User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Republican President Donald J. Trump : Year Two


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Republican President Donald J. Trump : Year Two
Thread Tools
709
Damned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2017-10-30, 17:54

Year Two, people. The leader of the American Republican Party is, by all accounts, a nice guy and why would we question that.

Also, does anyone know how to properly scrub cast iron? My fucki,,, you know, I don't even want to say. An egg thing, basically.

Anyways. Holy shit. Papadopoulos.

So it goes.

Last edited by 709 : 2017-10-30 at 18:09.
  quote
709
Damned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2017-10-30, 18:15

Take a few seconds to ponder sentences two and three.

Also, Manafort & Gates.

Nothing to see here, obviously. Fox State News says cheese, and its placement on a burger, is the true threat to Americans. Kinda agree, tbh.

So it goes.

Last edited by 709 : 2017-10-30 at 18:29.
  quote
709
Damned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2017-10-30, 21:43

Speaking of State Sponsored Media.

The WSJ. What a shame.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: A town that Germany forgot.
 
2017-11-02, 01:26

Well if we’re talking cheese, there are a few architectural positions for it in a burger. You’ve got the classic on top of patty, the dystopian on bottom of patty, and the new age in the patty. Not sure it’s worth discussing though. Not enough value in grilling talk at this mournful and coldening time of year. Maybe the diversity hirer will bring the proverbial outside perspective on this whole thing and manage to bring this train wreck to its glorious end before more people die. Who am I kidding? I abandoned the US when the getting was good
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2017-11-02, 09:14

I found it interesting that it sounds like Popadopolis was wearing a wire for the last few months. I think the bulk of the current administration neither knows nor cares about the difference between legal and illegal behavior. I would guess the bulk of them have never had to face 'regular' legal repercussions for their transgressions, but rather money paid their way out of consequences.

I don't think that is going to work this time through though.

I also want to state clearly, I don't care which party members get caught up in this corruption probe. If you're corrupt, I want your ass nailed to the wall, regardless of which party you belong to.

(also, wasn't Popadopolis Punky Brewster's last name?)

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-11-04, 20:57

There is a very strange vibe regarding all the reporting on Trump but also all the interactions with those going against Trump.

To put it bluntly, they just don't act like they are winning and it seems like even if they try to inflict some damage, they end up with much more damage themselves.

I mean seriously. If you think you have the president on impeachable offensives regarding foreign enemies, why do you have to go and call his press secretary a fat soccer mom? Why do you have to have Baldwin as Trump on a toilet?

I mean people have an intrinsic sense of what constitutes bullying behavior and I don't think anyone is buying the "we're bullying because he's a bully" routine. It rings about as true as Antifa punching anyone with a flag or a red hat declaring that their mere existence is proof of a rising Nazi power.

Some of the strangeness has also been how the Democrats appear willing to cut off their own head to perhaps cut off Trump's arm or something along those lines in terms of trading blows.

Trump was contacted by Russia...... really? What did they tell him?

They told him the DNC was a corrupt and compromised shell organization that Clinton used to loot all the fundraising for state races and use for her campaign in addition to making sure the primary was defacto set up for her to run unopposed......

Wow.... go team.... blue?

You have Donna "I gave Clinton the debate questions" Brazille talking about how she wanted to be all virtuous when taking over the DNC from Debbie Wasserman Schultz because Schultz was so corrupt and horrible.

So let's suppose some are right and Trump is screwing up as much as someone can screw up. The alternative is..... Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Jerry Brown? What model of blue state awesomeness can we point to as alternative to the Trump or red state way?
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-11-05, 18:58

Trump is president, not Clinton. Democratic Party failings, as interesting as they may be, are only being foisted on the public as a form of misdirection. They are irrelevant in the face of what a Republican President and Congress do or do not do with their respective mandates. They are equally irrelevant to the question of how those mandates were won, and whether laws were broken in their pursuit.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-11-05, 20:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Trump is president, not Clinton. Democratic Party failings, as interesting as they may be, are only being foisted on the public as a form of misdirection. They are irrelevant in the face of what a Republican President and Congress do or do not do with their respective mandates. They are equally irrelevant to the question of how those mandates were won, and whether laws were broken in their pursuit.
Well as strident as those statements may be. They simply aren't true. Trump wasn't elected in a vacuum. He won't be reelected in a vacuum. I understand that just like how some Republicans swore they had proof was secretly a foreign national and a Muslim, communist agitator, none of those points helped elect Romney even when Obama lost 5 million votes. Why? Because losing a vote isn't the same thing as gaining a vote. Romney didn't do anything to fight back or gain those votes.

