Octopus Overlords

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:36 am

Grifman wrote:[. Any corporate CEO who did what he did would have been fired. And the last point is bogus rhetoric - I'm not aware of any "pussygrabber" constituency.)
.

Don't be silly. Of the past couple weeks have indicated anything, it's that they more than likely wouldn't be fired. They'd settle, or hush it or threaten.

Hollywood is not corporate America. They are not the same. I work in a large Fortune 500 firm and I can tell you allegations like this would be taken seriously and not swept under the rug. As a counterpoint, most of the allegations that have hit the news have involved the entertainment industry. Your argument would have more weight if there were also tons of women coming forth about problems in Fortune 500 firms. We have yet to see that. Maybe we will, if so, then I will agree with you. But so far, I haven't seen any.

And if you don't see the pussy grabber/nazi/homophobe/anti justice/newly pro Russian constituencies you haven't been paying attention.

Uh, please stop. You're throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there. This discussion isn't about Nazi's, homophobes, pro Russians, etc. It's about sexual asault/harassment. Try to stay on topic.

Toe wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:17 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:08 am Look, I'm not engaging in "whataboutism" because I think Moore should be condemned and should not run for the Senate. But as the article I linked to makes clear, Democrats don't have clean hands here. I don't point to Clinton to absolve Moore, I'm just saying we need to be morally consistent, conservatives and liberals.

That is exactly what whataboutism is, "Democrats don't have clean hands here (just look back 20 years ago and see)"

Actually, that''s not what it is. Whataboutism is saying you can't/shouldn't condemn person X because you didn't condemn person Y. I've never made that argument. I think Moore should be condemned by everyone, includig Democrats, but that there also needs to be an honest reckoning with their own past history. I've never said they shouldn't condemn Moore until they have also condemned Clinton. I'm calling for everyone to come clean.

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:31 am

Toe wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:17 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:08 am Look, I'm not engaging in "whataboutism" because I think Moore should be condemned and should not run for the Senate. But as the article I linked to makes clear, Democrats don't have clean hands here. I don't point to Clinton to absolve Moore, I'm just saying we need to be morally consistent, conservatives and liberals.

That is exactly what whataboutism is, "Democrats don't have clean hands here (just look back 20 years ago and see)"

Actually, that''s not what it is. Whataboutism is saying you can't/shouldn't condemn person X because you didn't condemn person Y. I've never made that argument. I think Moore should be condemned by everyone, includig Democrats, but that there also needs to be an honest reckoning with their own past history. I've never said they shouldn't condemn Moore until they have also condemned Clinton. I'm calling for everyone to come clean.

This is fair. For me, the thing with Bill Clinton is that at this point it's hard for me to separate what's real from what's in the Breitbart fever dreams. Clearly Bill Clinton at a minimum was a serial adulterer / philanderer. What I don't have a firm grip on is the extent to which he engaged in sexual abuse / assault, as opposed to consensual philandering. At a minimum there's clearly a power imbalance in his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, I suppose, and that probably taints his other cheating as well, but I don't recall hearing anything from reliable sources that he crossed into what we'll call Weinstein territory.

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:31 am

Toe wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:17 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:08 am Look, I'm not engaging in "whataboutism" because I think Moore should be condemned and should not run for the Senate. But as the article I linked to makes clear, Democrats don't have clean hands here. I don't point to Clinton to absolve Moore, I'm just saying we need to be morally consistent, conservatives and liberals.

That is exactly what whataboutism is, "Democrats don't have clean hands here (just look back 20 years ago and see)"

Actually, that''s not what it is. Whataboutism is saying you can't/shouldn't condemn person X because you didn't condemn person Y. I've never made that argument. I think Moore should be condemned by everyone, includig Democrats, but that there also needs to be an honest reckoning with their own past history. I've never said they shouldn't condemn Moore until they have also condemned Clinton. I'm calling for everyone to come clean.

That is what it is. It's attempting to divert the subject by saying "Well, what about when this happened" and getting people distracted from the primary discussion. It doesn't matter if both people should or shouldn't be condemned. It's an attempt a distraction and obfuscation. In this case, it's an attempt to try and put Moore on the back-burner and make a past event relevant somehow.

