|
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. |
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump was just 11 minutes into his presidency when his choice for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, texted a former business partner to say an ambitious U.S. collaboration with Russia to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East was "good to go," according to a new whistleblower account.
As Trump delivered his inaugural address, says the unnamed whistleblower, Flynn directed Alex Copson, managing director of ACU Strategic Partners, to inform their business partners "to put things in place."
The whistleblower also says that Flynn assured Copson that U.S. sanctions on Russia that could block the nuclear project would be "ripped up" once Trump was inside the White House.
The account from the anonymous whistleblower is detailed in a new letter from the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to his Republican counterpart asking that the panel subpoena Flynn, Copson, the White House and others involved in the alleged plan.
"Our Committee has credible allegations that President Trump's National Security Advisor sought to manipulate the course of international nuclear policy for the financial gain of his former business partners," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., wrote in a letter sent Wednesday to Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
The whistleblower first approached staff on the Oversight Committee in June just after Newsweek published an account of Flynn's role in pursuing a joint U.S.-Russian plan to build nuclear power plants throughout the Arab world, to be financed by Saudi Arabia, according to the letter.
Copson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Flynn's attorney also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Cummings writes that he is bringing forward his request now because special counsel Robert Mueller had asked him to delay acting on the information "until they completed certain investigative steps."
But, according to Cummings, Mueller's directive was dropped after Friday, when Flynn entered into a cooperation agreement with Mueller's team by pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. at the time, Sergey Kislyak, during the presidential transition. One of those conversations between Flynn and Kislyak was about U.S. sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in response to Moscow's interference in the presidential election.
A spokesperson for Mueller did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mueller's team and congressional investigators have been probing cases in which Flynn may have sought to use his status as Trump's national security adviser for personal financial gain, according to people familiar with the investigation. One such instance, these people said, involves a December 2016 meeting between Flynn and senior Turkish officials to discuss a plot to return a top rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Turkey and drop federal charges against an Erdogan ally jailed in the U.S. in exchange for $15 million.
Flynn served as an adviser for ACU from April 2015 to June 2016, according to his financial disclosure form. Congressional Democrats have already sought information from Flynn's attorneys about whether he failed to disclose the full nature and extent of his travels to the Middle East during that time, and whether his business interests at that time may have influenced his conduct during what was ultimately a brief tenure as national security adviser.
Flynn later served as an adviser for the IronBridge Group, which was also involved in an Arab nuclear plan. According to a PowerPoint presentation from ACU obtained by Newsweek, Russian firms that would have been involved as well included a Russian arms exporter currently under U.S. sanctions. Reuters reported the project also would have included Rosatom, Russia's state nuclear company, and another Russian engineering and construction firm also under U.S. sanctions.
Federal conflict of interest regulations say that employees should not participate in matters for which they have previously acted as a consultant, or which are likely to have a direct financial benefit for close family.
Cummings concedes that Copson may have lied in his account to the whistleblower, which is why he is asking Gowdy to agree to subpoena Copson and others to corroborate the claims.
Subpoenas could not be issued by the committee without Gowdy's approval. In his letter, Cummings notes that when then-Rep. Jason Chaffetz chaired the Oversight Committee he had agreed to seek documents from the White House related to whether Flynn had lied on his security clearance forms about foreign contacts or payments.
But Gowdy, who became chairman after Chaffetz resigned from Congress in June, has not agreed to pursue the issue further, arguing that to do so would potentially conflict with Mueller's probe.
"I believe the American people want Congress to hold President Trump and his Administration accountable, and they are tired of Republicans in Congress putting their heads in the sand," Cummings writes.
Source
|
On December 07 2017 05:06 LegalLord wrote:
My two cents on the whole Israel matter as a list.
1. I'm sure that the Trumpian motivations for doing something like this are closely tied to religious sentiment, some mix of "take back the holy land in the name of the West" and "fuck the Muslims" concerns. The religious importance of Jerusalem is not to be ignored, and I don't doubt that causes a lot of the popular support for this.
"My supporters are going to like this." Remember how well evangelicals broke for Trump.
2. It shouldn't be surprising that Tillerson and Mattis, as the representatives of the diplomatic and military wings of the government, oppose this. It's going to make their lives a whole lot harder. Though little more than a symbolic move, this essentially marks the US taking a very decisive position in favor of one "winner" in that conflict. Which is going to put some strain on the US alliance in the area, a very unwelcome development in light of the fact that it's already slowly but surely drifting apart. Not to mention that this will almost certainly increase the occurrence of Palestinian-based terrorist attacks on Israel and very likely manifest in a new offensive like the 2014 Gaza one. Maybe the price of progress, maybe not, but would they really want that on their plate?