Say what you will about Trump, he is a fighter. You're not going to claim he put a dog on a station wagon or cut a classmates hair or fired an employee so his spouse could die of cancer or any other claim from that election and not get a response from Trump.

Also no one has been given a mandate. The Republicans don't have a super majority. Trump didn't even win the popular vote. Why would call that a mandate? Should they govern? Of course and that is a different question. As for broken laws, Trump would have to be impeached by a Republican Congress and Senate which I don't think would happen. As I noted it isn't a vacuum.

The Democrats meanwhile are stuck on repeat. It is all identity politics, and pretty much nothing else. Shockingly it's pretty hard to govern on a platform of blatant racism as the Democrats are doing. Racism doesn't have a rhyme, reason or policy to it. It's even hard to engage in class warfare when you're declaring half the members of a class can't really be there because they are white.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2017-11-05, 22:06

What’s not true? Is Trump not president? Are republicans not in the majority in both congressional houses?

Trump won his election as did every sitting Congress person. Let’s not be pedantic. Everybody understands winning an election with a majority of congressional seats constitutes a mandate. Perhaps not a strong one, but in the land today it is the president and his party who are in the strongest position to pass bills and make laws, not their opponents. What the government does with that power is what’s interesting. How it got that power? Also interesting. The guy in charge has to answer the questions. The privilege and responsibility comes with the office.

Last edited by Matsu : 2017-11-05 at 22:17.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-11-06, 10:31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
What’s not true? Is Trump not president? Are republicans not in the majority in both congressional houses?
They are and likely will be after the midterms as well.


Quote:
Trump won his election as did every sitting Congress person. Let’s not be pedantic. Everybody understands winning an election with a majority of congressional seats constitutes a mandate. Perhaps not a strong one, but in the land today it is the president and his party who are in the strongest position to pass bills and make laws, not their opponents.
As I mentioned above, there is no doubt that Republicans should govern and be held accountable for that governing. However we also live in an age of hyper partisanship. The "resist" movement isn't exactly interested in finding some common ground. Impeachment talk isn't exactly the basis of cooperation. If every executive action signed and law passed is met with attempts to tie it up in the courts, the voters will factor that into their midterm decision making.

Quote:
What the government does with that power is what’s interesting. How it got that power? Also interesting. The guy in charge has to answer the questions. The privilege and responsibility comes with the office.
Well no doubt questions will be asked and answers will be expected. I'm just not certain Democrats will have much to gain in the answers Republicans provide or and the Democrats have no answers to provide.

Latino Victory Fund

This ad is a prime example. America is made up of evil white guys driving around trying to run down and kill minorities in their pick up trucks. If you vote for Democrats, I guess you get an America where evil white guys aren't killing hundreds of minority children a day by running them down with their pick up trucks?

There isn't a plan or a policy. There isn't even a hope or a dream. This is just pure political fantasy and I guess if you vote the way they suggest you get..... reality but a Democratic claim that reality became that way due to them. "Hey America you elected us and now....hate is gone. No more kids being run down by pick up trucks!"

We elected Obama for eight years and now we have no more confederate memorials right? Oh wait, that distraction only became a concern after they were out of power and we needed to show how the whole country is the Klan.

Andrew Sullivan wrote about it better than I can.


Quote:
Are they capable of focusing on economic populism and a defense of the working classes against GOP plutocracy? At this point, the answer is no.

This is not a good omen. If Gillespie wins, or the result is close, it means the Trump-transformed GOP is electorally viable in every swing district in 2018. That it could win in the state where actual white supremacists marched this past summer and when the president is 20 points underwater is a sobering reminder of the actual state of play in our politics. I can only hope it’s a wake-up call to the Dems. In 2017, they are either useless or actively counterproductive in the struggle to resist right-authoritarianism. They have learned nothing from 2016. Their intelligentsia seems determined to ensure that no midwestern whites ever vote for the party again. Their public faces are still Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi. They still believe that something other than electoral politics — the courts, the press, the special counsel — will propel them back to power. They can’t seem to grasp the nettle of left-populism. And they remain obsessed with a Russia scandal that most swing voters don’t give a damn about.

They think they are “woke.” They are, in fact, in a political coma.
You know what you need to win an election? Votes! If you shun and hate every single person who doesn't support your orthodoxy 100% and actually label them as a hate group, a terrorist, as something sub-human, you won't get their vote a couple years later. Likewise you mentally won't be able to even design a policy or law to want to help them BECAUSE YOU HATE THEM. The reason a Trump wins is because the blue wall had a bunch of former Obama voters who need jobs, need help and they can't get that help because they are white and thus can't possibly need help due to white privilege. Instead of pursuing some economic populism, giving some help to all folks who need it, you double down and now call them racists and terrorists.