The only discussion to have is what Moore has or hasn't done, and what should and shouldn't be done about him. Any dredging of other people and topics is Whataboutism and is pointless. If you want to condemn Democrats, have a different discussion about that and don't involve Moore in it. If you want to have a talk about sexual abusers and predators as a whole, we can lump them together since it's all relevant to that topic.

Don't start a sexual predator topic, though, and then say "Well, what about when we didn't get that college kid for rape. That should have been a stricter punishment" - it would be more Whataboutism because we're not talking about rapists, and were talking about sexual harassers and assaulters.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:37 amThis is fair. For me, the thing with Bill Clinton is that at this point it's hard for me to separate what's real from what's in the Breitbart fever dreams. Clearly Bill Clinton at a minimum was a serial adulterer / philanderer. What I don't have a firm grip on is the extent to which he engaged in sexual abuse / assault, as opposed to consensual philandering. At a minimum there's clearly a power imbalance in his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, I suppose, and that probably taints his other cheating as well, but I don't recall hearing anything from reliable sources that he crossed into what we'll call Weinstein territory.

Whatboutism works!

Paul Ryan's also called for Moore to quit the race. I wonder what pressure / incentive points GOP leadership has to try to induce Moore to quit if he refuses to do so.

Honestly baffled about how this will play out. The big question is whether Moore will ultimately agree to leave or not. Possibilities:

(1) Moore stays in the race. Polls a few days ago suggested Moore's lead was down to being roughly in the +2/+3 range (with a couple polls showing a tie and one showing Jones in the lead). That was before more detail / allegations came out, and before more GOP leadership and other people turned on Moore, so I would assume that Moore's polls have gone done further. This sort of raises the question of what exactly Moore's floor is in Alabama, but it seems reasonably likely that Moore is at best in a tie at this point. If Moore wins, the question is whether the GOP follows through on growing threats to expel the new Senator and have another do-over - that'll probably depend on the political environment come January.

(2) Moore quits the race, the GOP organizes a write-in campaign (presumably for Strange). This kind of seems like arguably the worst case scenario for the GOP. Moore would still be on the ballot, and you figure that Moore would probably still get at least 5% or more of the ultimate vote due to a combination of low-information voters just voting R, and/or Moore die-hards who want to tell the GOP leadership / mainstream media to fuck off. With the race in at least in the area of a tie as it is, most likely those die-hard (and Republican voters who stay home) are probably enough to swing the race into a probable Jones victory.

(3) Moore quits the race, the GOP governor postpones the election, and a new primary is held. Not totally sure of the procedure / legality of this, but this would be my preference if I was McConnell / the GOP. Some short-term bad headlines, but it's still the case that non-crazy / non-pedophile GOP candidate TBD would be a heavy favorite over Jones in a statewide Alabama race.

He's not going to quit - no way. He'll be elected and the overwhelming number of people that care aren't the people that would have voted against him, so nothing will be done. He'll be seated as a Senator and as long as he votes the way he's supposed to, remain in office because he's more useful to the GOP in that capacity. All he needs to do is keep his head down for a bit and wait for the next mass shooting event or the Mueller investigation to ramp up and the stories about how he courted teen girls will fade away.

Me cynical? Yes. Yes I am.

Paingod wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:41 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:31 am

Toe wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:17 am

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:08 am Look, I'm not engaging in "whataboutism" because I think Moore should be condemned and should not run for the Senate. But as the article I linked to makes clear, Democrats don't have clean hands here. I don't point to Clinton to absolve Moore, I'm just saying we need to be morally consistent, conservatives and liberals.

That is exactly what whataboutism is, "Democrats don't have clean hands here (just look back 20 years ago and see)"

Actually, that''s not what it is. Whataboutism is saying you can't/shouldn't condemn person X because you didn't condemn person Y. I've never made that argument. I think Moore should be condemned by everyone, includig Democrats, but that there also needs to be an honest reckoning with their own past history. I've never said they shouldn't condemn Moore until they have also condemned Clinton. I'm calling for everyone to come clean.

That is what it is. It's attempting to divert the subject by saying "Well, what about when this happened" and getting people distracted from the primary discussion. It doesn't matter if both people should or shouldn't be condemned. It's an attempt a distraction and obfuscation. In this case, it's an attempt to try and put Moore on the back-burner and make a past event relevant somehow.