3. It's probably worth noting that Israel isn't going to be able to repel its foes in the region militarily forever. That was the lesson of the Yom Kippur War which, although Israel won, showed that the other countries can definitely muster enough military might to push Israel quite far back. The dynamic is still, as it was then, one where Israel has the best technology in the region and can push back reasonably well against its attackers, but it isn't exactly dominant either. There will come a point where conventional weapons won't stop that offensive and we would be put in a situation where either the world would need to intervene militarily, or Israel would have to go nuclear.
The threat of nuclear response is why I think they can repel their foes militarily forever. This excepts the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran doing a first strike.
4. In that light, pushing for workable peace agreements makes sense. Though there are many justifications for Israel having kept the Sinai peninsula, Israel and Egypt aren't in open conflict anymore, so it seems to have worked.
5. The Palestinian arrangement, however, doesn't seem to be working so well, and the course of events has convinced me that there is no peace to be won through that avenue. The few Palestinians I have talked to have often been willing to straight-up admit that they have no intention of peace, and that their goal is to drive Israel into the sea, only extracting concessions and making compromises they won't hold up to the extent that it furthers that goal. Although whatever backwards-ass stalemate this Israel-Palestine situation is seems to help keep the other nations in the region from pushing for open conflict, I see no future in the "peace process." And the Palestinian tendency towards supporting terrorist organizations does not afford them much sympathy.
It should be obvious that Palestinian leaders have cultivated the expectation that one day Israel will be theirs. Why accept Israel's statehood and cease terror attacks if Israel won't be around for much longer, anyways?
6. Israel would ideally not be located where it is, but the ugly reality is that before, during, and after WWII, Jews really didn't have anywhere they could go to be safe from the ugly reality of a Europe that either actively murdered them or, through inaction, was thoroughly complicit in it. A gathering place near the religious origin of all Jewish people that, in the aftermath of a collapsing British hold on the area, could reasonably be taken over, was a logical choice. Were there a better place they could have gathered, maybe it could have gone differently. But it didn't, and Israel isn't going anywhere, so we sort of have to deal with it as is.
7. On the matter of "ethnic cleansing" or more specifically, forcing Palestinians to leave Jerusalem because it is now under control of the Israeli government - yeah, that might be a good option depending on the circumstances. Of course the connotations of that term do draw parallels to the gas chambers and to death marches of some form of other, the process could be done much more humanely, with a reasonable option to remain as subjects of the Israeli government for those who desire it. However, the goal of removing terrorist threats does often involve blanket measures like that, so yeah it might be a good idea.
All in all, my opinion is that there is no viable peace process, and choosing to pretend there is is a means by which to preserve a decaying status quo. I'm not into that, so bring on another open conflict if that's what we need to end this terrible farce of a "peace process."
The one big impediment is the terrorist threat. Hamas employs suicide bombings, IEDs, rockets, and small-arms to accomplish their stated goal of the total destruction of the Jewish state. Their state TV features interviews with the families and organizers of suicide bombers, celebrating successes and wishing for larger tolls. The Palestinians continue to fire rockets into Israel every year, the last one four months ago.
There's very little chance of normal, diplomatic methods to teach Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that they will not push the Jews into the Sea. The resolutions to this conflict are grim on both sides.
|
On December 07 2017 05:52 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 05:47 Toadesstern wrote:On December 07 2017 05:26 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 05:20 Toadesstern wrote:
realistically the reason Trump ACTUALLY opened that can of Worms (Jerusalem), as in actually pulled the trigger on that, is probablly just to get people to talk about something else.
So that people don't talk about the Russia investigation and whatnot else. Or perhaps... that's probably 90% of it.
At the end of it people talking about Israel is a non-issue to people in the US because it's not part of the US. And there's apparently a big majority of people in the US who think it's good on top of that if I'm looking at the responses in this thread. I think that's really not an accurate view of Israel's relationship with the US considering there's tens of millions of dollars spent on pro-Israel lobbying or political donations in the US. what I mean with "people talking about Isreal is a non-issue to people in the US" is that I don't think this would ever influence someones vote. Sure there are maybe some exceptions here and there, but foreign policy doesn't strike me as something the American public is concerned about unless it involves US soldiers or am I seeing that wrong? I don't think people actually give a fuck about what Trump does about China building islands in the seas next to it. Sure people might talk about it but there wouldn't ever come something out of it if he does something that's perceived to be wrong by one group. Unless that actually leads to WW3 but not until missiles start flying. I believe support for Israel is a reasonably big factor for evangelical voters.
