52:56 PM by DelBobcat
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/15/2017 3:06 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
Please note that about two percent of Alabamians who would have voted for a decent GOP candidate, instead voted for a write-in. This was slightly more than Jones' margin of victory. So the deciding factor in this race was, indeed, morality over expediency.
And yet almost half of Alabamians stilled voted for Moore. That tells you all you need to know.
And how many people voted for that guy from Arkansas,twice,with the accusations against him,including rape ?

Sorry,but Moore,Clinton,and the Democrat and Republican legislators who have resigned recently show that,when it comes to this type of inappropriate behavior, neither side can claim the moral high ground.
This will be my only response about Clinton because it's neither here nor there. John Oliver did a great segment on "whataboutism" that you should watch because it's what you're engaging in. The fact that Clinton did something immoral doesn't excuse Roy Moore's behavior or make it any better that people were willing to vote for him. I'd also note that Juanita Brodderick's rape allegations against Clinton came out after his second election. As far as I know he didn't get a single vote for a third term.

Clinton definitely did some bad things but Roy Moore is accused of sexually assaulting multiple women, making sexual advances/harassing countless more, and of having sexual contact with a woman as young as 14. These allegations were deemed credible by multiple folks who have worked with or known him in some capacity over the years and many residents of his hometown have said that they were public knowledge. Members of both parties called the allegations credible and encouraged people not to vote for him.

So please spare me the "what about Bill Clinton" line and the false moral equivalency. If Roy Moore was a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat there is absolutely nothing you could do to get me to vote for him.
In no way did my post excuse Moore's behavior.
Quite the opposite,actually.

As far as Bill Clinton,he's the poster boy for improper behavior.

The allegations against him for improper sexual behavior go back to his days as Governor of Arkansas.
During the 1992 campaign a number of stories came out (bimbo eruptions) about his past dalliances,including possible rape.

Just look at the number of Democrats who are now saying they should have called for him to resign.

My "moral equivalent", as you refer to it,applies to Moore,Clinton and the legislators in both parties who have had to resign.
They all fit nicely into the same basket of rotten apples.

Like I said,on this issue,neither side has the moral high ground.
Last Edited: 12/15/2017 3:12:56 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/15/2017 3:51 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Please note that about two percent of Alabamians who would have voted for a decent GOP candidate, instead voted for a write-in. This was slightly more than Jones' margin of victory. So the deciding factor in this race was, indeed, morality over expediency.
And yet almost half of Alabamians stilled voted for Moore. That tells you all you need to know.
And how many people voted for that guy from Arkansas,twice,with the accusations against him,including rape ?

Sorry,but Moore,Clinton,and the Democrat and Republican legislators who have resigned recently show that,when it comes to this type of inappropriate behavior, neither side can claim the moral high ground.
Moral equivalency and whataboutism aside, I have a more important question: who gives a shit how many people voted for Bill Clinton 30 years ago? The landscape has changed for the better. We're smarter and understand sexual abuse -- and the way powerful people take advantage of their power -- better than we did 30 years ago.

We should aim to be better today than we were yesterday. If the best justification you can find for all of Roy Moore's voters is that Democrats supported an abuser 30 years ago, then you don't actually have a justification.

Meanwhile, Al Franken resigned. John Conyers resigned. Your party tried to elect somebody who is very likely guilty of much worse crimes. It's not that you found out after the fact. Your party knew, and your party supported him anyhow. So don't give me this "Bill Clinton got elected twice" garbage. The RNC and the President ignored the accusations and supported Moore anyhow.

And not only did the party support Moore, but Project Veritas -- an organization Donald Trump himself donated money to -- paid a woman to pose as a victim of pedophilia attempt to discredit actual victims of pedophilia. And got caught red-handed doing so. That's moral rot. It's disgusting and you should be ashamed. Not because you're guilty -- you're not. You seem like a good dude, and one who has a strong moral center. You should be ashamed and infuriated that these things are being done in your name. Conservative politicians literally do not care the tiniest bit what I think. I'm a liberal, coastal elite in New York and they're not even trying to win my vote. But they care about what you think, and you have the ability to hold them accountable for that.

Instead, you just yawn and say "well, Bill Clinton is a criminal, too."

