|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present.
All evidence suggests that the lone instance of Hillary allegedly threatening a rape accuser is that Hillary's actions are entirely consistent with her thinking she was speaking to a woman Bill was cheating on her with, not a woman he raped. Hillary is guilty of being jealous of her husband's mistresses and trying to intimidate one into silence about an affair.
You should probably stick to "But Bill," or just "pedophilia should not disqualify someone from holding public office" because "But Hillary" fails doubly here.
|
On November 14 2017 04:48 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present. All evidence suggests that the lone instance of Hillary allegedly threatening a rape accuser is that Hillary's actions are entirely consistent with her thinking she was speaking to a woman Bill was cheating on her with, not a woman he raped. Hillary is guilty of being jealous of her husband's mistresses and trying to intimidate one into silence about an affair. You should probably stick to "But Bill," or just "pedophilia should not disqualify someone from holding public office" because "But Hillary" fails doubly here.
All evidence suggests you have a weak grip on what any evidence suggests.
|
On November 14 2017 04:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present. But you did vote for someone who admitted he sexually assaulted women. This issue transcends parties. None of us are free of sin.
Who was it again? He’s such a braggart that I don’t even know if he actually put it into practice. Based on that interview alone, he took women furniture shopping and never scored.
|
On November 14 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:44 Plansix wrote:On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present. But you did vote for someone who admitted he sexually assaulted women. This issue transcends parties. None of us are free of sin. Who was it again? He’s such a braggart that I don’t even know if he actually put it into practice. Based on that interview alone, he took women furniture shopping and never scored.
You and Hilary have a lot in common when it comes to this topic.
|
There's another roy moore accuser holding a press conference right now.
|
On November 14 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:44 Plansix wrote:On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present. But you did vote for someone who admitted he sexually assaulted women. This issue transcends parties. None of us are free of sin. Who was it again? He’s such a braggart that I don’t even know if he actually put it into practice. Based on that interview alone, he took women furniture shopping and never scored.
Are you actually dense or have never met a woman before? What Trump claim he did was clearly sexual harassment at the very least. And its entirely believable considering Trump's just as sleazy as the rest of Hollywood's elite and has been trying to get in that club for years.
|
Canada11372 Posts
On November 13 2017 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 18:38 Falling wrote:On November 13 2017 15:40 Kyadytim wrote:On November 13 2017 14:19 Buckyman wrote:On November 13 2017 14:07 Slaughter wrote:
Yea well the glorification of the US and Capitalism has taught people to be selfish because everyone should be/are selfish. So people really don't give a fuck about things like that and just say "them's the breaks I was lucky that time" This appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is how we entice selfish people to contribute to the rest of society. Capitalism is how selfish people provide moral justification for the accumulation of wealth at the expense of society. Why is wealth accumulation by default at the expense of society? Theoretically we are freely exchanging goods (or labour in order to get goods) that we have a surplus and couldn't use anyways. If we are generating wealth and I get what I want and you get what you want in an exchange that we are reasonably happy why would that be at the expense of each other? What planet is this happening on?
Right here, right now. It's called job specialization. I work at a particular job, but I can't be bothered to fix my own car, so I pay someone else to do so. I gain because I don't have time to learn to fix my car (not have I invested in all the tools needed), and so I benefit from his labour. I'm salaried, so my potential earnings is limited unless I hustle on the side. But if that mechanic does well and is able to hire a bunch of journeymen mechanics and/or apprentices and double the income that I make, hell if he makes ten times what I make, I still haven't lost anything. I still get my car fixed, freeing up my time to do something else. And he gets my money, plus a bunch of other customer's money. And the journeymen mechanics are gainfully employed and may well strike out on their own if they are sufficiently enterprising. There's no loss to me, if I get what I want for a reasonable price, and they got rich. I got what I wanted, and I can focus my labour elsewhere.
|
On November 14 2017 05:13 doomdonker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:44 Plansix wrote:On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present. But you did vote for someone who admitted he sexually assaulted women. This issue transcends parties. None of us are free of sin. Who was it again? He’s such a braggart that I don’t even know if he actually put it into practice. Based on that interview alone, he took women furniture shopping and never scored. Are you actually dense or have never met a woman before? What Trump claim he did was clearly sexual harassment at the very least. And its entirely believable considering Trump's just as sleazy as the rest of Hollywood's elite and has been trying to get in that club for years.