Morning Joe was talking about how he was basically brought up to believe if he didn't support Israel he'd go to hell. I don't want to get started on why I think that should be considered child abuse imo, but yeah, there's a pretty significant portion of the US population that supports Israel for religious reasons.
It's less pronounced in younger evangelicals.
But there are some that still think Israel can do no wrong, wouldn't matter if they went all old testament and slaughtered every man, woman, and child.
|
|
|
While I in no way support Hamas its important to remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
|
|
|
On December 07 2017 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 05:52 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 05:47 Toadesstern wrote:On December 07 2017 05:26 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 05:20 Toadesstern wrote:
realistically the reason Trump ACTUALLY opened that can of Worms (Jerusalem), as in actually pulled the trigger on that, is probablly just to get people to talk about something else.
So that people don't talk about the Russia investigation and whatnot else. Or perhaps... that's probably 90% of it.
At the end of it people talking about Israel is a non-issue to people in the US because it's not part of the US. And there's apparently a big majority of people in the US who think it's good on top of that if I'm looking at the responses in this thread. I think that's really not an accurate view of Israel's relationship with the US considering there's tens of millions of dollars spent on pro-Israel lobbying or political donations in the US. what I mean with "people talking about Isreal is a non-issue to people in the US" is that I don't think this would ever influence someones vote. Sure there are maybe some exceptions here and there, but foreign policy doesn't strike me as something the American public is concerned about unless it involves US soldiers or am I seeing that wrong? I don't think people actually give a fuck about what Trump does about China building islands in the seas next to it. Sure people might talk about it but there wouldn't ever come something out of it if he does something that's perceived to be wrong by one group. Unless that actually leads to WW3 but not until missiles start flying. I believe support for Israel is a reasonably big factor for evangelical voters. Morning Joe was talking about how he was basically brought up to believe if he didn't support Israel he'd go to hell. I don't want to get started on why I think that should be considered child abuse imo, but yeah, there's a pretty significant portion of the US population that supports Israel for religious reasons. It's less pronounced in younger evangelicals. But there are some that still think Israel can do no wrong, wouldn't matter if they went all old testament and slaughtered every man, woman, and child. https://twitter.com/LifeWayResearch/status/937818815005519872
It's a bizarre and strange connection really that seems to run the gamut from tourism revenue to ushering in the second coming of christ.
|
On December 07 2017 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 05:52 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 05:47 Toadesstern wrote:On December 07 2017 05:26 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 05:20 Toadesstern wrote:
realistically the reason Trump ACTUALLY opened that can of Worms (Jerusalem), as in actually pulled the trigger on that, is probablly just to get people to talk about something else.
So that people don't talk about the Russia investigation and whatnot else. Or perhaps... that's probably 90% of it.
At the end of it people talking about Israel is a non-issue to people in the US because it's not part of the US. And there's apparently a big majority of people in the US who think it's good on top of that if I'm looking at the responses in this thread. I think that's really not an accurate view of Israel's relationship with the US considering there's tens of millions of dollars spent on pro-Israel lobbying or political donations in the US. what I mean with "people talking about Isreal is a non-issue to people in the US" is that I don't think this would ever influence someones vote. Sure there are maybe some exceptions here and there, but foreign policy doesn't strike me as something the American public is concerned about unless it involves US soldiers or am I seeing that wrong? I don't think people actually give a fuck about what Trump does about China building islands in the seas next to it. Sure people might talk about it but there wouldn't ever come something out of it if he does something that's perceived to be wrong by one group. Unless that actually leads to WW3 but not until missiles start flying. I believe support for Israel is a reasonably big factor for evangelical voters. Morning Joe was talking about how he was basically brought up to believe if he didn't support Israel he'd go to hell. I don't want to get started on why I think that should be considered child abuse imo, but yeah, there's a pretty significant portion of the US population that supports Israel for religious reasons. It's less pronounced in younger evangelicals. But there are some that still think Israel can do no wrong, wouldn't matter if they went all old testament and slaughtered every man, woman, and child. https://twitter.com/LifeWayResearch/status/937818815005519872
mmmh, I guess I was wrong in that case, my bad.
We don't really have people that religious here (I think?) so I got the impression that it only amounts to talking points that wouldn't be followed up by actions because in the end other domestic stuff is so much more important for them.
|
United States43203 Posts
It's an awful bill and accusing people of being overly hyperbolic in denouncing it isn't actually a defence. Everything that people identified wrong with it is still wrong.
This is the textbook definition of a strawman. There are hundreds of valid issues with the bill but rather than argue against any of those he has instead replaced them all with an argument of his own creation, that it will trigger the apocalypse, and then placed that argument in the mouth of those he perceives to be his opponents in order to defeat it.
