|
Angry_Ed posted:I'm not the one regurgitating right wing talking points designed to cover up the moral hypocrisy of the GOP. For gently caress's sake this has been going on for over 2 decades. Al Franken loving devoted a whole chapter to it in full satire mode in his first book lol there is a person alive who thinks that uncovering the "moral hypocrisy of the GOP" will have a persuasive effect on anyone who would consider voting for any GOP candidate
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Boon posted:You're on a false premise. Because the reality is that only one party will ever be held responsible by their constituents. Until you can overcome that premise your dichotomy will never be accurate. Eh that guy who pressured his mistress to get an abortion resigned (Tim Murphy?) Also like two Republicans resigned from the Oklahoma state legislature for sexual misconduct and Dems picked up their seats. Republican voters do care. Now maybe they don't care as much, or maybe they're more willing to put that aside to stop abortions or w/e, but even if that's the case: if Democrat-leaning voters care about ethics and Republican-leaning voters don't then "well Republicans do it too" is not a smart damage-control strategy imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Yes. Clearly. It is why you are attacking only democrats. The enemy of his enemy is the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
emdash posted:lol there is a person alive who thinks that uncovering the "moral hypocrisy of the GOP" will have a persuasive effect on anyone who would consider voting for any GOP candidate If the GOP is undefeatable, then why bother running.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
emdash posted:lol there is a person alive who thinks that uncovering the "moral hypocrisy of the GOP" will have a persuasive effect on anyone who would consider voting for any GOP candidate It's not gop voters who the gop is trying to wedge apart. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, that's what I'm saying. By insisting that scrutiny into the lives of politicians is yielding to right wing pressure, you are setting up incidents where they are going to end up in the middle of some scandal at the worst possible time. This is inane. Nobody's doing what you're claiming. The objection isn't to "scrutiny." The objection is to the mindless kneejerk "[Bad Thing] --> OBAMA" flagellation-by-association that happens on a near weekly basis with every negative news story that can possibly be associated somehow with something bad that some Democrat somewhere (preferably, a brown one) did. It's just at totemic Two Minutes' Hate, and it isn't based in anything other than reflex partisanship. And again, the red flag here is that the attack is against Obama rather than Bill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The enemy of his enemy is the GOP. that doesn't make the GOP his friend tho. you could just as validly say the enemy of his enemy is the democrats
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The GOP and Democrats play on the same field, if the GOP is able to do a better job defending themselves from scandals, it is because the other team is doing something very, very wrong. The GOP does a better job defending themselves from their scandals because the American people easily fall victim to "Look over there!" and both-sides-ism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Why am i reading a clinton rape truther I don't know, I liked Bill during his presidency but as time passes it's harder to overlook just how inappropriate his sexual relationship with Lewinsky was. Clearly the Republican party tried their best to politically capitalize on it and did it in total bad faith, but it was still wrong. Ideally a politician caught doing the same today would be identified as a sexual abuser regardless of their political orientation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This isn't a courtroom and they're not talking ot a judge. "Sexual assault is bad, but I'm not going to directly condemn this serial sexual assaulter until he's convicted in a court of law" isn't really worth issuing a press release over. You're right, the DOJ should've just disappeared Harvey Weinstein the first time anyone said anything. No trial, no nothing. Let's throw rules out the window. We can't let these people get away, after all. Nevermind the fact that we now have a serial rapist as president precisely because of this team sport bullshit you claim you're not engaging in. Taerkar posted:The GOP does a better job defending themselves from their scandals because the American people easily fall victim to "Look over there!" and both-sides-ism. No you see it's perfectly fine to only call out Democrats for this behavior and nobody else because 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Now maybe they don't care as much, or maybe they're more willing to put that aside to stop abortions or w/e, but even if that's the case: if Democrat-leaning voters care about ethics and Republican-leaning voters don't then "well Republicans do it too" is not a smart damage-control strategy imo Nah, Republicans are green twisted goblins who live inside my head and tell me to set things on fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that doesn't make the GOP his friend tho. you could just as validly say the enemy of his enemy is the democrats Wait. Who is his enemy then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is inane. Nobody's doing what you're claiming. The objection isn't to "scrutiny." You're a good poster and usually reasonable, so I feel like I should let you know that there's two distinct conversations going on right now (the Obama stuff and the Right Wing Russian Smearjob stuff). I think most people here agree that there isn't enough about Obama specifically to go after him over, but there's definitely an issue with some posters turning off their ability to critically examine situations if they think republicans are responsible for the conversaton in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
