The GOP controls all three levels of government, and a good number of them ran on these policies. Evidently, there are enough people who agree with this to keep electing them.
Roy moore accusations
- Thread starter birch
- Start date
- Status
The GOP controls all three levels of government, and a good number of them ran on these policies. Evidently, there are enough people who agree with this to keep electing them.
I voted for a woman simply because she managed to resolve a long standing labor dispute, not because I agreed with every one of her policies. If it were a perfect world, our politicians would be aligned perfectly with our own values.
What if you want to commit suicide?
:EDIT:
Maybe I like the idea that I never existed at all.
:EDIT:
Fuck Jesus, maybe I should buy $500 of heroine, inject that shit, and die from overdose? I can't buy a gun so easily as an American, if I could I'd already be dead.
Last edited:
Would you vote for that same individual, that agreed with you on one or two policies, if she also wanted to take away your health insurance, make you pay more in taxes to allow for a tax cut for her corporate buddies, and was willing to let new mothers and their children go without food or preventative care?
At what point do they differ enough?
So when I pointed out you were making that claim, the equivalence of Franken and Moore in particular, I was simply correct. OK?
No, I'm not. Blatantly and obviously and explicitly not, in detail with reasons and examples (such as Barton and Conyers).
I'm making that "demand" based on specific and explicitly listed physical differences in the actual behaviors and situations as described in the accounts. See above.
Yes, you have.
You have made, and are in fact making, some of the same claims about Franken - in particular the equivalence of his actions and character to Moore's and Trump's - as the Republican media operations overtly defending Moore in that way. Your motive is to heighten the seriousness of Franken's offenses. Their's is to denigrate and diminish the seriousness of Moore's. Neither one of you is bound by reason, evidence, or common sense.
I predict you - the two teams involved - will both succeed to some degree, and that injury to political causes I - and you, the one team - claim to favor will be correlated with that success. A pox on both your houses.
Last edited:
and you are oblivious to reality.
It's hard to draw a line without first seeing the consequences of my choices. However, there's always another election on which to vote for a new candidate. Of course, there's no guarantee things will be better.
You like Roy Moore, an aside from sexual deviancy (I find it too creepy), are you forgetting he suggested 9/11 happened because they turned away from God?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/kfile-roy-moore-9-11/index.html
Toe the party line like a good Christian now.
Hole-ee-sheeit... That's terrifying
Bells
Staff member
Yo, troll, stop dragging this thread off topic.
You have done it throughout this thread, you seem mentally incapable of discussing sexual harassment (the fact that you are also dragging the other thread off topic as well is telling) without trolling, for reasons that can only be known to yourself. I opened a GOP tax bill thread, just for you. So take your tax bill posts there.
Unless the tax bill contains provisions that pertain directly to providing protection to paedophile politicians and serial sexual harassers, or provisions that give paedophiles and serial harassers tax breaks, then it has nothing to do with "the cause".
Hm, further evidence as to how the current goings on in Washington are relevant -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.69981fbcf729
They (Congress) gets to make the rules, including the rules that they must abide by. If they don't like the rules, then they change them. So... Why should we expect this group to self-report and hold themselves accountable, when they can just as easily (and by all evidence, without penalty) get away with simply making the problem go away?
To expect them to be moral, upstanding citizens in this instance seems... Foolish, at best. They are willing to pass a tax bill that adds more than a trillion dollars to the national debt, would throw untold millions off of their health insurance, result in higher taxes for many families, and ultimately harm tens, if not hundreds, of millions of American Citizens.
Why would we expect them to give a DAMN about a few women that they have harmed?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.69981fbcf729
They (Congress) gets to make the rules, including the rules that they must abide by. If they don't like the rules, then they change them. So... Why should we expect this group to self-report and hold themselves accountable, when they can just as easily (and by all evidence, without penalty) get away with simply making the problem go away?
To expect them to be moral, upstanding citizens in this instance seems... Foolish, at best. They are willing to pass a tax bill that adds more than a trillion dollars to the national debt, would throw untold millions off of their health insurance, result in higher taxes for many families, and ultimately harm tens, if not hundreds, of millions of American Citizens.
Why would we expect them to give a DAMN about a few women that they have harmed?
I never heard his name until allegations arose during an election.