Oh, certainly. What Trump claims he did was clearly sexual harassment at the very least.
|
|
|
On November 14 2017 05:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 05:13 doomdonker wrote:On November 14 2017 04:59 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:44 Plansix wrote:On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present. But you did vote for someone who admitted he sexually assaulted women. This issue transcends parties. None of us are free of sin. Who was it again? He’s such a braggart that I don’t even know if he actually put it into practice. Based on that interview alone, he took women furniture shopping and never scored. Are you actually dense or have never met a woman before? What Trump claim he did was clearly sexual harassment at the very least. And its entirely believable considering Trump's just as sleazy as the rest of Hollywood's elite and has been trying to get in that club for years. Oh, certainly. What Trump claims he did was clearly sexual harassment at the very least.
If you're suggesting that we can't completely believe that Trump did these things because he's a blowhard, you're doing the exact same things that people do when defending Bill Clinton. Its the reason people like this get away with it because the victim gets the short end of the stick the majority of the time. Despite numerous allegations of sexual misconduct at many different points of time and a history of doing things that take advantage of one's financial or political power.
If not, then ignore this post.
|
|
|
On November 14 2017 04:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:48 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present. All evidence suggests that the lone instance of Hillary allegedly threatening a rape accuser is that Hillary's actions are entirely consistent with her thinking she was speaking to a woman Bill was cheating on her with, not a woman he raped. Hillary is guilty of being jealous of her husband's mistresses and trying to intimidate one into silence about an affair. You should probably stick to "But Bill," or just "pedophilia should not disqualify someone from holding public office" because "But Hillary" fails doubly here. All evidence suggests you have a weak grip on what any evidence suggests.
I’m sure you have good reasons to be vague and not discuss your secret evidence of Hillary threatening rape accusers which doesn’t actually exist.
|
But seriously, did every GOP politician forget how to do oppo research on other GOP during primaries in the last 2 years? This shit should've come out a long time ago.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On November 14 2017 05:17 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2017 18:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 13 2017 18:38 Falling wrote:On November 13 2017 15:40 Kyadytim wrote:On November 13 2017 14:19 Buckyman wrote:On November 13 2017 14:07 Slaughter wrote:
Yea well the glorification of the US and Capitalism has taught people to be selfish because everyone should be/are selfish. So people really don't give a fuck about things like that and just say "them's the breaks I was lucky that time" This appears to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is how we entice selfish people to contribute to the rest of society. Capitalism is how selfish people provide moral justification for the accumulation of wealth at the expense of society. Why is wealth accumulation by default at the expense of society? Theoretically we are freely exchanging goods (or labour in order to get goods) that we have a surplus and couldn't use anyways. If we are generating wealth and I get what I want and you get what you want in an exchange that we are reasonably happy why would that be at the expense of each other? What planet is this happening on? Right here, right now. It's called job specialization. I work at a particular job, but I can't be bothered to fix my own car, so I pay someone else to do so. I gain because I don't have time to learn to fix my car (not have I invested in all the tools needed), and so I benefit from his labour. I'm salaried, so my potential earnings is limited unless I hustle on the side. But if that mechanic does well and is able to hire a bunch of journeymen mechanics and/or apprentices and double the income that I make, hell if he makes ten times what I make, I still haven't lost anything. I still get my car fixed, freeing up my time to do something else. And he gets my money, plus a bunch of other customer's money. And the journeymen mechanics are gainfully employed and may well strike out on their own if they are sufficiently enterprising. There's no loss to me, if I get what I want for a reasonable price, and they got rich. I got what I wanted, and I can focus my labour elsewhere.
The only problem is that taxes aren't actually being paid by some of the richest people and that money isn't going into the system of shared social responsibility - stuff like road maintenance, infrastructure, healthcare, etc.
IMO a fair tax price should go into maintaining everything that people absolutely need to live their lives. You don't necessarily need to have the fanciest version of a pair of glasses, or a car, but you should be able to see doctors and specialists for no out of pocket cost. Things like that are best budgeted for you by the state through your taxes. Which is what most countries do.