For a party so focused on personal responsibility, it sure does seem like you guys are unwilling to hold anybody responsible for anything.
Last Edited: 12/15/2017 4:38:12 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
OhioCatFan
12/15/2017 5:56 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Moral equivalency and whataboutism aside, I have a more important question: who gives a shit how many people voted for Bill Clinton 30 years ago? The landscape has changed for the better. We're smarter and understand sexual abuse -- and the way powerful people take advantage of their power -- better than we did 30 years ago. [/QUOTE]This is a very neat way to compartmentalize things. Anyone with a moral compass knew what Bill Clinton did was wrong. We didn't need Nancy Pelosi to have an epiphany in order to know that seducing an interim in the Oval Office was wrong. We also knew how shallow and self-serving and downright false at the time was the Democrat "talking point" that "lying about sex" was not wrong in fact it was laudable and praiseworthy. All of these things have contexts that are important.

It's also true that there is much greater historical context to this than most people know. It didn't start with JFK, or even FDR, but goes back to at least the time of Grover Cleveland, who according to some who have researched the story, raped a woman when he was a local sheriff, and then paid to cover it up. It came out in the presidential election of 1884, but he was elected anyway and again eight years later. Now, the reporting at that time was sometimes more euphemistic than today, but most voters probably knew something was a little questionable about his character yet they voted for him anyway. See this for details (warning some salty language here): https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjeeyx/grover-clev... .

To be bipartisan here, we should include Warren G. Harding, who had many trysts in the White House. One of those resulted in a child, who was actually raised in Athens for awhile, as she was informally adopted by two OHIO music professors, one of whom was a blood relative. Harding denied the whole affair. However, in recent years, his paternity has been proven via DNA tests of his progeny and her progeny. [Personal note: My wife's family was very much involved in the Harding administration and the Ohio Gang, so I used to get a lot of negative vibes at family gatherings when I would mention anything negative about WGH.]

More about the Harding "love child" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Blaesing


We should aim to be better today than we were yesterday. If the best justification you can find for all of Roy Moore's voters is that Democrats supported an abuser 30 years ago, then you don't actually have a justification.
No, I don't think that's the only justification some Alabamians had for voting for Moore; I think that many of them voted for him for strategic reasons. Feeling that he would likely be thrown out of the Senate and then replaced by a more upright Republican. That they felt was better than voting for Jones or for a write-in, as the latter was doomed to just help elect Jones. As I said earlier, a few percent of Republcians couldn't bring themselves to vote for him under any circumstances and went the write-in route. To say either choice was more moral than the other choice is I think debatable. Virtually no one voted for Moore because they liked the things that he was accused of.


Meanwhile, Al Franken resigned. John Conyers resigned. Your party tried to elect somebody who is very likely guilty of much worse crimes. It's not that you found out after the fact. Your party knew, and your party supported him anyhow. So don't give me this "Bill Clinton got elected twice" garbage. The RNC and the President ignored the accusations and supported Moore anyhow.
The resignations are good, as are those of Republicans, including Trent Franks. You apparently missed the news today that several of Trump's most visible accusers were paid for their stories. Checkbook journalism was thoroughly discredited several decades ago; however, in this case it may have been the lawyers who arranged for the payments rather than the news media outlet. Still kind of the same thing, in my book. At any rate, I do think that it would be good to have some presumption of innocence here. I realize that you folks hate Trump (I'm not a great fan, myself), but he's not a fascist either as some lefties have said. I find it ironic that some who make this claim are much closer to fascism than he ever was or ever will be. But, I digress, that's another argument for another day.