The answer to "BOTH SIDES DO IT" that is to not self-own by allowing powerful people with very sketchy histories to get prominent voices within the party. There was enough smoke around Weinstein that letting him have personal access to the Clinton campaign was a huge risk if it turned out that half of the stuff was true. Take his money if he wants to give it whatever, but there should have been a separation between him and the party apparatus so that when it all came out this week the answer was "we just took his money like we would have taken any donor's and it's returned" but now they have to answer to why people that worked with him had absolutely no idea of what he was doing. In alternate reality USA, this would be a gigantic issue for President Clinton and there is no way his support would be worth it. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:You can separate the actual pro-victim posters from the people just using it to score points in a thread where nobody supports republicans because the latter are acting like Clinton, then-president of the united states coercing an intern into sucking his dick isn't some sort of unethical breach of power and abuse of authority at best. loving lol you're suggesting that people creating fantasy worlds where the Obamas' let their daughter intern for a dude they knew was a sex offender are pro-victim. All of it is for dumb point scoring and it's disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:No you see it's perfectly fine to only call out Democrats for this behavior and nobody else because I mean, poo poo, we're talking about people who believe that vote fraud happens because A) there's almost no reports of it ever happening and B) that one time that group tried to commit vote fraud they got caught.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I don't know, I liked Bill during his presidency but as time passes it's harder to overlook just how inappropriate his sexual relationship with Lewinsky was. Clearly the Republican party tried their best to politically capitalize on it and did it in total bad faith, but it was still wrong. Ideally a politician caught doing the same today would be identified as a sexual abuser regardless of their political orientation. i feel the same. i thought that the repubs just blew things out of the water back then, but the power disparity between Lewinsky and clinton was too large, and I am extremely doubtful that it can be considered anything but sexual abuse nowadays. we ban professors from having relationships with their students, psychiatrists from having relationships with their patients. it only make sense to ban bosses from having sexual relationships with the people who work below them, especially when said boss is the most powerful man in the world (maybe someday most powerful woman)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If the GOP is undefeatable, then why bother running. i don't know how the GOP will be defeated but it won't be by demonstrating moral superiority. anyone who would consider voting for any GOP candidate has no moral compass or a badly broken one
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The GOP does a better job defending themselves from their scandals because the American people easily fall victim to "Look over there!" and both-sides-ism. And we will be able to defeat this by....pointing out that they're going "look over there!" and that this resolves that we're playing directly into both-sides-ism by trying to absolve ourselves. I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Wait. Who is his enemy then? well, if he's anything like me, both are, though the dems are to a lesser degree
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:loving lol you're suggesting that people creating fantasy worlds where the Obamas' let their daughter intern for a dude they knew was a sex offender are pro-victim. All of it is for dumb point scoring and it's disgusting. There's multiple posters here and multiple iterations of the argument going on. It's pretty fuckin' disingenuous to pretend that I'm supporting everything Condiv supports/puts forth when I denounce people trying to play down Bill's scandals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:loving lol you're suggesting that people creating fantasy worlds where the Obamas' let their daughter intern for a dude they knew was a sex offender are pro-victim. All of it is for dumb point scoring and it's disgusting. i would wager that there are a poo poo ton of sex offenders among the rich and powerful
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Radish posted:The answer to "BOTH SIDES DO IT" that is to not self-own by allowing powerful people with very sketchy histories to get prominent voices within the party. There was enough smoke around Weinstein that letting him have personal access to the Clinton campaign was a huge risk if it turned out that half of the stuff was true. I agree with this. My point is that it's pointless as gently caress to act like this is purely a Democrat failing when they are at least giving out statements denouncing him (I know, closing the barn door after the cows have left and all that) and additionally that we now have a wealth of people coming forward now that whatever money and power Weinstein had isn't shielding him anymore (power that is enough to keep people like Terry Crewes from even naming who groped him). Fear of reprisal is a terrible thing the rich and well-connected use, after all. Going forward it is imperative that the Democrats stop putting themselves too close to sketchy rich people outside of taking donations (but not letting that affect policy). But asking "what did Obama know and when did he know it" is not part of that process, it is instead a calculated attack specifically designed to distract people from the current ongoing bumblefuck of the GOP's handling of the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:though the dems are to a lesser degree FYI no one believes you think this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Radish posted:The answer to "BOTH SIDES DO IT" that is to not self-own by allowing powerful people with very sketchy histories to get prominent voices within the party. There was enough smoke around Weinstein that letting him have personal access to the Clinton campaign was a huge risk if it turned out that half of the stuff was true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
farraday posted:FYI no one believes you think this. well, that's pretty idiotic. i love keith ellison and a few other dems, while i hate republicans entirely oh, i guess it's because i don't waste my time saying the republicans suck 20x a day
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
This is about creating bullshit moral grandstanding that tries to pin the party of justice reform to hypocritical personal action. Bullshit because the personal action everyone is getting mad at the Obamas for not taking is the same personal action each of us fails to take in abuse situations because we don't see it or are very uncertain This is the same president who burned political capital to institute better mechanisms in colleges to help this stuff get reported and aid the victim. Stop reading your takes from Betsy Devos and think for just a second on what it is exactly you're trying to accuse the Obamas of doing
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
emdash posted:i don't know how the GOP will be defeated but it won't be by demonstrating moral superiority. anyone who would consider voting for any GOP candidate has no moral compass or a badly broken one What about the people who voted for Obama but not for Clinton, or the cca 20% Clinton primary voters who switched to McCain? Are those people irredeemable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
