Let's talk Moore

[zil]

Just now, Grunt said:

I don't know if you just called me a fool or agreed with me.

I agreed with you.  Just because it's legal - you're "allowed" - doesn't mean it's right.

[prisonchaplain]

56 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant to me, personally.  Many things that are legal I find immoral.

I can question POTUS' morality all day long--it wouldn't drive me to call for his impeachment. However, it he had molested, sexually abused, or raped someone . . . well, that becomes beyond the pale. In Moore's case, yeah, I find it disgusting that a guy in his 30s is seeking dates with 16-year olds. Am I going to call for his removal from the senate, if he's elected, because he did that 40 years ago? Probably not. If he molested a 14-year old, though...probably so.

[Grunt]

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I can question POTUS' morality all day long--it wouldn't drive me to call for his impeachment. However, it he had molested, sexually abused, or raped someone . . . well, that becomes beyond the pale. In Moore's case, yeah, I find it disgusting that a guy in his 30s is seeking dates with 16-year olds. Am I going to call for his removal from the senate, if he's elected, because he did that 40 years ago? Probably not. If he molested a 14-year old, though...probably so.

Everyone has different levels of immorality they are willing to tolerate.  When it comes to public officials, I have pretty high expectations.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I can question POTUS' morality all day long--it wouldn't drive me to call for his impeachment. However, it he had molested, sexually abused, or raped someone . . . well, that becomes beyond the pale. In Moore's case, yeah, I find it disgusting that a guy in his 30s is seeking dates with 16-year olds. Am I going to call for his removal from the senate, if he's elected, because he did that 40 years ago? Probably not. If he molested a 14-year old, though...probably so.

On Trump...I'm not sure what they were writing about where you were but our news was inundated with news about his molesting certain woman.  I think he has some lawsuits for slander against some of them currently, or so I've heard, and after the election, for some odd reason, they mysteriously vanished.  In one instance however, there was a written affidavit that he had raped her...and it was talked about quite a bit.  That individual I think was his former wife, and the news reports were quite graphic on what happened (at least to my older reading eyes). 

I'm still waiting to see what the outcome with Moore will be.  Luckily I'm not in Alabama, so I have no say in the matter in voting.  It's up to their voters to decide...HOWEVER, I know politically, the entire reason that it's a matter nationally has nothing to do with Moore, but that the Democrats want to have that seat so badly they'll do just about anything for it.

This is why Moore is probably not castigated in Alabama right now.  A LOT of people have wised up to the media campaigns on the behalf of the Democrats, and as such, with the timing, it seems ESPECIALLY suspicious (let's say Moore leaves the race, you literally cannot put someone else on the ticket right now, it's a runoff, if Moore leaves, Jones automatically wins the race and the Democrats get the seat by default as the Republicans forfeit).  Many don't understand that situation, and the placing of the story as it was, was the best thing politically for the Democrats to do.

What should be interesting is to see what happens with the accusers once the election is over. The best scenario would be for Moore to win, be censored and unable to take his seat and needs to be replaced by the Alabama Republicans with another Republican.  In this instance, if the accusations are real they probably will continue, but if they are fake, as has happened occasionally with other situations like this, they fade after the election.  That may be more telling on whether it was politically motivated or something the victim sincerely felt needed to be brought up.  After the election, this is something they should double down on, not shy away from just because the election is over, especially for something this serious of an accusation.

In that instance, they need to continue investigating and leading the charge where it will turn out like situations where other politicians who WERE guilty of things like this eventually paid for it in one way or the other, instead of letting it slide by.  If it's basically just purely politically motivated however, we will see it probably fade away to nothing after the election is over.  In this instance, it's a wait and see what happens for me.

Edited November 23, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[pwrfrk]

I tried explaining the facts of life to a predominantly LDS membership of a GOP facebook group and the end result was a barrage of insults and attacks from the LDS members and then getting kicked out.  Fact is, Trump is right- there are women that don't mind being treated like sex toys.  And there are omen that will lie from one end of rht egalaxy to the other just for a chance to deestroy someone, sometimes for no reason other than to just do it.  The bad news is, tht means that women are no longer god-like creatures, but just as human as you and I.  And ther are some men out there that don't care what the truth is, if a woman say the sky is purple, by all means it's purple.