The only discussion to have is what Moore has or hasn't done, and what should and shouldn't be done about him. Any dredging of other people and topics is Whataboutism and is pointless. If you want to condemn Democrats, have a different discussion about that and don't involve Moore in it. If you want to have a talk about sexual abusers and predators as a whole, we can lump them together since it's all relevant to that topic.

Don't start a sexual predator topic, though, and then say "Well, what about when we didn't get that college kid for rape. That should have been a stricter punishment" - it would be more Whataboutism because we're not talking about rapists, and were talking about sexual harassers and assaulters.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:37 amThis is fair. For me, the thing with Bill Clinton is that at this point it's hard for me to separate what's real from what's in the Breitbart fever dreams. Clearly Bill Clinton at a minimum was a serial adulterer / philanderer. What I don't have a firm grip on is the extent to which he engaged in sexual abuse / assault, as opposed to consensual philandering. At a minimum there's clearly a power imbalance in his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, I suppose, and that probably taints his other cheating as well, but I don't recall hearing anything from reliable sources that he crossed into what we'll call Weinstein territory.

Whatboutism works!

As you can see from my post immediately following yours, it is in fact possible to discuss Moore objectively at one point in a discussion and also talk about Bill Clinton and other issues of possible sexual abuse in proximity to each other without tainting the other. I don't see how one can defend the position that "the only discussion to have is what Moore has or hasn't done". That's the only discussion to have that's relevant to the Alabama Senate election, sure, and no other person's abuse can reasonably justify Moore's actions or whether to vote for Moore. But I don't see how that validly shuts down discussions of sexual harassment / abuse issues that are reasonable logical offshoots of the discussion of Moore's conduct.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:23 am

Freyland wrote:The picture loses me a little since it suggests that the picking of teams is random, which really doesn't fit with our political situation. The rest of it, sure.

Given that a large part of our population has it determined by where they are born and subsequent life experiences, I’d say it’s closer to random in a lot of cases than not.

I was born into a Steelers household. Lucky for me they are the best franchise in sports history.

It's the same way with politics, in my opinion. I feel like plenty of people mirror the politics of those around them. My maternal grandparents were Republican, and my mom is also a Republican. My paternal grandmother was an outspoken Democrat, and my Dad always seemed to show preference to the Democrats, so when I was young I said I was a Democrat.

Now, I've grown up and formed my own opinions. I'm not a Democrat, but I'm probably far more liberal than my Dad ever was. I can't say for sure though if I would have always turned into a flaming liberal. Thank god my mom and her parents weren't outspoken in their political beliefs. I might have been a libertarian... gross.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:48 am (3) Moore quits the race, the GOP governor postpones the election, and a new primary is held. Not totally sure of the procedure / legality of this, but this would be my preference if I was McConnell / the GOP. Some short-term bad headlines, but it's still the case that non-crazy / non-pedophile GOP candidate TBD would be a heavy favorite over Jones in a statewide Alabama race.

I don't think he *can* quit the race, as he will still be on the ballot. Saying "I quit now" is really saying "If elected, I will not serve," leaving his party to scramble for a write-in solution. (Spoiler: He will not not serve.)

If quitting in the final weeks triggered a rescheduled election, couldn't every badly trailing candidate do it to give their party a second chance?

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:52 am He's not going to quit - no way. He'll be elected and the overwhelming number of people that care aren't the people that would have voted against him, so nothing will be done. He'll be seated as a Senator and as long as he votes the way he's supposed to, remain in office because he's more useful to the GOP in that capacity. All he needs to do is keep his head down for a bit and wait for the next mass shooting event or the Mueller investigation to ramp up and the stories about how he courted teen girls will fade away.

Me cynical? Yes. Yes I am.

I do have a really hard time seeing the GOP really pushing Moore out, because the write-in option is just such a terrible worst case scenario for them - probably has the highest odds of losing the Senate seat, which would be a catastrophe for the GOP. Of course a big unknown is whether Moore would actually win vs. Jones at this point or not (with big unknowns about what else may come out before the election).

I feel like it's hard to argue with the compelling (for the GOP) logic of postponing the election if they can legally do so.