Your boy is an idiot, and worse, he thinks you're all idiots too.
|
On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable.
For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit?
You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has.
There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship.
|
United States43203 Posts
You seem to think Europe is filled with 50 year old guys banging 15 year old girls. It's really not. I'm not sure how to really respond to your accusation of hypocrisy due to accepting of it in Europe but criticizing it in America because I don't accept the premise.
|
On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship.
I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries?
As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion.
|
On December 07 2017 06:28 KwarK wrote:
You seem to think Europe is filled with 50 year old guys banging 15 year old girls. It's really not. I'm not sure how to really respond to your accusation of hypocrisy due to accepting of it in Europe but criticizing it in America because I don't accept the premise.
In school I had a teacher (married + children!) who banged an 18year old girl! Didn't turn out nicely for him either despite her being 18+.
//
To be a bit more on topic and reiterate what Kwark said. The whole 14 years age of consent really is more a thing between teenagers or almost adults. We think that a 14 year old wanting to have sex with a 15 year old isn't something anyone should go to prison over. Or a 17 year old to have sex with an 18year old just because your age of consent happens to be 18.
A 30+ year old one having sex with a 15 year old one on the other hand? Not so fine anymore.
|
Norway28706 Posts
On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship.
I haven't really seen people, especially europeans, say that he's a predator because he tried to date 16-17-18 year old girls even though he was in his 30s. But 1: he has been accused of doing stuff without consent (not rape-rape though), and towards girls as young as 14.
Secondly, European countries have very different age of consent laws. A bunch of them have amendments like 'age of consent only applies to similarly aged relationships' - like a 14 year old can have sex with a 17 year old without the 17 year old doing anything illegal. But age of consent at 14 does not automatically mean it's permissible for a 30 year old to have sex with 14 year olds.
Thirdly, even in Europe, if you're a 32 year old guy and you're walking around talking about going to high schools to hit on freshmen, even if this is going to be legal in almost all countries, mostly everyone will consider you scummy, or worse. Not gonna say you can't get in positions of political power though, our current minister of petroleum and energy had sex with a 16 year old member of the youth segment of the progress party, whom was drunk, while he was a 30 year old vice chairman of the adult version of said progress party. It did take him more than a decade before he became a prominent national politician again, though.
Fourth, it's the pattern of it all. I have absolutely 0 problems imagining that you can, even in your 30s, 'fall in love' with a teenager, maybe even going down to 16. Normally it'd either take a fairly immature 30 year old or a very mature teenager or the combination of both. But honestly, I overall don't want to be too judgmental of this, even if it's 'usually' a bad idea, I have no problems seeing that it can work, or that people can be so infatuated that they make irrational choices. People are different, and I knew a girl (exceptionally mature both physically and mentally) who started dating a guy who was like 19 when she was like 14. He was a nice, normal and smart guy. These types of exceptions are part of why I'm personally totally fine with an age of consent at 14-15 (although Norway's is 16 - I'm also fine with that) - I generally favor the type of law-making where the bad exceptions are punished through some other law over 'sleeping' laws that only apply when someone calls for it. But with Moore it wasn't him falling in love with one girl who happened to be a really mature 16 year old, it was him consistently targeting girls of that age, to the point where he's banned from a popular mall for it. THAT behavior is one I've only seen in really scummy guys, and when you combine it with allegations of 'at least, kinda coercion', it's just a bad picture.
I've never called for Moore to be prosecuted over his behavior and I don't think he should be, but he does not strike me as a type of, morally upstanding representative of a state that a senator should be. Him being from Alabama seems to only foster people's negative conceptions of that state, anyway, which I'd assume Alabamans are negative towards.
|
On December 07 2017 06:28 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship. I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries? As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion.
The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability).
It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted.
|
On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 06:28 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship. I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries? As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion. The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability). It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted.
Are you just trying to point to anything to save your argument?
Also, the accusation of child molester is because of the whole touching a 14 year old thing while being 30+
being married to something 24 years older than you is not weird if you are of an old enough age. 30 year old and a 54 year old is not creepy. 14 year old and 38 year old is really fucking creepy.
|
Democrats in Pennsylvania have called for a state lawmaker to resign after he rebuked a male colleague with language criticized as homophobic.
The viral moment sparked by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican from western Pennsylvania known for his conservative views, occurred Tuesday at an otherwise routine state House committee meeting about land use.
Fellow lawmaker Rep. Matt Bradford was seated beside Metcalfe, the committee chairman. As he spoke, he touched Metcalfe's arm, bringing business to a halt.