Gee I forgot we need voters. Trump didn't build his wall yet due to a dozen lawsuits. Can we have your vote now Mr and Mrs Deplorable, Bitter Clinger Klan Member Terrorist?

Good luck with that.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: A town that Germany forgot.
 
2017-11-08, 01:04

Yes yes and libtards aren’t real Americans — Tea Party 2009-now

It seems running the culture war on the right isn’t effective either. No one gives two shits about the DNC and the nice thing about people not caring about Russia is when federal indictments are handed down people are shocked and it isn’t old news. If Trump scrubs off 5 million more votes, he might lose to Kerry. There are absurdities here of course, but with Trump still failing to deliver on anything big (his destruction of things behind the scenes will be felt for generations) I think laughing at the DNC is hardly a realistic tack to take
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2017-11-08, 10:19

Dems seem to have done pretty well last night. Like, "fuck Trump" well.
  quote
709
Damned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2017-11-08, 13:43

The real "fuck Trump" test is in December, with Roy Moore. If Dems win that one, well, that's a bingo. Last night might put some juice into the race too if Dems want to spend some money.

So it goes.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-11-08, 15:11

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
Dems seem to have done pretty well last night. Like, "fuck Trump" well.
I don’t think too many of the races went differently then people expected them to go.

However I’d say this race went differently and it shows most of what I’ve been talking about.

DailyMail

The person she was running against was a certifiable cartoon bully. He basically was calling names, refused to debate and spent more time making her the issue rather than discuss....the issues.

She on the other hand spent an appropriate amount of time on her gender identity but did not let it become the crux of the campaign. There is clearly an absence of.....smugness on her part as she refuses to even bad mouth her opponent who bullied her noting that she would be serving as his representative now and she doesn’t bad mouth her own constituents.

That is a very refreshing change from labeling anyone with whom you’d disagree with as a -ist practicing an -ism. Especially in this case when it was actually happening.

Her focus.....issues and delivering services and not just for folks historicallly underrepresented or who belong in various oppressed groups or victim classes. Instead the goal is deliver for all the people she represents.

Her focus.... schools,jobs and traffic. From what I’ve read she would have easily gotten my vote.

This is what Democrats need a lot more of in terms of policy and candidates. The need non-corrupt local people who live where they serve, want to bring services and help to all the people they represent and who are open to the best ideas regardless of the person bringing them forward.

Good job Danica and I hope you rub off on some of your party leaders and maybe even on a few of the people in this forum. A little less smug, self-righteous indignation and a little more listening and service can go a long way towards earning votes and that is what she has proven.
  quote
709
Damned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2017-11-08, 16:25

In Webster's, "Smug, self-righteous indignation" has a picture of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee (and kin), Rick Santorum, Donald Trump Jr.... aw hell, so many many more. I was going to make a funny but then realized nobody would remember the setup after picturing all those holier-than-thou faces. Let's just say that "SSRI" is pretty much the Republican Party Platform at this point, since they have no policy to speak of.

So it goes.
  quote
alcimedes
I shot the sherrif.
 
Join Date: May 2004
Send a message via ICQ to alcimedes  
2017-11-17, 18:37

A few people I used to work with who were our GOP operatives were pretty disturbed by the Gov. races and their results. (at least the guys tasked with long term strategy)

They're worried about how those races ended up.

Moore refusing to bow out is going to be very interesting though.

Is the strategic advantage of his vote *now* worth the potential lost midterm seats for supporting a pedophile?

Google is your frenemy.
Caveat Emptor - Latin for tough titty
I tend to interpret things in the way that's most hilarious to me
  quote
addabox
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oaktown
 
2017-12-07, 15:18

So now we're seeing a pattern where Dems who are accused of sexual misconduct resign or are outsted, whereas Republicans don't care. I mean, it's a feature not a bug: the Republican base either doesn't care about assaulting or harassing women to have it bother them or they actually see it as a mark of strength. See also Roy Moore, whose teen attacking ways are apparently part and parcel of religous life in rural Alabama, and the Prez himself. More women have accused him of abuse (and of course we have him on tape bragging about same) than have accused Al Franken (and the tenor of Trump's abuse is way more serious) but Al steps down while Trump calls him names. We now know that there are literally no limits to Republican hypocrisy. They'll shoot you in the face and then have a fit if you bleed on their rug.

