Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[Zonkerbl]

Isnt there picture evidence of her? Pretty substantial difference there, like I dont even understand how its debatable. She mentioned in her resignation cryade about the pictures And these pictures and talk didnt come out as soon as she put her name in the hat, unlike the allegations that suddenly surfaced when Kavanaugh was set to be in the SCOTUS.

Ignore that major piece of the puzzle

JFC dude. She was in a consensual three-way relationship and they took nude pictures. Then the criminal ex hubby sold those pictures to a right wing publication so they could use the pictures to revenge porn her out of office.

Shut the hell up about stuff you know nothing about. Unless you are saying she is guilty *automatically* because nude pictures of her in a consensual relationship exist. She's not accused of raping someone like Kavanaugh was, so your both sidesing this is complete horsecrap.

Dont quote me and use that derogatory acronym. She was in a relationship with a staffer, no one said it wasn't consensual, its still wrong based on her position. Heck, she admitted that herself, so yeah this outcry, and acting like she's a victim is what's horsecrap. She did it, she's paying for it. her stupid self is the one that consented to the pics that proved her guilt. There's no such thing that can prove Kavanaugh's guilt. if anything, an accuser hiring Avenntti as her lawyer proves his innocence more than any claims have proven guilt.

JFC dude Trump and Kavanaugh have raped people with credible witnesses, Don Jr. is making millions of his Dad's name, Kushner is running around giving the green light to assassinations of US resident journalists, and you think it's ok to revenge porn this woman out of office. IF IT WASN'T FOR THE REVENGE PORN SHE WOULDN'T HAVE QUIT. And she would have been right not to quit.

[daoneandonly]

No one cares about her pics, its that the pics prove she was in a relationship with a subordinate, which she already admitted to. There's no injustice here, she did something that was a fire-able offense in any industry, but should especially be true for political positions and now she's gone. Tata

Where's your outrage for Duncan Hunter?

Whether or not there was injustice or not is subjective but surely we should be trying to treat things similarly?

If he did it, sure he too should be forced to step down. Every word I read in the non NY TImes, Wash Post articles on it are flooded with the word "allegedly", five times in just this one below:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/25/duncan-hunter-campaign-funds-affairs-1382197

So again if there is actual proof, like he was stupid enough to take pictures like Hill's dumb self, he admitted to it, or any other sure fire proof, than get this guy out forthwith. Until then, its not the same. A picture is worth a thousand words. It's not revenge porn or slut shaming, its proof positive to the bank that she acted improperly and unprofessionally, and for that, she's out.

But once again the left acts like there's some conspiracy against women. We fight for a baby who doesn't have a voice, we must hate women, even though half of those babies would be women. A moron takes pictures with a subordinate lover proving her guilt, but no, its women hating somehow.

[dobrojim]

I was gone (camping) for a few days and missed (sorta) the last few
pages until now. Before I left I have a vague recollection that a certain
regular poster made a statement that they would cease from going on
and on (and on) about their pet issue. I figured at the time I should take
that statement with a grain of salt. Turns out a grain of a grain would
have been more than enough.

Old canards are just older and more tiresome, certainly not more true.

A fetus was not a person before and is not one now. This poster
has a different view. And that different view is different than that
of most people. All this is fine up to the point of trying to impose
their own unpopular view on everyone else, no matter how poorly
the outcome of that effort would work in practice.

Another carnard

He seems to believe only his party doesn't believe in 'free stuff'
as if rich people didn't benefit hugely from public spending on a
wide variety of projects and policies, that they got that way (rich)
only through being clever and hard working, traits that poor
people couldn't possibly possess or they wouldn't be poor right?

This horse has been led to water many times but is dying
of thirst. It has no interest in water.

[daoneandonly]

Because pet issue is relevant here, Republicans dont hate women, its a tired argument. A tired argument for why ppl are pro life and a tired argument for why Hill got her comeuppance

And I'll say it again, dont force your belief that the higher paying earners owe anything to the lower, its not some kumayah compound, its the United States of America. I've already proven how so many legal immigrants from 3rd world countries busted their butts to make it here and move up those tax brackets, if they can do it, surely US citizens can too

Flat tax for all

[queridiculo]

What a colossal moron, just **** off and die already.

[daoneandonly]

You're a POS to sya that to anyone. Why dont you send money to the kids you abandoned when you went to out to the store and never came back? You're a cliche without balls querdi, and nothing more

You dont even live in this country, so stay the hell out of our affairs

[JWizmentality]

Because pet issue is relevant here, Republicans dont hate women, its a tired argument. A tired argument for why ppl are pro life and a tired argument for why Hill got her comeuppance

And I'll say it again, dont force your belief that the higher paying earners owe anything to the lower, its not some kumayah compound, its the United States of America. I've already proven how so many legal immigrants from 3rd world countries busted their butts to make it here and move up those tax brackets, if they can do it, surely US citizens can too

Flat tax for all

You don't hate women, you just see them and property and want to regulate their bodies.

