The Washington Post: Why democrats harrassing/raping women should be tolerated

[Bodakane]

In your mind the "cold" is Al Franken, and the "cancer" is Roy Moore?

I didn't say they were equal. Just the response they bring out of me is equal. English isn't your first language, is it? Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit.

Seriously....wtf?

The cold is the subject of the OP and the cancer is the POTUS not only saying a pedophile is better than a democracy, but actively trying to put the peso in office.

[Wyrt]

It's not ok and that's why democrats are losing their jobs or having senate ethics investigations into them.

[urasim]

The cold is the subject of the OP and the cancer is the POTUS not only saying a pedophile is better than a democracy, but actively trying to put the peso in office.

Washington post opinion piece: "Al Franken DEFINITELY sexually assaulted someone, but we should still keep him in office!!!"
Trump: "An alleged pedophile is better than any democrat!!!"

Just two idiots with stupid opinions. Both throwing their morals out the window to get, or keep, power for their tribe. While the end result is the same, getting power for their party, the accusations they're leveling is clearly not the same.

Seriously....wtf?

You're saying that like you're frustrated because you think I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. But the reality is that you haven't given any information on your silly opinion for me to ever understand you. You're not a good communicator.

Honestly, I shouldn't have ever engaged with you. When your only line of reasoning is fallacious, you're likely not going to have a rational argument backing you up, ever. Making a discussion all but pointless.

[Bodakane]

Washington post opinion piece: "Al Franken DEFINITELY sexually assaulted someone, but we should still keep him in office!!!"
Trump: "An alleged pedophile is better than any democrat!!!"

Just two idiots with stupid opinions. Both throwing their morals out the window to get, or keep, power for their tribe. While the end result is the same, getting power for their party, the accusations they're leveling is clearly not the same.



You're saying that like you're frustrated because you think I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. But the reality is that you haven't given any information on your silly opinion for me to ever understand you. You're not a good communicator.

Honestly, I shouldn't have ever engaged with you. When your only line of reasoning is fallacious, you're likely not going to have a rational argument backing you up, ever. Making a discussion all but pointless.

No you don't understand what is being said.

One person is a no one editorialist just typing words. The other is the leader of the free world actively trying to pout a pedohile in office while saying democrats are worse than pedophiles.

Anyone not getting the difference is either a fool or doing it on purpose.

[PosPosPos]

There's a huge difference here: Democrats as a whole do not tolerate sexual assault. Republicans, however, have made it clear they are willing to tolerate rapists, molestors and pedophiles if it means politically leveraging themselves.

[The Penguin]

Otherwise, conservatives would be demanding that everyone say Hillary didn't commit any crimes.

The fact that they didn't tells you that a lot of Conservatives are a part of the problem then, much as a lot of Liberals are. That's why my brand of Conservatism says we should investigate first. Then condemn if facts show it to be so. In that sense I say this. Investigate Hillary Clinton fully to be sure, but also wait until the facts are out before you judge. Same applies for Trump also and it's why I think Mueller shouldn't be running things. Because of his ties to Comey, it'll poison the final verdict and give Republican Defenders a excuse to dismiss it. I'm sorry but anything THAT serious needs to be beyond politics or revenge, and I say this as someone who voted for Trump. It's also the same thing I said about the Trayvon Martin thing too, and why I take such a low view of rioters, the NAACP and Al Sharpton. We do not need race-baiters. We need solutions and honesty.

Simple standard which applies for everyone equally is and always will be my game.

[Machismo]

The fact that they didn't tells you that a lot of Conservatives are a part of the problem then, much as a lot of Liberals are. That's why my brand of Conservatism says we should investigate first. Then condemn if facts show it to be so. In that sense I say this. Investigate Hillary Clinton fully to be sure, but also wait until the facts are out before you judge. Same applies for Trump also and it's why I think Mueller shouldn't be running things. Because of his ties to Comey, it'll poison the final verdict and give Republican Defenders a excuse to dismiss it. I'm sorry but anything THAT serious needs to be beyond politics or revenge, and I say this as someone who voted for Trump. It's also the same thing I said about the Trayvon Martin thing too, and why I take such a low view of rioters, the NAACP and Al Sharpton. We do not need race-baiters. We need solutions and honesty.