"Representative Bradford, look, I'm a heterosexual," Metcalfe interrupted. "I have a wife, I love my wife. I don’t like men, as you might. But stop touching me all the time."
Like, if you want to touch somebody, you have people on your side of the aisle that might like it," he added as Bradford, a Democrat whose district is outside Philadelphia, laughed. "I don't."
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/meet-couple-behind-masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-case-n826976
Man this guy talks like the average middle schooler.
edit: And no mozoku no matter what you say, moore is still a pedophile. He molested 14 year old girls while being in his late? 30's. That is a pedophile. Your straw manning is really bad and pointless.
|
On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 06:28 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship. I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries? As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion. The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability). It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted.
He isn’t claiming she sexually assaulted him. And she wasn’t banned from a mall.
|
On December 07 2017 07:37 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 06:28 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship. I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries? As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion. The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability). It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted. Are you just trying to point to anything to save your argument? Also, the accusation of child molester is because of the whole touching a 14 year old thing while being 30+ being married to something 24 years older than you is not weird if you are of an old enough age. 30 year old and a 54 year old is not creepy. 14 year old and 38 year old is really fucking creepy.
IMO 30 and 54 is still creepy/ weird, but okay at least the two are consenting adults. A generational gap is just a little much.
|
On December 07 2017 07:45 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2017 07:37 IyMoon wrote:On December 07 2017 07:23 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 06:28 Logo wrote:On December 07 2017 06:22 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 05:31 KwarK wrote:On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:On December 07 2017 02:14 KwarK wrote:
It's possible they've decided he's hurting Jones in Alabama. If there's one thing that will allow conservatives to rationalize anything, no matter how obviously despicable, it's that the other side might also be guilty of it. That's why we're still seeing "but Bill Clinton" after two decades. Why Trump's obvious enriching himself through the Presidency is okay because what about Uranium One .
Refusing to keep Franken in the senate may be seen as a politically advantageous move to distinguish what they stand for vs what Roy Moore is. The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well. This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though. I think I've made my own views on sexual misconduct exceptionally clear previously. I was saying Franken should resign when it was boorish behaviour and a kiss with the USO girl. The GOP is the inferior side because they're made up of people who becomes more likely to support a candidate after the accusations of child molestation come out, whereas the other side is made up of people like myself who aren't deplorable. For those who live in the US and UK that have been consistently critical of all sexual misconduct, positions such as yours on sexual misconduct are reasonable and consistent. I fall into this camp as well. Your party, on the other hand, is far less decisive, and the evidence points to the fact that their motives in scenarios such as this are political rather than moral or ethical. Otherwise, why was Bill Clinton fit for office and Roy Moore unfit? You could, correctly imo, argue that child molestation is a more serious crime than Clinton's. However, this presents a thorny dilemma for our sanctimonious European friends. What you're calling "child molestation" is legal in most of Europe (or at the very least Portugal, Spain, and arguably Germany). If you're a European who believes this is a terrible crime (as I do), the question becomes: why were you content to condone child molestation in your own country, yet outraged when a political enemy in a foreign country engages in it? It seems obvious that such lax local laws have caused more many times more harm to minors than Roy Moore has. There's really no consistent way to argue this from the standpoint of someone who is European and believes their laws are appropriate, or as an American who admires the "less prudish" laws of Europe. These folks, which make up most of liberal posters, certainly have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to frame their asymmetric outrage as motivated by anything other than partisanship. I'm confused about what sexual harassment against a minor has to do with age of consent unless you are implying that sexual assault or sexual harassment is legal in European countries? As distasteful as the age gap is, they're also accompanied by stories of actual assault, harassment, or coercion. The political accusations against Moore tend to be "pedophile" and "child molester" rather than "creepy guy." If the accusation is merely "creepy guy", then you have to somehow explain why Roy Moore is qualitatively different than Al Franken (who was fine until he became a political liability). It can maybe be done but in a world where there's no issue with president of France being married to his ex-teacher who is 24 years his senior, it gets pretty darn convoluted. Are you just trying to point to anything to save your argument? Also, the accusation of child molester is because of the whole touching a 14 year old thing while being 30+ being married to something 24 years older than you is not weird if you are of an old enough age. 30 year old and a 54 year old is not creepy. 14 year old and 38 year old is really fucking creepy. IMO 30 and 54 is still creepy/ weird, but okay at least the two are consenting adults. A generational gap is just a little much.
Eh, I am fine with it but then again I have had friends who parents were close to that situation so maybe I am just used to it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