That which doesn't kill you weakens you slightly and makes you less able to cope until you're completely incapacitated
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2017-12-07, 17:41

Republicans at this point have entirely divorced themselves from reality. Roy Moore spokeswoman Janet Porter Anderson was interviewed by Anderson Cooper yesterday and claimed that the accusations against Moore were part of a massive conspiracy orchestrated by the media, the Democratic party, and (of course) George Soros.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/politi...ntv/index.html

The Republican party has hit full on "up is down, down is up" territory. It's been bad for a while but the past couple years have truly gone off the rails. And there are still tons of people who will continue to vote for them every time because there is an "R" next to their name. Trump once said he could shoot someone in public and not lose votes, and I believe him.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-12-08, 00:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post
So now we're seeing a pattern where Dems who are accused of sexual misconduct resign or are outsted, whereas Republicans don't care. I mean, it's a feature not a bug: the Republican base either doesn't care about assaulting or harassing women to have it bother them or they actually see it as a mark of strength. See also Roy Moore, whose teen attacking ways are apparently part and parcel of religous life in rural Alabama, and the Prez himself. More women have accused him of abuse (and of course we have him on tape bragging about same) than have accused Al Franken (and the tenor of Trump's abuse is way more serious) but Al steps down while Trump calls him names. We now know that there are literally no limits to Republican hypocrisy. They'll shoot you in the face and then have a fit if you bleed on their rug.
Is that really the pattern we are seeing? I mean when you keep thinking the world is crazy for not lining up with your assumptions, shouldn't you check your assumptions?

Perhaps the Republican base cares and thinks the media and others should care as well. However they only seem to care during an election year and in the months of October or November depending upon the election date.

Also maybe they would grant the media some credibility if... this wasn't one sided and hadn't been occurring for decades. I'm old enough to remember Bush and the "fake" Air Force memos and the drunk driving report dropped in November. I can remember Arnold Schwarzenegger have all manner of accusations levied against him in October of 2003, FIVE DAYS before the election. Do you remember Mitt Romney and his 47% comment? I do. I also remember it was recorded in May but magically couldn't be reported on until late September of that election year. All the Trump allegations.... October of 2016. The Moore allegations.... a month before the special election in November since the election is in December.

Isn't it shocking how coincidental all the allegations and claims seem to be and how the timing of them magically seems to coincide with an election as well?

Let's presume all the allegations against Moore are true just for the sake of argument. Who's fault is it that no one could seem to find out and publish about them for nearly 40 years and magically couldn't even seem to find and publish ANY information before the only choice was Moore or his Democratic opponent? It doesn't seem a little odd that if you give yourself a 40 year window no one in the Washington Post could gather enough information to publish a story in September or August instead of November?

I guess they couldn't have their information help Strange win the primary and then easily win the senate seat right?

I mean if you want to believe that the allegations are all true, that is your choice. It just seems really strange that Moore has run for office a half dozen times and NO ONE anywhere could seem to find or publish any information about it until November of this year a month before an election. This seems especially odd when half the stories try to portray this as common knowledge and the man has run for governor twice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca View Post
Republicans at this point have entirely divorced themselves from reality. Roy Moore spokeswoman Janet Porter Anderson was interviewed by Anderson Cooper yesterday and claimed that the accusations against Moore were part of a massive conspiracy orchestrated by the media, the Democratic party, and (of course) George Soros.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/07/politi...ntv/index.html

The Republican party has hit full on "up is down, down is up" territory. It's been bad for a while but the past couple years have truly gone off the rails. And there are still tons of people who will continue to vote for them every time because there is an "R" next to their name. Trump once said he could shoot someone in public and not lose votes, and I believe him.
Let's presume Cooper is right and Moore has some views and explanations of those views that you or I find downright objectionable. That would be fine IF questions were asked and answers were allowed. If the answers deflect and are shit, then so what. You do the job and let the people make their choice trusting them to see through the bullshit. However the media doesn't do that.

Most media "interviews" like this the Republican isn't even allowed to complete a sentence without being spoken over. Meanwhile you can see the Democratic interview and the opposite happens. Long answers and softball questions are the norm. People can see through this stuff. The bias also clearly hurts Democrats because they keep getting blindsided by the treatment. They end up asking "What Happened" when reality doesn't match the media bubble. It may make someone feel smug or superior when the "gotcha" moment happens but it doesn't improve lives or change votes.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: A town that Germany forgot.
 
2017-12-08, 15:30

Maybe it was common knowledge, and maybe Moore will lose those areas where he was known to be a predator. In any event, he never succeeded in running for Governor so there's that... This refusal to examine data on its face without calling upon some bizarre extra-logical 'timing' question is a sign of a severe critical deficit. One can almost see the desire to reject suggestions of Moore's predatory behavior even when assuming it to be true causing all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Let's assume this is true, but 'wait, the timing'! What does it matter that we discover the fact he was a predator (that, really, Alabama voters discover the fact that the he was a predator) only in the month before the election? If you assume the claims are true, supporting his candidacy simply because the timing isn't convenient for him is illogical. Knowledge of events becoming common doesn't have to be timed for a politicians convenience.