[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame] And not only did the party support Moore, but Project Veritas -- an organization Donald Trump himself donated money to -- paid a woman to pose as a victim of pedophilia attempt to discredit actual victims of pedophilia. And got caught red-handed doing so. That's moral rot. It's disgusting and you should be ashamed. . . .
I read a completely different take on the Project Veritas issue you refer to. I can't seem to locate it now, so I'll refrain from commenting other than to say that in general, I've liked the work of Project Veritas. If the story is as you paint it, it was a major misstep by them and should be condemned.
Last Edited: 12/15/2017 10:48:52 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
Robert Fox
12/15/2017 6:38 PM
Did Franken resign or just "plan" to resign after a few key votes?
mail
person
BillyTheCat
12/16/2017 6:28 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Did Franken resign or just "plan" to resign after a few key votes?
Glad he stayed on seeing how Turtle is refusing to seat Jones.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/17/2017 5:29 PM
Quote:expand_more
This is a very neat way to compartmentalize things. Anyone with a moral compass knew what Bill Clinton did was wrong. We didn't need Nancy Pelosi to have an epiphany in order to know that seducing an interim in the Oval Office was wrong. We also knew how shallow and self-serving and downright false at the time was the Democrat "talking point" that "lying about sex" was not wrong in fact it was laudable and praiseworthy. All of these things have contexts that are important. [/QUOTE]It's not a compartmentalization. It's an acknowledgement that Clinton should not have been elected, and that he likely wouldn't be today. His behavior was bad. Unquestionably. At the time, I was all of 14. So I can't speak well to the Democrat talking points. But what I can say, is that if you think Clinton's behavior was wrong, and you think Democrats defense of him was abhorrent, you should be equally passionate in your anger over the RNC's treatment of Roy Moore. Instead, the response by many is just "well, the other side does it, too." Neither side should do it. This is a simple, unambiguous issue. Rape, sexual assault, and pedophilia are bad. Nobody disagrees with that, right? So let's work to harness the momentum that's been created recently and ensure no party has to defend rapists, sexual abusers, or pedophiles again. I'll work on my party, you work on yours. It's not a difficult, or even remotely controversial stance. Let's all stop supporting criminals when criminals try and hold public office. Simple enough, right?

No, I don't think that's the only justification some Alabamians had for voting for Moore; I think that many of them voted for him for strategic reasons. Feeling that he would likely be thrown out of the Senate and then replaced by a more upright Republican. That they felt was better than voting for Jones or for a write-in, as the latter was doomed to just help elect Jones. As I said earlier, a few percent of Republcians couldn't bring themselves to vote for him under any circumstances and went the write-in route. To say either choice was more moral than the other choice is I think debatable. Virtually no one voted for Moore because they liked the things that he was accused of.
No doubt some Alabamians voted for Moore for the reasons you outline, but that's certainly a whitewashing of the electorate's motivations. And while nobody voted for Moore because they "liked the things he was accused of" many, many, many Alabamians voted for more because they just flat out disbelieved the accusations. 71% of Alabama Republicans believed the accusations were completely false (source: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/poll-most-al... ). To pretend Alabama Republicans were voting for Moore because they just assumed he'd be replaced, and that was more moral than voting for his opponent ignores that the vast majority of Alabama Republicans don't believe Moore did anything wrong. Which is incredibly troubling.

The resignations are good, as are those of Republicans, including Trent Franks. You apparently missed the news today that several of Trump's most visible accusers were paid for their stories. Checkbook journalism was thoroughly discredited several decades ago; however, in this case it may have been the lawyers who arranged for the payments rather than the news media outlet. Still kind of the same thing, in my book. At any rate, I do think that it would be good to have some presumption of innocence here. I realize that you folks hate Trump (I'm not a great fan, myself), but he's not a fascist either as some lefties have said. I find it ironic that some who make this claim are much closer to fascism than he ever was or ever will be. But, I digress, that's another argument for another day.
There are so many Americans flirting with fascism these days that I think it'd be a fools errand to make an argument that one side's more prone to it than the other. There are literal Nazi's marching in major cities proudly supporting the President, free speech is valued less than people's hurt feelings, the press is being attacked left and right, the government's banning words in official reports (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cd... ).

As for the news about Trump's accusers, let's assume the two accusers your story references completely made up their stories in exchange for cash (note: that's not at all what the stories actually imply, nor does it take into account that fact-checking news organizations conducted on their stories -- but let's assume it anyhow). What about the other 13 accusers? There are accusers that came forward years before Trump was even flirting with politics. Their stories are credible, and the evidence Trump continues to insist he has never comes forward. Do you want to defend that behavior? Honestly. Do you? I'm happy to provide a list of the accusers and their stories. You're unquestionably right when you say that the Democrat talking points regarding Bill Clinton were "shallow", "false" and "self serving." But here there should, for some reason, be a presumption of innocence because Fox News and The Hill publish a scoop that two of Trump's accusers hired somebody to negotiate pay for their media appearances? As I asked before, what about the other 13? What about the accusations that Trump himself bragged about on the radio to Howard Stern? The Access Hollywood tape? I mean, what's the difference between what Trump said on the bus and what Franken resigned for? I would genuinely be interested in hearing you defend Trump's behavior, and the rationale behind it. It's pretty puzzling, honestly. 15 accusers Years of demonstrated, boorish behavior. If we agree that Clinton's behavior should have been disqualifying, and that Franken and Conyers and others are right to resign, then what's the case for moving on from the accusations against Trump?