The problem with American capitalism is that so much of it is being pulled out of the control of the state that it comes down to people budgeting around crazy high costs and hoping they don't get destroyed by the price of a doctor's visit. Or infrastructure falling into disrepair etc.
Its fine to say "small government" etc etc. But there are some things that just make more sense being paid for shared benefit. And I think the "accumulate wealth at all costs" part of capitalism goes against this at times. Not always, but sometimes.
|
On November 14 2017 05:39 Nevuk wrote:
But seriously, did every GOP politician forget how to do oppo research on other GOP during primaries in the last 2 years? This shit should've come out a long time ago.
I think this might have been to hot even for the GOP. Using it would have been like dealing with a break in by lighting the room on fire to drive the thieves out.
|
On November 14 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 05:39 Nevuk wrote:
But seriously, did every GOP politician forget how to do oppo research on other GOP during primaries in the last 2 years? This shit should've come out a long time ago. I think this might have been to hot even for the GOP. Using it would have been like dealing with a break in by lighting the room on fire to drive the thieves out.
I was also thinking of the 2016 primary, where somehow every candidate was like "Wait, Trump had problems with women???"
|
On November 14 2017 05:39 Nevuk wrote:
But seriously, did every GOP politician forget how to do oppo research on other GOP during primaries in the last 2 years? This shit should've come out a long time ago.
I'm worried democrats are going to end up in the same position not too long from now. We're getting really excited about fresh blood, but I'm not convinced we are properly vetting people before spamming twitter with "OMG Revolution <3 <3 <3"
|
On November 14 2017 05:39 Nevuk wrote:
But seriously, did every GOP politician forget how to do oppo research on other GOP during primaries in the last 2 years? This shit should've come out a long time ago.
based on what we've seen, perhaps this wouldn't have been that effective in the primary? it doesn't seem to be doing much even in the general.
also, i'ts not uncommon for parties to be reluctant to use too strong an attack against other party members in the primaries, as that can weaken people in the general.
and of course oppo research budgets in state runs for the primary may not be that high at all.
|
Norway28712 Posts
On November 14 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 04:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 14 2017 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On November 14 2017 03:43 Buckyman wrote:
...or Alabama collectively considers the pedophilia allegations to be Fake News™.
...or Alabama holds strongly the view that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
...or they think Doug Jones has done something even worse.
...or after Bill Clinton's shining example they no longer think sexual misconduct should disqualify someone from holding office. I think there's a bit of a difference between what he allegedly did and getting a blowjob from a (I presume?) consenting adult monica lewinsky isn't the big bill clinton scandal anymore. He is fully established as a predator-rapist in right wing circles, and I think there actually seems to be quite some meat on the bone of that accusation. The issue is more the idea that Bill's past transgressions in any way justify electing a sexual predator today than the claim that Bill is a sexual predator. He left office 17 years ago. https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/929899833950982145Democrats voted the woman that threatened and covered up the rape accusers to the 2016 Democratic party nominee. Pretty fucked up if you ask me. I wouldn't vote Moore, but damn if they know the political double standard present.
Hillary's actions towards Broderick, even if fully accepting them, cannot in be equated with that of Moore, Bill Clinton, or even the self admitted ones from Donald Trump. Completely unfair comparison.
|
On November 14 2017 02:26 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2017 01:47 Plansix wrote:
MLK sort of preached exactly what GH is saying right now. MLK had very frank speeches about moderate whites and their inability to care about racial injustice. Right, hence the "supposedly". I'm sure everyone on this thread can attest that it feels much more empowering to strongly assert one's beliefs than to keep them on the back burner and accommodate different viewpoints.
How do white people accomodate the viewpoint of POCs?
As a foreigner, I'm really struggling to see that. Might totally be on my end but I have only seen complaints by the xd, danglars, LL (to name those that immediately come to mind, I'm sure there are more but I couldn't name them for certain)
With the two mentioned first* the only thing I've seen so far is disputing the sentiment that there is the urgency to change anything at all.
*I'm 100% certain there are more but the same problem as above arises and I can't be motivated to lock em up, ehm look em up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