Regardless, he will win, and nothing will change. Trump's value in spite of his initial dislike of Moore, is sufficiently high among Alabama republicans that they will even elected a pedophile into office. They will have to own up to that knowledge at some point. But no one thinks the states going to flip to the Dems in the election, even just temporarily. It's fucking alabama where a racist candidate calling for the good old slavery times to return is right at home, even if he liked underdeveloped girls when he was in his thirties...
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-12-09, 07:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
Maybe it was common knowledge, and maybe Moore will lose those areas where he was known to be a predator. In any event, he never succeeded in running for Governor so there's that...
Yes and magically even though it was common knowledge it was never brought up during those TWO election cycles.

Quote:
This refusal to examine data on its face without calling upon some bizarre extra-logical 'timing' question is a sign of a severe critical deficit. One can almost see the desire to reject suggestions of Moore's predatory behavior even when assuming it to be true causing all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Let's assume this is true, but 'wait, the timing'! What does it matter that we discover the fact he was a predator (that, really, Alabama voters discover the fact that the he was a predator) only in the month before the election? If you assume the claims are true, supporting his candidacy simply because the timing isn't convenient for him is illogical. Knowledge of events becoming common doesn't have to be timed for a politicians convenience.
Oh I examined the data. However to partisans like yourself the mere claim is good enough. That is an actual aspect of the #metoo movement, that women never lie about sexual harassment and sexual assault and thus their claims must be acted on without due process or any critical thinking applied. This is why you are more than wiling to now call him a pedophile without any proof.

The timing aspect is to show, for those that are not in a pure partisan thinking state and still want to apply some critical thinking why the claims would be discounted ON TOP of being being completely unverified. By your reasoning anyone who has your name written in a Christmas card from 40 years ago and can make a claim is has verifiable proof that you are a pedophile. That is pointless to argue about because there's no rationality there.

Here's a question for you...you call the timing extra-logical. What is logical about any other aspect of the claims against Moore? It is clear you believe them so support your claim. If you signed someone's yearbook is it proof they tried you tried to rape or assault them? If you complimented someone on their appearance is it proof you grabbed their genitalia?

Is it logical, as you are doing to uncritically accept the claims of anyone 40 years after the fact for no other reason than they are a white woman pointing a finger?

Quote:
Regardless, he will win, and nothing will change. Trump's value in spite of his initial dislike of Moore, is sufficiently high among Alabama republicans that they will even elected a pedophile into office. They will have to own up to that knowledge at some point. But no one thinks the states going to flip to the Dems in the election, even just temporarily. It's fucking alabama where a racist candidate calling for the good old slavery times to return is right at home, even if he liked underdeveloped girls when he was in his thirties...
Right nothing will change and they'll just have to "own up to that knowledge at some point" while you'll never have any knowledge to own up to at all. When your assumptions never play out in reality, reality is just a bunch of mean names like racist, pedophile, etc. It's sort of laughable. Darn it, the Democrat lost again and all our assumptions and facts can't be wrong, we don't have to change anything. There's nothing for us to examine. It's all them. It's all outside of us. We're just fine and the problem is all over there. If only they weren't so _________________(racist, sexist, hypocritical Christian, pedophile loving, white, old, uneducated, deplorable, redneck, etc.) then we would have won because of course all the facts are on our side!

Talk about extra-logical reasoning........
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: A town that Germany forgot.
 
2017-12-09, 07:47

You aren't following the bouncing ball. The evidence in the year book and other pieces is to refute the claim that he didn't know these women when they were girls. He did. Why would he lie? Why do you doubt a growing number of women with physical proof they knew him personally? Is it because he reflects who you are? Are there skeletons in your closet you are worried about? A cute young thing you complimented when you knew you shouldn't, perhaps? A single compliment doesn't reflect harassment, but many reflects a poor moral guidance and when they are directed at underaged girls a creeping awfulness.

Regardless, you failed your own test. You assumed he did these things and then defended him because of the timing. Any non-partisan would see that the assumption that he pursued these girls is enough to evoke a desire to see him punished and not given the keys to more power. But you, the apparent purveyor of all things non-partisan, merely dismiss your assumption in the next breathe. [My guess is you were awful at mathematical proofs.] The problem with this discussion is you cannot follow your own argumentation. You assumed the girls were reporting actual harassment and then found a way to reject their claims. This makes no sense.

As for timing... Again, when was a race that Moore has been involved in attracted the attention of journalists with substantial experience and reporting abilities?