[QUOTE] I read a completely different take on the Project Veritas issue you refer to. I can't seem to locate it now, so I'll refrain from commenting other than to say that in general, I've liked the work of Project Veritas. If the story is as you paint it, it was a major misstep by them and should be condemned.
I'm not painting the story at all. This woman is on video, sitting across from the Washington Post reporter, acknowledging everything I said. The "sting" was set up as a way to discredit the news organization that broke the stories about Moore's accusers. A "reporter" being paid by Project Veritas emailed the Post about how she was raped by Moore as a teenager. She made up an elaborate lie, and when the Washington Post fact-checked it the lie fell apart. That's disgusting. And, frankly, makes the rest of the Washington Post's reporting on Moore's accusers seem much more credible. I don't doubt that the Right Wing media tried to spin the Project Veritas story otherwise. But there's no rational way to interpret the story as anything but disgusting. O'Keefe and his ilk are so convinced that media outlets like the Washington Post are the real enemy that they're making up fake victims of pedophilia to help a pedophile's chances of winning a senate seat.
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/18/2017 7:33 AM
I've read several posts from people who feel that,for a variety of reasons,Bill Clinton should not be included in the current discussions on improper sexual behavior.

This is based in part on when his actions occurred ,or when his accusers,most notably Juanita Broaddrick went public.

Accepting that.

His actions were well known long before 2016.

Yet,Bill was lauded at the 2016 convention.Women like Kristen Gillibrand, who now says he should have resigned,posed for pictures and posted praises for the guy.

Taking it one step further,the Democrats had no issue with nominating a woman who not only tolerated his activities,but set up a whole industry to destroy anyone who made an accusation.

Seemed kind of hypocritical when she said all women who make an accusation of improper sexual conduct should be believed.

Except when it came to Bill.

I've said it before , and I'll say it again ,when it comes to improper sexual behavior,both sides are equally at fault.
Last Edited: 12/18/2017 8:10:38 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/18/2017 8:32 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
I've read several posts from people who feel that,for a variety of reasons,Bill Clinton should not be included in the current discussions on improper sexual behavior.

This is based in part on when his actions occurred ,or when his accusers,most notably Juanita Broaddrick went public.

Accepting that.

His actions were well known long before 2016.

Yet,Bill was lauded at the 2016 convention.Women like Kristen Gillibrand, who now says he should have resigned,posed for pictures and posted praises for the guy.

Taking it one step further,the Democrats had no issue with nominating a woman who not only tolerated his activities,but set up a whole industry to destroy anyone who made an accusation.

Seemed kind of hypocritical when she said all women who make an accusation of improper sexual conduct should be believed.

Except when it came to Bill.

I've said it before , and I'll say it again ,when it comes to improper sexual behavior,both sides are equally at fault.
[/QUOTE]Yes, we know. It's literally all you'll say. You just replied to this:

[QUOTE] But what I can say, is that if you think Clinton's behavior was wrong, and you think Democrats defense of him was abhorrent, you should be equally passionate in your anger over the RNC's treatment of Roy Moore. Instead, the response by many is just "well, the other side does it, too." Neither side should do it. This is a simple, unambiguous issue. Rape, sexual assault, and pedophilia are bad. Nobody disagrees with that, right? So let's work to harness the momentum that's been created recently and ensure no party has to defend rapists, sexual abusers, or pedophiles again. I'll work on my party, you work on yours. It's not a difficult, or even remotely controversial stance. Let's all stop supporting criminals when criminals try and hold public office. Simple enough, right?
. . .with yet another variation of "Both parties are bad." You're right. So do something about it. You can start by taking the accusations of Trump's 18 accusers -- including a 13 year old girl who accused him of rape -- as seriously as you insist everybody else take the accusations against Clinton.

Here's a list:

Natasha Stoynhoff: http://people.com/politics/people-writer-attack-by-donald... /

Rachel Crooks: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/trump-accuser-rec...

Cathy Heller: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/15/donald-tr...

Kristin Anderson: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-says-trump-...

Summer Zervos: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3205134/summer-zervos-appre... /

Mindy McGillivray: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/palm-beach-post-exclusi... /

Jill Harth: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/20/donald-tr...

Jessica Leeds: https://www.google.com/search?q=Jessica+Leeds&oq=Jessica+...