Holman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:56 am

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:48 am (3) Moore quits the race, the GOP governor postpones the election, and a new primary is held. Not totally sure of the procedure / legality of this, but this would be my preference if I was McConnell / the GOP. Some short-term bad headlines, but it's still the case that non-crazy / non-pedophile GOP candidate TBD would be a heavy favorite over Jones in a statewide Alabama race.

I don't think he *can* quit the race, as he will still be on the ballot. Saying "I quit now" is really saying "If elected, I will not serve," leaving his party to scramble for a write-in solution. (Spoiler: He will not not serve.)

If quitting in the final weeks triggered a rescheduled election, couldn't every badly trailing candidate do it to give their party a second chance?

Quitting wouldn't automatically trigger a rescheduled election, it's just that the Alabama Governor / legislature could use that as a justification for postponing it. And yes, this could potentially work in other situations as well, though it would likely require a cooperative state government (i.e. of the same party as the quitting candidate) - bear in mind that there are a lot of possible / legal shenanigans that have been restrained in the past by governing norms / decency.

Postponing it? Let's ask Greg Gianforte how his problems impacted his ability to get elected and then serve. Oh, that's right, we can't because he won't give interviews.

NY Magazine

When he was first accused of making sexual advances on teen girls when he was working as a district attorney in Alabama in the late ’70s and early ’80s, Roy Moore said that would have been “out of character,” but then added, “I don’t remember dating any girl without the permission of her mother.”
...
On Monday, a fifth woman accused Moore of sexually assaulting her when she was just 16 years old. Beverly Young Nelson said she met Moore in 1977 when he was a regular at Old Hickory House, where she worked.
...
Moore adamantly denied her allegations, saying, as with Corfman, that he does not even know Nelson.

“I want to make it perfectly clear, the people of Alabama know me, they know my character, they know what I’ve stood for in the political world for over 40 years. And I can tell you without hesitation this is absolutely false,” Moore told reporters on Monday evening.
...
Moore also reiterated his claim that all of the allegations are politically motivated. If true, that would mean his enemies are fabricating physical evidence and convincingly forging his signature. Nelson presented a copy of her yearbook in which the then-30-year-old Moore wrote: “To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Christmas 1977. Love, Roy Moore, D.A.”

Below his name, he wrote the date and “Olde Hickory House,” the name of the restaurant he now claims he has no knowledge of.
...
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/930164286143565830

Grifman wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:36 am

Grifman wrote:[. Any corporate CEO who did what he did would have been fired. And the last point is bogus rhetoric - I'm not aware of any "pussygrabber" constituency.)
.

Don't be silly. Of the past couple weeks have indicated anything, it's that they more than likely wouldn't be fired. They'd settle, or hush it or threaten.

Hollywood is not corporate America. They are not the same. I work in a large Fortune 500 firm and I can tell you allegations like this would be taken seriously and not swept under the rug. As a counterpoint, most of the allegations that have hit the news have involved the entertainment industry. Your argument would have more weight if there were also tons of women coming forth about problems in Fortune 500 firms. We have yet to see that. Maybe we will, if so, then I will agree with you. But so far, I haven't seen any.

And if you don't see the pussy grabber/nazi/homophobe/anti justice/newly pro Russian constituencies you haven't been paying attention.

Uh, please stop. You're throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there. This discussion isn't about Nazi's, homophobes, pro Russians, etc. It's about sexual asault/harassment. Try to stay on topic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on- ... rvey-says/

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6713814

And normally I would agree with you about the kitchen sink, but in this case the slippery slope is real. The GOP courtship of fringe and virulently tribal groups has led the party of family and moral values from (in theory) the past to electing child molesters, sexual assaulters, etc. You don't do that without a constituency that thinks it's okay, as long as it's not people from the other side.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Smoove_B wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:05 pm Postponing it? Let's ask Greg Gianforte how his problems impacted his ability to get elected and then serve. Oh, that's right, we can't because he won't give interviews.

The thing is if they don't do something, there's a reasonable chance at this point that Moore loses the election. Yes, it's Alabama, but Moore's lead was not huge before any of this started - pre-allegations, the polling average was something like Moore +5 / +6. Significant enough to make Moore a heavy favorite, but within striking range for Jones. As the first allegations came out that narrowed to +2 / +3 ish. Probably a tie now (at best). Even if the race settled on a coin flip, that's a huge risk for the GOP since they can't really afford to lose this seat. Whereas if they postpone it and get almost any other Republican in Moore's place, the GOP's odds of retaining the seat probably go up to 80%+.