Bells
Staff member
What do you think I have been arguing throughout this thread?
No, really, is this your sudden realisation?
When you decided to troll the thread from the start, this is the exact sort of thing I was trying to discuss with iceaura, hence why I repeatedly commented that throwing it to the ethics committee was to ensure they remained protected, while trying to give the message that they care about sexual harassment. For which, you then went on a troll spam citing due process (sigh) and innocent until proven guilty, while utterly failing to note that they will not appear in a court of law and serving in congress means they more than likely will get away with it. Which is why I questioned how the ethics committee, the very one you went on and on about due process and accused me of being blood thirsty and whatever other names you chose to use, could actually investigate members of the senate because it was akin to a police department investigating themselves for wrongful conduct. And this isn't even touching on the fact that the victims will be made to testify, possibly in public, which will entail being questioned by the members who have a reason for finding their fellow senators have not done anything wrong or worthy of anything more than a slap on the wrist.
And you trolled, demanded we change the subject, abused us, harassed us.. And now you bring this up as though it's suddenly important to you?
And why?
Because you again wish to change the subject to discuss the tax bill... Because these very people you spent pages trolling for for, have written a tax bill and you are trying to use women and victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault to make a political point about the tax bill. And while maaaany political points can be made about this horror tax bill, such as their including the definition that life begins at conception, the tax bill is nuking cancer funding, is opening up drilling in the pristine environment in Alaska, is affecting Medicare, Obamacare, to name but a few, none of this exactly deals with sexual harassment, particularly sexual harassment by members of congress.
Sure, we could try to tie in how many members of congress have very little respect for women to begin with, ie why the GOP included 'pre-born' definitions and how cuts to medicare and Obamacare will affect women a great deal, and perhaps we could even argue that these inclusions and cuts were voted in primarily by the party that is supporting a paedophile and a pussy grabbing president, but again, it doesn't exactly deal with sexual harassment.
Tying the tax bill to sexual harassment is just another way to deflect attention away from the equally important issue of sexual harassment, which you have been trying to do for pages and pages now. And you really need to stop. It isn't acceptable.
Neither did I...
#RepublicansRepublicansRepublicans | #RapeCulture
Click because sometimes another morning really is just the start of another day.
Is it because #RepublicansRepublicansRepublicans?
You know, pick a "solution" from human history; it's not a matter of such "solutions" being evil, but what I mean is this: If we could imagine a solution to "Republicans", then it would behoove us to remember that even in its most noble context, all we're doing is pushing the problem away to somewhere else. You know, like conservatives treat the homeless.
Which is the next part. No, we're not talking about actually forfeiting solutions by adopting the evil, but it does make a nice contrast point. Even if you win the argument that the Republican Party is doing it wrong, what then? So, the GOP, exposed for this and that problem, rebrands, and maybe they even do it reasonably well.
But where would the actual evil go?
It's still going to creep and haunt and stalk in all its usual hunting grounds.
We're not really pushing it that far away, as such; it will be back.
I sometimes make the point about the difference 'twixt human frailty itself and the exploitation thereof; yes, Republicans are especially exploitative of human frailty if we intend a partisan comparison, but at what point does a particular human frailty, such as the incapacities leading to the neurotic and behavioral catastrophe known as rape culture?
So, to the one, yes, this was and, technically, remains a thread about the Roy Moore accusations. The "Roy Moore" "accusations".
I put the words in quotes because there are a couple aspects to consider. Yeah, it's about Roy Moore and not, say, Al Franken or others, but that's the thing about, "Republicans! Republicans! Republicans!"
But it's also about the sexual abuse allegations against Roy Moore, not his tax policy.
Yes, there are plenty of reasons under the Sun to focus on Republican methodology.
And as we see, in these questions of the accusations against Roy Moore, or his counteraccusations against the women he allegedly abused, the thread really is about Republicans, Republicans, Republicans; sexual assault is just part of the ambient scenery, and the victims mere stage props.
This is one of the times when notions like the psychoanalytic meaning of history—i.e., what the story is actually about—can be very important, but only if one intends to address rape culture. To the other, addressing rape culture is difficult and seemingly a very scary prospect, while complaining about Republicans is one of the easier ways we might express our disgust.