Temple Taggart McDowell: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/miss-usa-c...

You get the point. There's more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/...

That doesn't include this claim: http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-rape-sexual-assault-...

It also doesn't include the stories of Trump purposefully walking into Miss Teen USA competitions dressing rooms, which have been corroborated by witnesses and Trump himself.

So, now that we've determined both parties are bad and that Bill Clinton was a predator, let's work on holding the predator who is actually politically relevant accountable and setting the right precedent.
Last Edited: 12/18/2017 9:29:04 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/18/2017 9:23 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
With: Both parties are bad. You're right. So do something about it.
Actually , I've been involved with supporting victims of this type of behavior for a number of years.
Last Edited: 12/18/2017 9:28:33 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/18/2017 9:29 AM
I edited my response since you replied, in case you missed it. I don't doubt that you, personally, show support for victims. As I said earlier, I don't think you're personally guilty. But it does beg the question: how can you support Trump given the multitude of claims against him?
Last Edited: 12/18/2017 11:43:51 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/18/2017 9:55 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I edited my response since you applied, in case you missed it. I don't doubt that you, personally, show support for victims. As I said earlier, I don't think you're personally guilty. But it does beg the question: how can you support Trump given the multitude of claims against him?
Short answer:
As a conservative ,I didn't like the direction that former President Obama took the country.
I felt that,if Mrs. Clinton won,it would be more of the same.
Heck,the media was referring to a Clinton victory as Obama's third term.

So ,even though there were/are some things about President Trump I disagree with,he got my vote.
Last Edited: 12/18/2017 9:56:25 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/18/2017 10:07 AM
So if a liberal said "I supported Clinton despite the allegations against him because George Bush would have been more of the same" you would consider that a reasonable answer and in no way morally problematic? That's a very low standard for both our politicians and voters.

Do you now support an investigation into the sexual assault claims against him? Shouldn't he be held to the same standard as senators, tv hosts, Hollywood producers, etc?
Last Edited: 12/18/2017 10:33:44 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
DelBobcat
12/18/2017 10:46 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
I edited my response since you applied, in case you missed it. I don't doubt that you, personally, show support for victims. As I said earlier, I don't think you're personally guilty. But it does beg the question: how can you support Trump given the multitude of claims against him?
Short answer:
As a conservative ,I didn't like the direction that former President Obama took the country.
I felt that,if Mrs. Clinton won,it would be more of the same.
Heck,the media was referring to a Clinton victory as Obama's third term.

So ,even though there were/are some things about President Trump I disagree with,he got my vote.
This is incredibly obtuse considering your multiple post rants about both sides being bad. If you really are that offended by it you should be the change you wish to see in the world. Instead, all I'm hearing from you is you voted for Trump, no matter his faults, because you wouldn't like Clinton's policies. That's okay for you but Bill Clinton is a bad man and anyone who votes for a Clinton is complicit. What would it have taken for you to have not voted for Trump? If he really murdered someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue would you still have voted for him because Clinton would have been "more of the same"?
mail
OhioCatFan
12/18/2017 3:15 PM
I don't have time right now to respond in any detail to BLSS, or others, in this now almost record shattering thread on BA. (How many pages is the actual record?) My children and their families are starting to arrive to today for the Christmas holiday. So, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to one and all!

I will say that none various charges of sexual misconduct against Trump and Moore seem to be in the realm of irrefutable. However, it if I was to "go with my gut," I would bet that at least some of those against Moore were true, and that it's likely that none of those against Trump are as stated by the various women. I could, of course, be proven wrong. I do remember one charge during the campaign that got a lot of media attention. A woman came forward and claimed that Trump had "hands like an octopus" during a long flight that he continually was grouping her. Well, it turned out there was a credible witness on that flight that came forward -- a Brit if I'm remembering correctly -- who said that in reality the woman keep pawing Trump who consistently rebuffed her advances. Not saying that Trump is any kind of a saint, but he doesn't appear to be a Bill Clinton either. Again, I could be wrong, and if so proven, I'll eat a full-course crow dinner. Would not be the first time, I've dined on that delicacy on BA.

Happy Holidays to all!
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/18/2017 3:38 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I don't have time right now to respond in any detail to BLSS, or others, in this now almost record shattering thread on BA. (How many pages is the actual record?) My children and their families are starting to arrive to today for the Christmas holiday. So, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to one and all!