I guess we know what the latest Russian ad buys are gonna be based on the last couple pages. Bring back the gifs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This is about creating bullshit moral grandstanding that tries to pin the party of justice reform to hypocritical personal action. Bullshit because the personal action everyone is getting mad at the Obamas for not taking is the same personal action each of us fails to take in abuse situations because we don't see it or are very uncertain That's why instead of Obama the criticism should be shifted on the scope of permissible behavior by politicians in general. By prohibiting unethical conduct in general we remove the onus of integrity from the individual and make it a structural feature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I guess we know what the latest Russian ad buys are gonna be based on the last couple pages. And it could have been entirely avoided had Democrats followed even the most rudimentary precautions. Sad!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:well, that's pretty idiotic. i love keith ellison and a few other dems, while i hate republicans entirely Tell us more about your Dem friend, do you have a picture with him?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's why instead of Obama the criticism should be shifted on the scope of permissible behavior by politicians in general. By prohibiting unethical conduct in general we remove the onus of integrity from the individual and make it a structural feature. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's why instead of Obama the criticism should be shifted on the scope of permissible behavior by politicians in general. By prohibiting unethical conduct in general we remove the onus of integrity from the individual and make it a structural feature. Agreed 100%. Remove the benefits of having these kinds of relationships, make it an outright penalty with actual repercussions, and it'll at least be a step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:well, that's pretty idiotic. i love keith ellison and a few other dems, while i hate republicans entirely it's more because you use every opportunity you get to dunk on clinton and the establishment dems. it's not even necessarily that what you say is wrong (of course sexual assault is disgusting and wrong, of course corruption is bad), it's more that you give the strong impression that you're really only looking for ways to get mad at the clinton wing, and the specific allegations are just a means to an end. it's why people get annoyed at glenn greenwald, who also never misses an opportunity to go "but obama  " whenever a republican does something lovely. it stops looking genuine after a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
farraday posted:Tell us more about your Dem friend, do you have a picture with him? i've never met keith ellison personally, but i think he would be very nice in person but here's a picture of him!  also, my family are all democrats and I considered myself one too until 2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
botany posted:it's more because you use every opportunity you get to dunk on clinton and the establishment dems. it's not even necessarily that what you say is wrong (of course sexual assault is disgusting and wrong, of course corruption is bad), it's more that you give the strong impression that you're really only looking for ways to get mad at the clinton wing, and the specific allegations are just a means to an end. it's why people get annoyed at glenn greenwald, who also never misses an opportunity to go "but obama
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What about the people who voted for Obama but not for Clinton, or the cca 20% Clinton primary voters who switched to McCain? Are those people irredeemable? Very few people are literally irredeemable, but they sure aren't going to be redeemed by electoral politics or have their moral compass spontaneously repaired by witnessing democrats "taking the high road" or whatever the gently caress. They can only be won over by happenstance, you either get them on some single issue that convinces them during that election cycle or you don't. (A big reason why Clinton lost is trying to chase exactly these people. Focus on getting nonparticipants to participate.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
botany posted:it's more because you use every opportunity you get to dunk on clinton and the establishment dems. it's not even necessarily that what you say is wrong (of course sexual assault is disgusting and wrong, of course corruption is bad), it's more that you give the strong impression that you're really only looking for ways to get mad at the clinton wing, and the specific allegations are just a means to an end. it's why people get annoyed at glenn greenwald, who also never misses an opportunity to go "but obama cause i see them as the problem holding the democrats back. i want the dems to win, to push back against the growing fascism in the US, and to reform a whole lot of poo poo. I gave obama the benefit of the doubt for far too long thinking he would be good in that regard, and I don't like him now after he spent his presidency letting the banks get away with all the poo poo they did. can you really blame me for attacking the clinton and establishment dems when i blame them for the precarious situation the party is in? am i wrong to think that them giving up and being soft on businesses and trying to capture republican votes is hurting the party and the country?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I agree with this. My point is that it's pointless as gently caress to act like this is purely a Democrat failing when they are at least giving out statements denouncing him (I know, closing the barn door after the cows have left and all that) and additionally that we now have a wealth of people coming forward now that whatever money and power Weinstein had isn't shielding him anymore (power that is enough to keep people like Terry Crewes from even naming who groped him). Fear of reprisal is a terrible thing the rich and well-connected use, after all. Yeah I don't think it's even possible to know which Democrats knew and which didn't. The issue people are having is that since a lot of this is originating from Republican voices trying to capitalize on this scandal there's the opinion that all criticism of how the Democrats conduct their business is argued in bad faith. I want the Democrats to not open themselves up to these sorts of attacks by taking risky behaviors in the pursuit of donations and access to powerful people and more importantly not contribute (inadvertently or not) to the overall systemic issues that women face from sexual predators. The worry from me is that simply saying "well Trump is obviously worse" or "you are just falling for Republican messaging" results in no change to this status quo. I'm glad that there is a lot of people denouncing him now that it's public but this stuff has been an open secret for years and there needed to be more effort to get ahead of it; there's no way the entire entertainment industry was looking the other way for decades and absolutely no one in Democratic leadership positions was the wiser. Angry_Ed posted:Agreed 100%. Remove the benefits of having these kinds of relationships, make it an outright penalty with actual repercussions, and it'll at least be a step in the right direction. Yeah! Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 16:17
|
|