{His reported behavior is so repugnant, that you are willing to defend him even when assuming the behavior is absolutely true revolts me. I think this may be the first time I have ever blocked you, Nick, but enjoy being silenced.}

Last edited by Dr. Bobsky : 2017-12-09 at 08:11.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-12-09, 11:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
You aren't following the bouncing ball. The evidence in the year book and other pieces is to refute the claim that he didn't know these women when they were girls. He did.
Except this is absurd reasoning. Even if taken at 100% face value signing someone's yearbook isn't proof of anything except there was an encounter where you signed their yearbook. Anything that follows from that is a logical leap. The other piece of evidence was a graduation card. The same is true there. All that means, presuming them at 100% face value is that she got a graduation card. Drawing from that relationships, dating, rape or sexual assault is rather insane. You can't even make that leap unless you have some pretty strong partisan blinders on.

Quote:
Why would he lie?
Signing a yearbook or a card isn't proof of a relationship. So whether it be he or myself noting that, it isn't lying. Can you seriously not see this? It's nuts.

Quote:
Why do you doubt a growing number of women with physical proof they knew him personally?
Growing number with physical proof equals two women with "proof" that one claims a yearbook signing and another a graduation card.

Quote:
Is it because he reflects who you are? Are there skeletons in your closet you are worried about? A cute young thing you complimented when you knew you shouldn't, perhaps? A single compliment doesn't reflect harassment, but many reflects a poor moral guidance and when they are directed at underaged girls a creeping awfulness.
Speaking of creapy awfulness....LOL. I don't even know where all this projection and personal nonsense comes from but it does seem like a good idea to put yourself in timeout for a while.

Quote:
Regardless, you failed your own test. You assumed he did these things and then defended him because of the timing.
No I dismissed the argument about whether he did those things because when someone like yourself has reasoning like (yearbook signature = rape) then it is kind of pointless to there. I guess you baited me into going there anyway. That is the test I failed.

Quote:
Any non-partisan would see that the assumption that he pursued these girls is enough to evoke a desire to see him punished and not given the keys to more power
What sort of puritanical nonsense is this? I mean are you serious? You do realize that even among all these "growing allegations" that around half of them are claims that he complimented someone or asked them on a date. That is the CLAIM. You think someone should be punished for that? That is your claim above. It doesn't seem like you have actually read about the accusers.

Quote:
But you, the apparent purveyor of all things non-partisan, merely dismiss your assumption in the next breathe. [My guess is you were awful at mathematical proofs.] The problem with this discussion is you cannot follow your own argumentation. You assumed the girls were reporting actual harassment and then found a way to reject their claims. This makes no sense.
It isn't a dismissal when you actually examine the facts. I noted the basis for yourselves and others for believing the accusers. You believe a woman would never make up a story about this type of stuff and should be believed uncritically without due process, facts or any reasoning applied. I didn't just dismiss the women. I said let's look at their claims but part of looking at them is examining why and when the claim was made. Of course you don't like that sort of process because it is part of how false allegations are discovered. Much like how property faults are magically uncovered when the tenant doesn't have the rent or how domestic abuse is magically alleged in the midst of a divorce proceeding, the timing and motivation are examined as part of the claim. This should be especially true when the claims are of the nature like "Roy Moore gave me a compliment when I worked at the make up counter"....and that is proof he was a creeper and a pedophile. That isn't proof of anything.

Quote:
As for timing... Again, when was a race that Moore has been involved in attracted the attention of journalists with substantial experience and reporting abilities?
Well let me see.... he ran for governor twice. The Supreme Court of Alabama is an elected office and he ran for that multiple times winning and becoming chief justice. He had fights that drew national media attention involving the ten commandments, and same-sex marriage including one that involved him being removed from the bench for failing to follow federal orders regarding the ten commandments and display of them. He was suspended a second time for directing judges to ignore the federal decision regarding same-sex marriage.

The two runs for governor certainly should have attracted reporting and investigation at a minimum but being removed from the bench twice for ignoring federal orders does attract considerable attention especially when the reasons involve same-sex marriage. Here is a Times link to the story that involved a battle between Moore and the SPLC.
Of all these matters I remember the ten commandments making national news for a considerable period. I remember the second being news worthy but was part of a broader theme of reporting how courts, clerks, etc were dealing with the national decision.

But really there's no story there right? A Supreme Court Chief Justice being suspended for failing to enforce a court order involving same-sex marriage oh and by the way.... everyone knows he likes little girls.... no one would send anyone down to examine the first and discover the second right? Not worth thinking about or pursuing or even questioning.

If you had some real sense, you'd question the claims about why anyone was sent down to examine THIS race. The last time a Democrat was elected for this seat was 1990. The seat hasn't been competitive in decades. Last election Sessions ran UNOPPOSED and collected 99% of the vote. The real race for this seat was the primary between Strange who was appointed to replace Sessions and Moore. That race received PLENTY of media attention because Trump had endorsed Strange and Bannon, who had just been forced from the White House, had endorsed Moore. It was receiving plenty of media play because of this schism in the Republican Party and how it was going to play out. It was characterized as Trump's first first congressional defeat. Here is a Politico article discussing those points.