[Grunt]

47 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

I tried explaining the facts of life to a predominantly LDS membership of a GOP facebook group and the end result was a barrage of insults and attacks from the LDS members and then getting kicked out.  Fact is, Trump is right- there are women that don't mind being treated like sex toys.  And there are omen that will lie from one end of rht egalaxy to the other just for a chance to deestroy someone, sometimes for no reason other than to just do it.  The bad news is, tht means that women are no longer god-like creatures, but just as human as you and I.  And ther are some men out there that don't care what the truth is, if a woman say the sky is purple, by all means it's purple.

And some men are rapists.

[askandanswer]

On 11/23/2017 at 10:11 AM, zil said:

An ethical person ought to do more than he's required to do and less than he's allowed to do.
-- Michael Josephson, quoted in "Bill Moyers' World of Ideas"

ETA: I have no idea who Michael Josephson is, but the quote is good.

@zil for your benefit: Michael Josephson is the guy who said "An ethical person ought to do more than he's required to do and less than he's allowed to do." Now you know who he is  

[askandanswer]

On 11/18/2017 at 11:44 AM, MormonGator said:

Did I ever tell you how wonderful and handsome I am? No? Well, it's out there.

Well, from the perspective of a female gator, this claim just might be true. But given your usual propensity towrds dishonesty, I'm inclined to doubt it

[pwrfrk]

7 hours ago, Grunt said:

And some men are rapists.

Precisely!  All men are rapists, and all women are gold-plated sinless goddesses....just not in this lifetime.

Yes, the fact is, some men ARE rapists.  And...the...relevence of that...to what I said...is...what?

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not downplaying the horrific impact that rape has on men or women (men get raped too, or did you forget that?).  But I see no comparison to what I said, thus it is irrelevant.

Yes, some women don't mind being treated like sex toys.  Some even like it.  I had one GF many years ago that wanted to play-act being raped.  She loved doing that, and I still to this have no idea how or why.  I dumped her quick.

However, just as men are imperfect, so are women.  Some women enjoy being man-handled as described by Donald Trump, and there are plenty of women that would rather take to you with a ball bat if you touched them like that.  It has little to do with the immorality of the men, but everything to do with the morality of the women.  Would they be any more morally clean if the men were?  So would that not mean that the women are not as independent as you want to believe?  Some are, and they push hard for respect.  Some aren't, and they really don't care, so long as you pay the price they want.

Tell me this- Would Melania and Donald be married now if Donald made only $250,000 a year?  And if he made $25,000, instead?  Answer that, Grunt.  Is it his fault they are married?  Is it hers?  What role did h play in their relationship before they got married?  And what about her role?  Tell me/us about it Grunt. 

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not downplaying the horrific impact that rape has on men or women (men get raped too, or did you forget that?). 

 

Typically by other men.  I believe the number of men raped by women is infinitesimal by comparison.  Statutory rape probably raises the count, by not by much.

3 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

Yes, the fact is, some men ARE rapists.  And...the...relevence of that...to what I said...is...what?

1

The relevance is you just typed a paragraph in support of not believing assault claims because of how many women are liars.  My experience causes me to believe that while some women may, in fact, be liars, far more women are victims of sexual assault than report it.   

3 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

Tell me this- Would Melania and Donald be married now if Donald made only $250,000 a year?  And if he made $25,000, instead?  Answer that, Grunt.  Is it his fault they are married?  Is it hers?  What role did h play in their relationship before they got married?  And what about her role?  Tell me/us about it Grunt. 

 

That depends.  Would Melania and Donald be married if she was an Outback Steakhouse dishwasher?   It's not unusual for people of similar social statuses to marry.  Look at the world.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Well, from the perspective of a female gator, this claim just might be true. But given your usual propensity towrds dishonesty, I'm inclined to doubt it

 Dishonest? How do you know I'm not a Ph.D in three fields, professional football player and I'm starting my own acting career. 