It's all a matter of priorities.
Some days, that can be problematic.
Hm, actually, yeah - I think if the party lines weren't so utterly polarized; if Republicans weren't so fixated on carving up American wealth like a roast for their corporate owners; if Democrats weren't relegated to the roll of passengers, only barely able to put a hand on the steering wheel; if the people with the ability to actually create laws that address the issue weren't directly benefitting from not addressing the issue... Then maybe something would get done.
Then again, maybe not. I don't know if a Democrat controlled government would be willing to address the issue in an even handed way... But I am fairly confident when I say that I have no reason to believe that Republicans simply won't address it at all unless they believe it will affect their reelection chances.
As I said - what reason does the ruling party have to fix things? The minority party can't hold them accountable even during an election (Alabama is a great example of this... If the Republican base cared about accountability, Roy Moore wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell, rather than being neck and neck in the polls). Would Democratic voters be more inclined to do so? I can't be certain, but I know the social circles I associate with would most likely vote out someone facing such charges, given the chance to do so.
Maybe that's the problem with taking the high road - morality in politics can be used against you as a weakness when so much of the voting population is willing to put morals aside for "muh party"...
I guess this is the point where we all shrug, say "thanks for playing" and go about our lives bickering about pointless things instead of working towards a solution (or, at least, that's the pattern that has played out before).
Then again, maybe not. I don't know if a Democrat controlled government would be willing to address the issue in an even handed way... But I am fairly confident when I say that I have no reason to believe that Republicans simply won't address it at all unless they believe it will affect their reelection chances.
As I said - what reason does the ruling party have to fix things? The minority party can't hold them accountable even during an election (Alabama is a great example of this... If the Republican base cared about accountability, Roy Moore wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell, rather than being neck and neck in the polls). Would Democratic voters be more inclined to do so? I can't be certain, but I know the social circles I associate with would most likely vote out someone facing such charges, given the chance to do so.
Maybe that's the problem with taking the high road - morality in politics can be used against you as a weakness when so much of the voting population is willing to put morals aside for "muh party"...
I guess this is the point where we all shrug, say "thanks for playing" and go about our lives bickering about pointless things instead of working towards a solution (or, at least, that's the pattern that has played out before).
Oh, hey, at least there are calls and demands for resignations now:
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/02/5679...sign-because-of-sexual-harassment-allegations
Kihuen and Conyers are being told to resign (now to see if they do so), and an inquiry into Franken has begun.
I guess the question now is, if they refuse to voluntarily step down, what is the simplest way to forcibly remove them... None the less, things are moving.
I wonder if we could expect the same elsewhere in Washington.
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/02/5679...sign-because-of-sexual-harassment-allegations
Kihuen and Conyers are being told to resign (now to see if they do so), and an inquiry into Franken has begun.
I guess the question now is, if they refuse to voluntarily step down, what is the simplest way to forcibly remove them... None the less, things are moving.
I wonder if we could expect the same elsewhere in Washington.
I get an ear of it from my wife every time she reads the paper. My answer is, do something about it. Become politically active. Find someone you support. You can't control other people. Trying to do so only creates resentment. But maybe you can meet them somewhere in the middle.
Thing is, when it comes to this, there is no "meeting in the middle".
One side is out for blood and won't be happy with anything less than their pound of flesh, demanding that the lives of the accused be utterly ruined.
To the flip side, a person should not have to meet a harasser in the middle - the middle ground is "don't harass other people", as it should be. If someone says no, it bloody well means no.
My entire contention in this thread has been the odd area that occurs when someone feels unable (or is unwilling) to say "no" for one reason or another. Harassment is, we have apparently decided, irrelevant of intent: if someone feels like they are being sexually harassed, no matter the intent of the other party (even if they stop if/when they realize they have inadvertently made the person uncomfortable), it sounds like it's too late in the minds of some folks.
The only safe option, if they had their way, would be to not attempt to engage with others at all, which is, to any rational person, obviously silly.
*shrug*
The media? I stopped wanting to trouble myself after reading, Roy Moore, dated an underage girl cause it was OK with her mother...
Also, me and a friend marathoned the 3 "I Spit On Your Grave" movies before just before the story came to light. I held back from, Roy Moore, because I knew I would blow up.
- Status