So again the claim that the media wasn't sending anyone down there until AFTER the primary doesn't pass the smell test. There are plenty of stories about the Trump, Bannon, Strange, Moore angles and how they were going to play out. Moore winning was a case of the underdog beating what Trump and the party wanted. Democrats hadn't even broken 40% of the vote in decades for this seat. The primary was the story. Yet somehow.... no one can find or report on any of this until after that primary is finished. You know... when everyone should have gone home and watched Moore win 60-40% in a a worst case scenario. Yes that's sarcasm.

Quote:
{His reported behavior is so repugnant, that you are willing to defend him even when assuming the behavior is absolutely true revolts me. I think this may be the first time I have ever blocked you, Nick, but enjoy being silenced.}
Have a nice day and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2017-12-09, 23:33

El Gallo just one thing, you seem to feel that "convenient timing" is proof positive that Moore is innocent. But you refuse to consider the evidence that he may not be innocent, which is also somewhat tenuous. You are holding the arguments on either side to completely different standards, and it reveals just how strongly partisan you are.

How often can you get irrefutable proof of anything? No, a yearbook signature doesn't = rape, giving compliments to a young woman is not illegal, and so on. They are merely small pieces of supporting evidence that appear to corroborate the stories put forth by his accusers. But it is not absolute proof of wrongdoing either, and it's likely we'll never have absolute proof of these accusations. But bobsky already brought up that argument and you merely ignored it so I don't expect you to ever understand what is being said.

However, when confronted with equally circumstantial evidence on the opposite side - that the timing was convenient, you immediately jump to the conclusion that he must be innocent.

For all your haughty talk of how incredibly non-partisan you are, it's pretty obvious you're much more willing to make a leap in one direction and not the other.
  quote
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2017-12-10, 05:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca View Post
El Gallo just one thing, you seem to feel that "convenient timing" is proof positive that Moore is innocent. But you refuse to consider the evidence that he may not be innocent, which is also somewhat tenuous. You are holding the arguments on either side to completely different standards, and it reveals just how strongly partisan you are.
The standard of proof or innocence should be the same as what our legal system uses. Using that standard there isn't a single charge that could be brought against Moore and any follow up questioning to the one woman that made the strongest claim has made her claim very suspect. Be it tampering with evidence (she admits to annotating the supposed Moore signature and a half dozen people have refuted pretty much every detail of her story) Now also I didn't say that it was completely proof that Moore was innocent. Rather I said that if this issue truly is of importance to the people pursuing the claims and message, dropping it a month before an election and ONLY discussing it during those times isn't going to bring justice or proper awareness to their cause. I noted half a dozen examples of this and again the thing is the press isn't pursuing these matters in a nonpartisan matter or outside the election cycle. Be honest. Shouldn't they be doing that if it is important?

Also do you know if Doug Jones every signed a yearbook or how he treated the girl at the make up counter? You do know he wasn't married until he was 39 so obviously there was plenty of time to date. Has the media told us anything about Doug Jones beyond the fact that he isn't Roy Moore? The point is they are supposed to vet these folks for us. I'll tell you what. Just find me one article about Doug Jones and how he treated women when dating them. Can we even find an article on the family background of Doug Jones and how he dated and married his wife as a contrast to Moore? I mean clearly if we are very concerned about making sure we aren't putting sexual harassers, abusers or just creepers into office someone should have done an investigation on Jones. The reasoning in this thread that it didn't happen during the primary for Moore was the race just wasn't big enough and thus, it was magically discovered only after the primary. Well clearly they SHOULD have and WOULD have done it for both sides since they aren't partisan. Doug Jones didn't do anything wrong to anyone and all he did is respectfully date and marry his wife. That's great so where's that article for balance heck it would even help him. Where's the article where the women he dated noted he never treated them badly or disrespectfully? Does it exist? Has the media done their job and vetted both candidates?

Quote:
How often can you get irrefutable proof of anything?
This is far, far, far below that. There isn't a DA alive that would even file a charge on any of this let alone get a conviction. The logical leaps you allow are a bit crazy/

Quote:
No, a yearbook signature doesn't = rape, giving compliments to a young woman is not illegal, and so on. They are merely small pieces of supporting evidence that appear to corroborate the stories put forth by his accusers.
Corroborate it how? The two aren't even linked in any manner. How many yearbooks did you sign Luca? What is that proof of? Is it even proof of a relationship in any form or fashion that you had with most of the folks? Is it proof you dated them? How many interactions have you had with service staff in your life? If one of them claimed you made a comment or even gave a compliment, what is that proof of? It's proof of nothing.