[montestewart]

Hey hotheads! Watch the language! Watch the personal insults! Does DCZards talk like that? Does dobrojim talk like that? Does Popper talk like that? Does WizPride talk like that? Does doclinkin talk like that? It's tough and anger-inducing subject matter, but you can do much better. I don't feel like going through and editing out the TOS violations, but please, just stop it!

For better or worse, some viewpoints on here, regardless of what you think of them, represent a significant portion of the electorate that must be contended with. If I were not a mod, I would do what I often do outside of this board, occasional respond, occasionally ignore, but try to remain aware of the viewpoints and their sources, without being baited by them. You can respond without explicit insults. Either rebut the points (as some of you do very well), if not for the benefit of some opponent, for the benefit of presenting the superiority of your position to an outsider. Otherwise, ignore and move on.

[daoneandonly]

Because pet issue is relevant here, Republicans dont hate women, its a tired argument. A tired argument for why ppl are pro life and a tired argument for why Hill got her comeuppance

And I'll say it again, dont force your belief that the higher paying earners owe anything to the lower, its not some kumayah compound, its the United States of America. I've already proven how so many legal immigrants from 3rd world countries busted their butts to make it here and move up those tax brackets, if they can do it, surely US citizens can too

Flat tax for all

You don't hate women, you just see them and property and want to regulate their bodies.

No sir I do not. I love my wife and my little girl, neither of them are property, they are gifts to me. Every life is a gift, even the ones that have no decency and wish harm on others like some posters on here.

[daoneandonly]

As monte already pointed out, this behavior has professional consequences, katie hill, mcdonalds ceo, doesnt matter. its not hating, shaming, etc, its life. Actions have consequences, why is that so hard for people to accept?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/mcdonalds-ceo-fired-steve-easterbrook.html

[montestewart]

As monte already pointed out, this behavior has professional consequences, katie hill, mcdonalds ceo, doesnt matter. its not hating, shaming, etc, its life. Actions have consequences, why is that so hard for people to accept?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/mcdonalds-ceo-fired-steve-easterbrook.html

Yes, the way it happened was shaming. Hill's resignation was accelerated by the unacceptable practice of shaming through revenge porn. Her own actions may have left her vulnerable, but it was her opponents who actually committed the offense, an offense I see as worse than her actions, and apparently done to benefit someone trying to replace her, or merely to harm Democrats in general.

Da1, it would be nice to hear a condemnation of such (in our society) necessarily misogynistic behavior, the powers behind its perpetration, and the parties who benefit from it. Your lack of condemnation here does nothing to enhance the credibility of your anti-abortion stance as pro-life but not anti-woman. Your chosen anti-abortion crusader, Donald Trump, has been accused of a wide range of sexual assault by upwards of 25 women, cheated on all his wives, bragged about grabbing *******, to name just a few things.

In persistently rationalizing away Trump's behavior in exchange for favorable treatment on a few strongly held views, it appears that some (including a few of my evangelical relatives) have made a devil's bargain. I really cannot see it ending well for us all, but I think some zealots bravadoed prediction is "My way or WWIII. We win either way."

[daoneandonly]

As monte already pointed out, this behavior has professional consequences, katie hill, mcdonalds ceo, doesnt matter. its not hating, shaming, etc, its life. Actions have consequences, why is that so hard for people to accept?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/mcdonalds-ceo-fired-steve-easterbrook.html

Yes, the way it happened was shaming. Hill's resignation was accelerated by the unacceptable practice of shaming through revenge porn. Her own actions may have left her vulnerable, but it was her opponents who actually committed the offense, an offense I see as worse than her actions, and apparently done to benefit someone trying to replace her, or merely to harm Democrats in general.

Da1, it would be nice to hear a condemnation of such (in our society) necessarily misogynistic behavior, the powers behind its perpetration, and the parties who benefit from it. Your lack of condemnation here does nothing to enhance the credibility of your anti-abortion stance as pro-life but not anti-woman. Your chosen anti-abortion crusader, Donald Trump, has been accused of a wide range of sexual assault by upwards of 25 women, cheated on all his wives, bragged about grabbing *******, to name just a few things.

In persistently rationalizing away Trump's behavior in exchange for favorable treatment on a few strongly held views, it appears that some (including a few of my evangelical relatives) have made a devil's bargain. I really cannot see it ending well for us all, but I think some zealots bravadoed prediction is "My way or WWIII. We win either way."