I will say that none various charges of sexual misconduct against Trump and Moore seem to be in the realm of irrefutable. However, it if I was to "go with my gut," I would bet that at least some of those against Moore were true, and that it's likely that none of those against Trump are as stated by the various women. I could, of course, be proven wrong. I do remember one charge during the campaign that got a lot of media attention. A woman came forward and claimed that Trump had "hands like an octopus" during a long flight that he continually was grouping her. Well, it turned out there was a credible witness on that flight that came forward -- a Brit if I'm remembering correctly -- who said that in reality the woman keep pawing Trump who consistently rebuffed her advances. Not saying that Trump is any kind of a saint, but he doesn't appear to be a Bill Clinton either. Again, I could be wrong, and if so proven, I'll eat a full-course crow dinner. Would not be the first time, I've dined on that delicacy on BA.

Happy Holidays to all!
This reaction is incredibly disheartening. I thought that people like you -- educated, rational -- would be able to think rationally about this. Instead you're dismissing 18 separate accusers, the vast majority of whom came forward well before Trump's candidacy. And you're doing so because of "credible" witnesses like Anthony Gilberthorpe.

Here's a story about "credible" witness Anthony Gilberthorpe: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/15/trump-all... . He has a long history of conveniently witnessing things on behalf of conservative politicians. What an amazing coincidence that the same guy who witnessed underage sex parties involving Tory politicians was on this flight -- sitting in first class -- as an 18 year old.

And now that you've shared your opinion, you're not going to participate in the thread and of course you're not going to bother try and explain how any of the other accusers are lying. Or explain how all of the witnesses referenced here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/... /) are incredible relative the one you site.

The truly disheartening part about this is that your refusal to believe credible accusations with credible witnesses -- all of which have been fact-checked by dozens of news sources -- means that you're MORE willing to accept a vast liberal conspiracy in which a major media sources and 18 random women conspired to take down a Presidential candidate than your are to entertain the idea that Donald Trump -- who has publicly demonstrated his crudeness hundreds of times -- might be guilty of sexual assault. Maybe you're not as rational as I thought.

I mean, we're honestly through the looking glass here. Donald Trump admitted on tape -- multiple times -- to doing exactly what he's accused of by several of the 18 women. And then when a bunch of women came forward and said "Yeah, he's right. He did do that" half of America ignore it in favor of blaming the media.

This is the same bloc of voters, mind you, that find it possible that Democrats ran an underage sex trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza restaurant in DC than they are to think the guy they voted for tried to force himself on a few women, despite his, you know, bragging about doing just that. (https://www.recode.net/2016/12/9/13898328/pizzagate-poll-... )

Congrats on the critical thinking skills. You guys are doing really, really well and all of this craziness certainly isn't going to backfire in future elections.
Last Edited: 12/18/2017 4:17:12 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Kevin Finnegan
12/18/2017 6:15 PM
This entire sexual assault/harassment discussion has shown the true depths of our political tribalism in this country. Attack my side, my impulse is to point fingers back at the other side, not accept what is wrong in my house. This is no more evident than in this thread. OCF claims that Clinton is likely guilty of the Juanita Broaddrick claims which came to light after his last election. However, he says that in his gut, he doesn't believe 18 women who claim sexual assault from the person he voted for.

If we cannot meet in the middle on this most basic tenet, that sexual abusers should not represent us in our government, I have little hope that we will find common ground on nearly anything. This shouldn't be a hot-button issue, it seems pretty black-and-white. We cannot begin to have a discussion on real issues such as violence, pollution, guns, taxes, health care and hope to find compromise when even issues this blatantly obvious have people running to their chosen corners. This gives me little hope.

But, some people are taking a knee for the National Anthem. That's a bigger issue, I guess.
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/19/2017 7:21 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
This is incredibly obtuse considering your multiple post rants about both sides being bad. If you really are that offended by it you should be the change you wish to see in the world. Instead, all I'm hearing from you is you voted for Trump, no matter his faults, because you wouldn't like Clinton's policies. That's okay for you but Bill Clinton is a bad man and anyone who votes for a Clinton is complicit. What would it have taken for you to have not voted for Trump? If he really murdered someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue would you still have voted for him because Clinton would have been "more of the same"?
My position is "incredibly obtuse" ?

Haven't heard anyone called that since I saw The Shawshank Redemption.

Anyway,you're entitled to your opinion.