The reason most of this is even up for discussion is the partisan nature of the press. How can you not see that? How long did Doug Jones date his wife? How long were they engaged? Why can we know every girl or waitress Roy Moore ever spoke to but we don't even know basic information for Doug Jones? That my friend is partisan.

Quote:
But it is not absolute proof of wrongdoing either, and it's likely we'll never have absolute proof of these accusations.
There is a broad spectrum between absolute proof and and just pure nonsense. I've never said evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This evidence wouldn't even raise reasonable suspicion. If someone came to you and said their daughter accused of you..... complimenting them or propositioning them for a date. Those aren't crime. Likewise if they say you respectfully dated them as consenting adults but there was an age difference.....that isn't a crime. If you finally had one person who said you dated them, took them in your car and you made unwanted sexual advances on them and that they were underage, you'd ask for proof. If the proof was you signed their year book, that is laughable. If you checked into the story and the timelines, locations, description of the premises, etc all failed, then you'd dismiss the claim.

That is what reasonable people do and that is what the legal system does. The #metoo movement doesn't want that nor do partisans who want a senate seat for their team.



Quote:
But bobsky already brought up that argument and you merely ignored it so I don't expect you to ever understand what is being said.However, when confronted with equally circumstantial evidence on the opposite side - that the timing was convenient, you immediately jump to the conclusion that he must be innocent.

For all your haughty talk of how incredibly non-partisan you are, it's pretty obvious you're much more willing to make a leap in one direction and not the other.
Well here is the problem with your conclusion. The media shouldn't be the opposite side. Was that a slip? Shouldn't the opposite side be.... Doug Jones? Now I helped you with that above. We know the platitudes. We need a free and independent press to do their job and their job is to vet these candidates and give us the information we need to make an informed decision. Thanks to movements like #metoo we are now very aware that we need to know how these candidates will treat women not just as a matter of policy but how they did that in their private lives.(Even though for years Democrats have told us the two aren't the same.) So we send all our reporters down to Alabama to investigate since this is a federal election for a Senate seat. We find lots of people Roy Moore dated. We talk to all manner of people. We can even talk to people who claim to have frequented a mall Moore visited. For Doug Jones we......... hello is this mic on?

The most damning piece of evidence is there is no opposite side. I mean I'm sure there is but the media will sit on their hands. Just like how Drudge had to break Lewinsky scandal and how the National Enquirer had to tell us John Edwards was cheating on his cancer striken wife and had a love child on the way they know but they just don't care to deal with the opposite side because they ARE the opposite side. I'd argue the evidence for that is pretty strong. There have been media studies to prove that point. There are donation patterns. There is a clear preponderance of evidence like I've noted where they just won't drop the dirt on the Democrat and not only won't investigate but won't do their basic job of vetting them. However you can believe what you want. I prefer a world where the facts don't make me feel crazy.

Here's some non-partisan info for you and it even brings it back around to Trump. We are in an everything bubble. There isn't a single sound area of the economy left in my opinion. My personal money is sitting on the sidelines. Car sales/loans, student loans, government bonds, stocks and housing prices are ALL in bubble territory. BRIC ROW is even worse. I suspect these bubbles SHOULD pop before 2020 but the fed might find ways to prop it up until after that election regardless of how "independent" they happen to be.

So there is some real financial ugliness coming and Trump, MAGA, Republicans, and no one else can stop it from happening. Democrats won't have a real answer either and will make it worse but they'll likely get elected from the downturn.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: A town that Germany forgot.
 
2017-12-10, 13:28

Luca, you last point is especially true when you consider the fact that Alabama's other sitting senator doesn't want anything to do with Moore. Now I wonder if he is being partisan here or finds it convenient to not support the GOP nominee for his state. I imagine not, but one wonders why a person with such strong reasons to back Moore could find the behavior he is reported to have conducted so vile, so convincingly real, that he just plain doesn't want anything to do with him. Couldn't be that people have ethics, no it cannot be that...
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President 2.0 Kraetos AppleOutsider 12 2009-01-21 16:38
Possible Republican presidential candidates for 2008 Windswept AppleOutsider 271 2008-01-04 19:02
OMG! Donald Rumsfeld is a reincarnated Nazi! (or not, pix inside) Luca AppleOutsider 10 2005-10-25 15:26
WTC: Finally some sense (from Trump of all people) The Return of the 'nut AppleOutsider 50 2005-05-23 08:33
Donald Duck was a What!?! InactionMan AppleOutsider 10 2004-05-17 13:54


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2019, AppleNova