[mirkwood]

51 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Dishonest? How do you know I'm not a Ph.D in three fields, professional football player and I'm starting my own acting career. 

Starting?  Have you read your posts?

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 Dishonest? How do you know I'm not a Ph.D in three fields, professional football player and I'm starting my own acting career. 

I know your dishonest because you said you are wonderful and handsome. Ain't no way that that can be true! 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I know your dishonest because you said you are wonderful and handsome. Ain't no way that that can be true! 

You are right. I meant to say awesome and gorgeous. 

[pwrfrk]

7 hours ago, Grunt said:

Typically by other men.  I believe the number of men raped by women is infinitesimal by comparison.  Statutory rape probably raises the count, by not by much.

The relevance is you just typed a paragraph in support of not believing assault claims because of how many women are liars.  My experience causes me to believe that while some women may, in fact, be liars, far more women are victims of sexual assault than report it.   

That depends.  Would Melania and Donald be married if she was an Outback Steakhouse dishwasher?   It's not unusual for people of similar social statuses to marry.  Look at the world.

The problem is, you are focusing on rape.  I’m talking about when Trump told a reporter about how there are women out there that like being mistreated as a sex toy, and the whole world seems to think it’s HIS fault, when it’s not. For crying out loud!  The reponses people have provided is nauseating!   
 

No, I don’t think so.  Please explain that to me in detail, quoting specifically what I said and explain how it is saying that ALL women are liars.  I really do not see that.

I know that there is a lot of sexual assault, on both sides- men and women-and if anything the victim is again victimized by the lack of response by the “authorities”.  That is more sickening than the arrogance shown by many.

 

I disagree.  While I understand what you are talking about, I assure you if Donald was a dishwasher in a eatery somewhere, Melania wouldn’t even give him a second look, if she even looked at him at all.

 

[Grunt]

52 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

No, I don’t think so.  Please explain that to me in detail, quoting specifically what I said and explain how it is saying that ALL women are liars.  I really do not see that.

 

 

I did quote you in detail.  Unfortunately, you didn't quote me in detail.  I never claimed you said all women are liars.  I said your entire rebuttal focused on how women lie.

 

54 minutes ago, pwrfrk said:

I disagree.  While I understand what you are talking about, I assure you if Donald was a dishwasher in a eatery somewhere, Melania wouldn’t even give him a second look, if she even looked at him at all.

 

1

You disagree, then you say exactly what I said?

[NightSG]

12 hours ago, Grunt said:

It's not unusual for people of similar social statuses to marry.  Look at the world.

I'm trying to think of the number of times I've met single women making more than low six figures in any sort of situation where it would be appropriate to express such an interest.  Not coming up with any off the top of my head.  The inverse (the person of higher social status meeting one of lower status, particularly at the level where one could easily create such an opportunity) seems more likely.

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I'm trying to think of the number of times I've met single women making more than low six figures in any sort of situation where it would be appropriate to express such an interest.  Not coming up with any off the top of my head.  The inverse (the person of higher social status meeting one of lower status, particularly at the level where one could easily create such an opportunity) seems more likely.

I suppose that depends on where you draw the line.  It also works different down here at the lower end of the spectrum.  I don't put much difference on incomes under a few hundred thousand.  

 

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I suppose that depends on where you draw the line.  It also works different down here at the lower end of the spectrum.  I don't put much difference on incomes under a few hundred thousand.  

Even still, when you get to a certain amount of difference, the higher definitely has more control over the potential for a meeting than the lower.  Trump would be welcome to troll for chicks at my party as long as he brings food, whereas I doubt a Taco Casa family pack would get me into his.

[Grunt]

4 hours ago, NightSG said:

Even still, when you get to a certain amount of difference, the higher definitely has more control over the potential for a meeting than the lower.  Trump would be welcome to troll for chicks at my party as long as he brings food, whereas I doubt a Taco Casa family pack would get me into his.