Personally,I've always thought of myself as more of an Isosceles kind of guy.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/19/2017 7:55 AM
There's no place left for shame in political discourse, I guess.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/19/2017 8:54 AM
Quote:expand_more
Psychologists will tell you that some women want to be treated with respect. I tell friends who treat their wives magnificently, get treated like crap in return, 'Be rougher and you’ll see a different relationship.' [/QUOTE]
You have to treat women like shit.
A woman who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10.
You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything.

Grab them by the p***y, you can do anything.
Arianna Huffington is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man- he made a good decision.
[QUOTE]I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed.

No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. … ‘Is everyone OK?' You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible-looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”
The accusations against him probably aren't true. Seems like a good guy who treats women well.

By the way, you know what the average age of a contestant is in the pageant Trump's referencing? 16.

I guess I'd have my head in the sand if I were you all, too.
Last Edited: 12/19/2017 10:23:31 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
DelBobcat
12/19/2017 10:03 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
This is incredibly obtuse considering your multiple post rants about both sides being bad. If you really are that offended by it you should be the change you wish to see in the world. Instead, all I'm hearing from you is you voted for Trump, no matter his faults, because you wouldn't like Clinton's policies. That's okay for you but Bill Clinton is a bad man and anyone who votes for a Clinton is complicit. What would it have taken for you to have not voted for Trump? If he really murdered someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue would you still have voted for him because Clinton would have been "more of the same"?
My position is "incredibly obtuse" ?

Haven't heard anyone called that since I saw The Shawshank Redemption.

Anyway,you're entitled to your opinion.

Personally,I've always thought of myself as more of an Isosceles kind of guy.
difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression.

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

It's a pretty common phrase.
mail
person
rpbobcat
12/19/2017 11:36 AM

DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
This is incredibly obtuse considering your multiple post rants about both sides being bad. If you really are that offended by it you should be the change you wish to see in the world. Instead, all I'm hearing from you is you voted for Trump, no matter his faults, because you wouldn't like Clinton's policies. That's okay for you but Bill Clinton is a bad man and anyone who votes for a Clinton is complicit. What would it have taken for you to have not voted for Trump? If he really murdered someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue would you still have voted for him because Clinton would have been "more of the same"?


My position is "incredibly obtuse" ?

Haven't heard anyone called that since I saw The Shawshank Redemption.

Anyway,you're entitled to your opinion.

Personally,I've always thought of myself as more of an Isosceles kind of guy.




difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression.

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

It's a pretty common phrase.


Guess its common in your circles.

Except for Geometry,the only time I ever heard it used was when Andy called the warden that in The Shawshank Redemption.

Like I said I'm more of an Isocseles kind of guy.

I'm patricularly found of an Isoceles  right  triangle. 

Last Edited: 12/19/2017 11:52:12 AM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
12/19/2017 2:14 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
This is incredibly obtuse considering your multiple post rants about both sides being bad. If you really are that offended by it you should be the change you wish to see in the world. Instead, all I'm hearing from you is you voted for Trump, no matter his faults, because you wouldn't like Clinton's policies. That's okay for you but Bill Clinton is a bad man and anyone who votes for a Clinton is complicit. What would it have taken for you to have not voted for Trump? If he really murdered someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue would you still have voted for him because Clinton would have been "more of the same"?


My position is "incredibly obtuse" ?

Haven't heard anyone called that since I saw The Shawshank Redemption.

Anyway,you're entitled to your opinion.

Personally,I've always thought of myself as more of an Isosceles kind of guy.




difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression.

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"

It's a pretty common phrase.


Guess its common in your circles.

Except for Geometry,the only time I ever heard it used was when Andy called the warden that in The Shawshank Redemption.
Like I said I'm more of an Isocseles kind of guy.
I'm patricularly found of an Isoceles right triangle.
Hey man, remember earlier in this thread how insistant you were about Obama's "anti-law enforcement" rhetoric?

I'm curious, now that Trump's claiming that the CIA and FBI are corrupt, and that Fox News are asking whether they're arranging a coup or assassination (https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/12/19/fox-contrib... ) if you're just as upset.

The President is criticizing career law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line for us daily. Are you just as upset about that as you were when Obama "criticized cops" (still waiting on that link, by the way).

I bet you're not.
Showing Messages: 501 - 525 of 709
  • Previous
  • Next
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)