I do wonder if part of the "expulsion of Moore" talk is to assuage uncomfortable Republican voters - "don't worry, you can vote for Moore over the democrat, and we can sort it out later without actually having Moore as a senator". While of course they're ultimately free to find some reason to not expel Moore later (if they think that they can reasonably get away with that).

If no further revelations come out, Moore's going to stay in. I do now believe he could lose, and I'll bet he believes it too, but there's nothing about him that suggests "stepping aside for the good of the party" means anything to him.

As a loser, especially if it's close, he could continue to traffic in Jesus and outrage for years to come. It's not impossible that he could be elected governor.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:18 pm I do wonder if part of the "expulsion of Moore" talk is to assuage uncomfortable Republican voters - "don't worry, you can vote for Moore over the democrat, and we can sort it out later without actually having Moore as a senator". While of course they're ultimately free to find some reason to not expel Moore later (if they think that they can reasonably get away with that).

I think there's a high probability some of that is going on. Any excuse to justify voting for him will do for many people, I suspect.

Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:23 am

Freyland wrote:The picture loses me a little since it suggests that the picking of teams is random, which really doesn't fit with our political situation. The rest of it, sure.

Given that a large part of our population has it determined by where they are born and subsequent life experiences, I’d say it’s closer to random in a lot of cases than not.

I'd go with arbitrary rather than random. While arbitrary does have a certain connotation of randomness, I believe it's a better descriptive term in this context.

Maybe they can write-in Weinstein if Moore is too straight-laced for Alabama.

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:26 am
Hollywood is not corporate America. They are not the same. I work in a large Fortune 500 firm and I can tell you allegations like this would be taken seriously and not swept under the rug. As a counterpoint, most of the allegations that have hit the news have involved the entertainment industry. Your argument would have more weight if there were also tons of women coming forth about problems in Fortune 500 firms. We have yet to see that. Maybe we will, if so, then I will agree with you. But so far, I haven't seen any.

It's hitting corporate America as well. Look at Uber and the forced resignation of Kalanick.

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:31 am

Actually, that''s not what it is. Whataboutism is saying you can't/shouldn't condemn person X because you didn't condemn person Y. I've never made that argument. I think Moore should be condemned by everyone, includig Democrats, but that there also needs to be an honest reckoning with their own past history. I've never said they shouldn't condemn Moore until they have also condemned Clinton. I'm calling for everyone to come clean.

Which seems not only fair but reasonable. I'll admit I supported Clinton when that scandal erupted, but it seemed all a part of the crazy charges that were being thrown around - that the Clintons were drug kingpins, that they murdered people including Vince Foster, etc. It seemed like the same sort of hyperbole. Sure, Bill was a walking lech, but women seemed to be really attracted to him in general and it seemed like he would have no end of willing bed partners. Obviously, in the last 20 years things have gotten a lot clearer, at least for me. He seems to follow the same patterns as so many of these other predators have exhibited. His actions should be reexamined, and he should be treated the same way that Weinstein and Spacey are.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:39 pm

El Guapo wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:18 pm I do wonder if part of the "expulsion of Moore" talk is to assuage uncomfortable Republican voters - "don't worry, you can vote for Moore over the democrat, and we can sort it out later without actually having Moore as a senator". While of course they're ultimately free to find some reason to not expel Moore later (if they think that they can reasonably get away with that).

I think there's a high probability some of that is going on. Any excuse to justify voting for him will do for many people, I suspect.

Funny thing is Doug Jones seems like an excellent candidate who would do a good job for Alabama. In a sane world, he should have been a huge favorite over Moore's crap.

Limbaugh: Moore was a Democrat at time of sexual misconduct allegations.

Ah, that explains everything. Thanks Rush!

Moliere wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:43 pm Limbaugh: Moore was a Democrat at time of sexual misconduct allegations.