Not my chosen though my friend, I wanted Kasich, Rubio, or Bush, my ideal candidate is Paul Ryan. Trump was the unfortunate, unfathomable hand we conservatives were dealt. I dont agree with much of what he says, but I'd still take him over nay of the other 3 in 2016, and the good majority of the Democratic field now (mainly Warren, Biden, Sanders, harris, south bend mayor, and booker). I dont know enough about the others to formulate an opinion, and it wouldnt matter as they wont be the nominee.

I condemned Trump's comments on the bus, his mocking of a disabled reporter, all vile, immature, and not presidential one bit. But we'll agree to disagree on which is worse when it comes to hill. She knew what she was doing was wrong and didnt care, and only resigned because it came out via pictures, which ppl try to categorize as revenge porn to make her sound sympathetic, i dont believe she is.

[queridiculo]

Hey hotheads! Watch the language! Watch the personal insults! Does DCZards talk like that? Does dobrojim talk like that? Does Popper talk like that? Does WizPride talk like that? Does doclinkin talk like that? It's tough and anger-inducing subject matter, but you can do much better. I don't feel like going through and editing out the TOS violations, but please, just stop it!

For better or worse, some viewpoints on here, regardless of what you think of them, represent a significant portion of the electorate that must be contended with. If I were not a mod, I would do what I often do outside of this board, occasional respond, occasionally ignore, but try to remain aware of the viewpoints and their sources, without being baited by them. You can respond without explicit insults. Either rebut the points (as some of you do very well), if not for the benefit of some opponent, for the benefit of presenting the superiority of your position to an outsider. Otherwise, ignore and move on.

It's cute that you are pretending that there are any points worth rebutting from this individual.

Incessant trolling is a TOS violation no, and that's all this is, a perpetual troll circle jerk.

[daoneandonly]

Or perhaps someone who doesn't even live in this country, yet feels the need to contribute his irrelvant 1 cent is a little bit closer to trolling

[JWizmentality]

Because pet issue is relevant here, Republicans dont hate women, its a tired argument. A tired argument for why ppl are pro life and a tired argument for why Hill got her comeuppance

And I'll say it again, dont force your belief that the higher paying earners owe anything to the lower, its not some kumayah compound, its the United States of America. I've already proven how so many legal immigrants from 3rd world countries busted their butts to make it here and move up those tax brackets, if they can do it, surely US citizens can too

Flat tax for all

You don't hate women, you just see them and property and want to regulate their bodies.

No sir I do not. I love my wife and my little girl, neither of them are property, they are gifts to me. Every life is a gift, even the ones that have no decency and wish harm on others like some posters on here.

I don't doubt that you love your wife and child. As do I. But unlike you and people who think like you. My love and empathy extends beyond those who don't think like me or are not afforded the same opportunity as me. It's what Jesus taught me to do. You should read the Bible more often.

[I_Like_Dirt]

If he did it, sure he too should be forced to step down. Every word I read in the non NY TImes, Wash Post articles on it are flooded with the word "allegedly", five times in just this one below:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/25/duncan-hunter-campaign-funds-affairs-1382197

So again if there is actual proof, like he was stupid enough to take pictures like Hill's dumb self, he admitted to it, or any other sure fire proof, than get this guy out forthwith. Until then, its not the same. A picture is worth a thousand words. It's not revenge porn or slut shaming, its proof positive to the bank that she acted improperly and unprofessionally, and for that, she's out.

But once again the left acts like there's some conspiracy against women. We fight for a baby who doesn't have a voice, we must hate women, even though half of those babies would be women. A moron takes pictures with a subordinate lover proving her guilt, but no, its women hating somehow.

Funny you should bring this around full circle to abortion again.

On one hand, you're suggesting that things should be purely dealt with on legal grounds - all that allegedly stuff for a case still before the courts that has loads of evidence around it but because we don't have an admission we need to act as though it didn't happen.

Then on the other hand you're citing an example of a case where you completely disagree with the legal definitions in place and want to change them and aren't letting them stop your outrage.

Can you see the hypocrisy at play here?

[daoneandonly]

You don't hate women, you just see them and property and want to regulate their bodies.

No sir I do not. I love my wife and my little girl, neither of them are property, they are gifts to me. Every life is a gift, even the ones that have no decency and wish harm on others like some posters on here.

I don't doubt that you love your wife and child. As do I. But unlike you and people who think like you. My love and empathy extends beyond those who don't think like me or are not afforded the same opportunity as me. It's what Jesus taught me to do. You should read the Bible more often.