This is absolutely true.  However, I said "it's not unusual for people of similar social statuses to marry".  I never intended to imply that higher social statuses never met lower, or vice versa.  

[anatess2]

On 11/22/2017 at 11:49 PM, JohnsonJones said:

In that instance, they need to continue investigating and leading the charge where it will turn out like situations where other politicians who WERE guilty of things like this eventually paid for it in one way or the other, instead of letting it slide by.  If it's basically just purely politically motivated however, we will see it probably fade away to nothing after the election is over.  In this instance, it's a wait and see what happens for me.

I don't know.  This is one of the things that got me perked up on the Roy Moore case.  He is slugging it out with the accusers.  He's been tweeting daily about the number of days it has been since he asked Allred to produce the yearbook for forensic exam and Allred still refusing to hand it over.  He has another case where he has some witnesses lined up to refute the accusers story ready to go when it goes to court.  The way Moore is handling this, it really looks like he is out for Ender-style beat down where he is not just fighting for a senate seat but fighting to destroy the Democratic playbook so they'll never be able to use it again.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if he pushes this to court even if he wins the seat.

In any case, I don't know if Moore is truly innocent or he's bluffing.  That's the thing that really irks me about GOPe's.  They are more concerned about saving their skins than the presumption of innocence until proven guilty that is A FUNDAMENTAL element of a just society.

Edited November 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I don't know.  This is one of the things that got me perked up on the Roy Moore case.  He is slugging it out with the accusers.  He's been tweeting daily about the number of days it has been since he asked Allred to produce the yearbook for forensic exam and Allred still refusing to hand it over.  He has another case where he has some witnesses lined up to refute the accusers story ready to go when it goes to court.  The way Moore is handling this, it really looks like he is out for Ender-style beat down where he is not just fighting for a senate seat but fighting to destroy the Democratic playbook so they'll never be able to use it again.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if he pushes this to court even if he wins the seat.

I wonder how much of Moore's counter-attack was dependent on the Project Veritas scam being successful. 

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In any case, I don't know if Moore is truly innocent or he's bluffing.  That's the thing that really irks me about GOPe's.  They are more concerned about saving their skins than the presumption of innocence until proven guilty that is A FUNDAMENTAL element of a just society.

1

It's not a court case.  It's a senate race.  My standards are different for each.

[Just_A_Guy]

40 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It's not a court case.  It's a senate race.  My standards are different for each.

Yeah, and it’s not like our current president rode into office on a wave of “lock her up!” chants directed at his unconvicted opponent, or anything . . .  

Awfully late in the game for some folks to start pretending to give a flying fig about “innocence”.  Or “truth”, for that matter.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JoCa]

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, and it’s not like our current president rode into office on a wave of “lock her up!” chants directed at his unconvicted opponent, or anything . . .  

Awfully late in the game for some folks to start pretending to give a flying fig about “innocence”.  Or “truth”, for that matter.

?? Sometimes I wonder if people truly don't read.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/27/blowback-clinton-campaign-planned-to-fire-me-over-email-probe-obama-intel-watchdog-says.html

The Intelligence Community Inspector General (i.e. the head of the IC that investigates cases of waste, fraud, abuse, ethical concerns, etc) reports that the Clinton Campaign directly threatened his job (he was an Obama appointee!) if the e-mail thing didn't go the "right way"

Asked what would have happened to him if he had done such a thing(i.e. the same thing as Clinton), McCullough said: “I'd be sitting in Leavenworth right now.”

The only people who can't see what Clinton did was a most likely a crime at least worthy of a jury are individuals with their own personal biases who can't seem to read an investigate.  

Huge difference between an unsubstantiated (he said/she said) accusation of something that happened 40 years ago that has never been reported previously and the most powerful political family in modern history making threats to ensure an investigation only goes one way.  From the FBI calling it a "matter", to Comey drafting the exoneration e-mail months prior to this . . .she is guilty as sin.  

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!

:-).