Ah. So this is Reagan's fault.

gbasden wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:19 pm

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:26 am
Hollywood is not corporate America. They are not the same. I work in a large Fortune 500 firm and I can tell you allegations like this would be taken seriously and not swept under the rug. As a counterpoint, most of the allegations that have hit the news have involved the entertainment industry. Your argument would have more weight if there were also tons of women coming forth about problems in Fortune 500 firms. We have yet to see that. Maybe we will, if so, then I will agree with you. But so far, I haven't seen any.

It's hitting corporate America as well. Look at Uber and the forced resignation of Kalanick.

Yes, startups tend to have a problem because they are growing fast and don't have an established corporate culture. But I think that's different from most corporate environments.

Moliere wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:43 pm Limbaugh: Moore was a Democrat at time of sexual misconduct allegations.

Ah, that explains everything. Thanks Rush!

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:11 pm And normally I would agree with you about the kitchen sink, but in this case the slippery slope is real. The GOP courtship of fringe and virulently tribal groups has led the party of family and moral values from (in theory) the past to electing child molesters, sexual assaulters, etc. You don't do that without a constituency that thinks it's okay, as long as it's not people from the other side.

My point is that it's hard to have a discussion if you throw everything up on the wall, and force to to talk things that weren't in the original point being discussed.

Grifman wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:23 pm Yes, startups tend to have a problem because they are growing fast and don't have an established corporate culture. But I think that's different from most corporate environments.

When we talk about "corporate culture," we usually think only about the leadership: middle and upper management.

There's reason to believe that harassment is more prevalent in the lower echelons of the service industry than it is in Hollywood. Undocumented and poverty-level workers are less powerful than anyone in the economy, and it makes sense that they would be the most subject to sexual and other pressure.

Grifman wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:11 pm And normally I would agree with you about the kitchen sink, but in this case the slippery slope is real. The GOP courtship of fringe and virulently tribal groups has led the party of family and moral values from (in theory) the past to electing child molesters, sexual assaulters, etc. You don't do that without a constituency that thinks it's okay, as long as it's not people from the other side.

My point is that it's hard to have a discussion if you throw everything up on the wall, and force to to talk things that weren't in the original point being discussed.

You said you weren't aware of pussy grabber constituency as a counter to a particular point, I suggested all the unsavory groups Republican candidates have intentionally courted via dog whistle, nostalgia, religious tribalism. Pussy grabbers and machismo blowhards are core of trumpism and the modern Republican party. I can do what I want power dynamics. You're not forced to talk about anything. But making narrow statements that ignore context or associated problems isn't useful either.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

When Hannity dumps you, that's when you know it's time. LoL

Paingod wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:41 am
That is what it is. It's attempting to divert the subject by saying "Well, what about when this happened" and getting people distracted from the primary discussion. It doesn't matter if both people should or shouldn't be condemned. It's an attempt a distraction and obfuscation. In this case, it's an attempt to try and put Moore on the back-burner and make a past event relevant somehow.

So you think I'm trying to put Moore on the backburner? That I'm trying to distract from Moore? That's absurd given that I fully support Moore's accusers and believe he should not be elected to the Senate. I'm just pointing out that Democrats shouldn't get on too high a horse here given their own past history vis-a-vis Clinton. That's all.

And I'm not the only one:

https://www.axios.com/how-roy-moore-is- ... ce=sidebar

Are Politico, the NYT, MSNBC, the New Yorker, and the Atlantic all trying to divert the subject and engage in distraction and obfuscation?

If they are, I guess I'm in good company!

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:19 pm

Grifman wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:11 pm And normally I would agree with you about the kitchen sink, but in this case the slippery slope is real. The GOP courtship of fringe and virulently tribal groups has led the party of family and moral values from (in theory) the past to electing child molesters, sexual assaulters, etc. You don't do that without a constituency that thinks it's okay, as long as it's not people from the other side.

My point is that it's hard to have a discussion if you throw everything up on the wall, and force to to talk things that weren't in the original point being discussed.

You said you weren't aware of pussy grabber constituency as a counter to a particular point, I suggested all the unsavory groups Republican candidates have intentionally courted via dog whistle, nostalgia, religious tribalism. Pussy grabbers and machismo blowhards are core of trumpism and the modern Republican party.

Sure but it's pretty irrelevant as to whether there is a "pussygrabber" constituency or not, which was the point I was challenging. You're just throwing spaghetti on the wall now.