J Wiz, I'm going to give you an and-1 here. I know coming from me doesn't mean squat, but you're right here, I need to read more of it and practice and live it out more. Where we disagree is I dont think abortion is a Christian issue, I think its a human rights, ethical one. People who are racially discriminated against, can fight, push back, and I'll be happy to join them. People who may not be well off financially for now, can fight, grind, get out of that, I've seen it, I'm where I am because of that kind of sacrifice, drive, and love from my parents, so I know it can be done without stuff like doubling minimum wages at the expense of the rest of us. Though I dont necessarily agree with their lifestyle choices, if members of the lgbtq community are harassed, discriminated against, etc, they can fight, resist. All these folks have a voice, and friends, family etc who will stand up with them for justice. That's all i want to do, is stand up for someone, a baby, who does not have a voice. Who does not have a family member, i.e their own parents, who will just simply give them life. Why my wife and I adopted two children, and they are 2 of the best things that ever happened to us. All because their respective mothers decided to sacrifice 9 months of her life, due to an action of her own doing, and provide a child a chance to just simply live.

[daoneandonly]

If he did it, sure he too should be forced to step down. Every word I read in the non NY TImes, Wash Post articles on it are flooded with the word "allegedly", five times in just this one below:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/25/duncan-hunter-campaign-funds-affairs-1382197

So again if there is actual proof, like he was stupid enough to take pictures like Hill's dumb self, he admitted to it, or any other sure fire proof, than get this guy out forthwith. Until then, its not the same. A picture is worth a thousand words. It's not revenge porn or slut shaming, its proof positive to the bank that she acted improperly and unprofessionally, and for that, she's out.

But once again the left acts like there's some conspiracy against women. We fight for a baby who doesn't have a voice, we must hate women, even though half of those babies would be women. A moron takes pictures with a subordinate lover proving her guilt, but no, its women hating somehow.

Funny you should bring this around full circle to abortion again.

On one hand, you're suggesting that things should be purely dealt with on legal grounds - all that allegedly stuff for a case still before the courts that has loads of evidence around it but because we don't have an admission we need to act as though it didn't happen.

Then on the other hand you're citing an example of a case where you completely disagree with the legal definitions in place and want to change them and aren't letting them stop your outrage.

Can you see the hypocrisy at play here?

Not at all, one is "settled" law that shouldnt be. The other is a story of accusations. Like I said, if they are true, and heck its likely they very well could be, kick this fool out the door. But the difference with him and hill is simple, picture evidence. She was stupid enough to have tangible evidence proving her guilt.

[I_Like_Dirt]

That's all i want to do, is stand up for someone, a baby, who does not have a voice. Who does not have a family member, i.e their own parents, who will just simply give them life. Why my wife and I adopted two children, and they are 2 of the best things that ever happened to us. All because their respective mothers decided to sacrifice 9 months of her life, due to an action of her own doing, and provide a child a chance to just simply live.

But you're basically the only one in this thread who isn't doing that. I am confused. You're the one trying to ban abortion which doesn't actually prevent them and the one who is steadfastly against actions that have proven to be effective in reducing abortions. You aren't actually trying to give a voice to anyone but yourself.

[montestewart]

Hey hotheads! Watch the language! Watch the personal insults! Does DCZards talk like that? Does dobrojim talk like that? Does Popper talk like that? Does WizPride talk like that? Does doclinkin talk like that? It's tough and anger-inducing subject matter, but you can do much better. I don't feel like going through and editing out the TOS violations, but please, just stop it!

For better or worse, some viewpoints on here, regardless of what you think of them, represent a significant portion of the electorate that must be contended with. If I were not a mod, I would do what I often do outside of this board, occasional respond, occasionally ignore, but try to remain aware of the viewpoints and their sources, without being baited by them. You can respond without explicit insults. Either rebut the points (as some of you do very well), if not for the benefit of some opponent, for the benefit of presenting the superiority of your position to an outsider. Otherwise, ignore and move on.

It's cute that you are pretending that there are any points worth rebutting from this individual.

Incessant trolling is a TOS violation no, and that's all this is, a perpetual troll circle jerk.

See my exchange with Da1 above. It is possible to to debate and disagree, with neither side being moved from any position.Trolling is harder to define than name calling, cussing, etc. If it is proven merely by angry reaction and likely provocative intent, then many here (and in political debate in general) are guilty of it.

Da1's apparently strongly held political views are outliers on the political spectrum as represented on this board, so they are bound to provoke strong reactions regardless of his intent. I don't agree with his views, but I generally respond only if I see something that seems erroneous and easily clarified, for anyone else reading, for the record.

A debate is not primarily intended to get an opponent to concede a point. What prosecutor or defense attorney would willingly do that? It is to present the superiority of your views on the topic. If you think an argument is not credible enough to merit response, then don't respond. It isn't that hard to do, and with your brain, I know you can do it.