Grifman wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:19 pm

Grifman wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:11 pm And normally I would agree with you about the kitchen sink, but in this case the slippery slope is real. The GOP courtship of fringe and virulently tribal groups has led the party of family and moral values from (in theory) the past to electing child molesters, sexual assaulters, etc. You don't do that without a constituency that thinks it's okay, as long as it's not people from the other side.

My point is that it's hard to have a discussion if you throw everything up on the wall, and force to to talk things that weren't in the original point being discussed.

You said you weren't aware of pussy grabber constituency as a counter to a particular point, I suggested all the unsavory groups Republican candidates have intentionally courted via dog whistle, nostalgia, religious tribalism. Pussy grabbers and machismo blowhards are core of trumpism and the modern Republican party.

Sure but it's pretty irrelevant as to whether there is a "pussygrabber" constituency or not, which was the point I was challenging. You're just throwing spaghetti on the wall now.

Are you suggesting that the pussy grabber constituency, that previously you said didn't exist, isn't tied culturally to the other problematic groups that modern republicans have courted?

Edit: As to how it relates to your rebuttal of Zarathud's rebuttal is totally relevant.
Sure, Clinton and the dems all are hypocrits, and I would posit most in the world live some level of hypocrisy. But, my comment's relation to the country's current predicament is why your comment is whataboutism.
In a culture with systemic gender biases, Hollywood(in the current climate) took the moment to begin a self reflective purge and light itself on fire (albeit minorly) like dems tend to do with many their many pet injustices.
The Republican party and Trump circle the wagons (in a generally very disciplined manner)and obfuscate as long as it's politically expedient. Fox News built an entire media Empire out of the tactic. At the time of Clinton, would the dems have done it to yeah, sure. But surely you're not equating Moore and Trump with Clinton? That's just silly. Weinstein, and Spacey maybe, and look at what the left is doing to them, look what happened to Weiner's weiner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The left is doing it to them?

So the right is totally ok with Weinstein, Spacey, and Weiner?

Was Breitbart not the one who broke the first Weiner pic? Had he not continued in his conduct the left would have been happy to make him mayor of NY, unfortunately for them he was unable to stay on script.

To try to turn the fall of these three men into some feather in the cap of the left is deplorable.

In other fun news Zimbabwean President-for-life Mugabe seems to have been overthrown in a military coup. The military was seemingly unhappy that the vice president and next in line was purged in favor of Mugabe's wife. The former vice president fled to China last week after he was deposed. Soon thereafter a general in the army visited China. Then coup today. Guess we can put Zimbabwe firmly in China's SOI now.

malchior wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:53 am In other fun news Zimbabwean President-for-life Mugabe seems to have been overthrown in a military coup. The military was seemingly unhappy that the vice president and next in line was purged in favor of Mugabe's wife. The former vice president fled to China last week after he was deposed. Soon thereafter a general in the army visited China. Then coup today. Guess we can put Zimbabwe firmly in China's SOI now.

Maybe this is what Trump was referring to when he congratulated Xi on his "political victory" last week.

I thought it was Congo that China was annexing?

Roy Moore goes Full Martyrdom.

While he never directly addressed the allegations that were first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday, Moore said he was facing “an evil day” and said it was time for Christians to take a stand.

“If you take a stand, you are going to face persecution. … That’s your reward,” he said, referencing the evangelical ideology that “persecution” on earth produces rewards in the afterlife. “Why do you think they’re giving me this trouble? Why do you think I’m being harassed in the media and people pushing for an allegation in the last 28 days of the election?”

He claimed that if it was “God’s will” he would make it to Congress and continued to paint himself as a martyr.

“Don’t think when you stand for truth, when you stand for the recognition of God, that you’re not going to be attacked,” he said.

If there are no further revelations, and maybe even if there are, he's not stepping down.

You can watch the whole sermon at the link. It's about morality.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:54 am You said you weren't aware of pussy grabber constituency as a counter to a particular point, I suggested all the unsavory groups Republican candidates have intentionally courted via dog whistle, nostalgia, religious tribalism. Pussy grabbers and machismo blowhards are core of trumpism and the modern Republican party.

I'm saying you have as of yet failed to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a "pussygrabber constituency" - a significant group of people who support Trump because of sexual assault. Do that, then we can talk about everyone else