Simple standard which applies for everyone equally is and always will be my game.

So, does that mean you don't think Hillary Clinton committed any crimes? After all, the investigations did not lead to any indictments...
You voted for Trump, but say we don't need race baiters. You voted for Trump, and say we need solutions and honesty? Give me a fucking break.


Seriously, your partisanship is far too obvious.

[Kiri]

The fact that they didn't tells you that a lot of Conservatives are a part of the problem then, much as a lot of Liberals are. That's why my brand of Conservatism says we should investigate first. Then condemn if facts show it to be so. In that sense I say this. Investigate Hillary Clinton fully to be sure, but also wait until the facts are out before you judge. Same applies for Trump also and it's why I think Mueller shouldn't be running things. Because of his ties to Comey, it'll poison the final verdict and give Republican Defenders a excuse to dismiss it. I'm sorry but anything THAT serious needs to be beyond politics or revenge, and I say this as someone who voted for Trump. It's also the same thing I said about the Trayvon Martin thing too, and why I take such a low view of rioters, the NAACP and Al Sharpton. We do not need race-baiters. We need solutions and honesty.

Simple standard which applies for everyone equally is and always will be my game.

Hillary was investigated, multiple times, and was found to be not guilty. So, if that is your brand of conservatism is that, did you vote for someone who is the antithesis of it? Trump judged her guilty all the time, and he sought to get the public to judge her guilty as well? He exonerated Flynn before the investigation was over. He pardoned someone before they were even judged guilty. I just find that hard to reconcile with your brand of conservatism.

[Mormolyce]

The fact that they didn't tells you that a lot of Conservatives are a part of the problem then, much as a lot of Liberals are. That's why my brand of Conservatism says we should investigate first. Then condemn if facts show it to be so. In that sense I say this. Investigate Hillary Clinton fully to be sure, but also wait until the facts are out before you judge.

Ummmmm... they did. For years. And came up with nothing. So you can issue her your apology now.

[IIamaKing]

Aint tribalism great.

[The Penguin]

So, does that mean you don't think Hillary Clinton committed any crimes? After all, the investigations did not lead to any indictments...
You voted for Trump, but say we don't need race baiters. You voted for Trump, and say we need solutions and honesty? Give me a fucking break.

Seriously, your partisanship is far too obvious.

I won't know if Hillary Clinton is innocent or guilty until someone that is not James Comey or Loretta Lynch and is completely detached from the political ambitions of both parties investigates it fully. At this point Republicans would witch hunt, and the Democrats would give it a pass to save face. The same ironically is playing out in reverse across many sex scandals for both parties. If partisanship is calling both sides morons then I'm glad you changed the word's definition to that, and I salute you having Merriam-Webster on speed-dial. I too have a few words I'd like the definitions changed on. I'll PM you them.

Hillary was investigated, multiple times, and was found to be not guilty. So, if that is your brand of conservatism is that, did you vote for someone who is the antithesis of it? Trump judged her guilty all the time, and he sought to get the public to judge her guilty as well? He exonerated Flynn before the investigation was over. He pardoned someone before they were even judged guilty. I just find that hard to reconcile with your brand of conservatism.

It is possible to vote for someone who you don't completely agree with. I refuse to throw my vote away or be a non-vote under any circumstance. Trump has his flaws, but they outweighed the dangers of the Obama Presidency's agendas continuing. I mean seriously between the individual mandate (which thank god it looks like is finally dying), the balance of the Courts, and the Nuclear Option Reid went with to circumvent the Republicans opposition (when he and Obama should of tried centrist policies), it's a non issue for me to oppose that.

In the case of the mandate, I object vehemently to any government agency saying I WILL buy something where it deals with my body.
Imagine if females were mandated to buy contraception regardless? It'd be a uproar. Driving requiring Licences? Sure. Driving is a privilege.
But my ability to live? Should I cede control over my body to what the Government demands I buy? No way. Not now, not ever.

Regarding the Supreme Court, when Sotomayor pulled the "Wise Latina" comment, I understood that much like the 9th circuit she was a puppet and a activist the same as Ginsburg is often. Because of the prospect of the Supreme Court becoming a Court of activists rather than actual judges I felt it better to see someone competent replace Scalia. Merrick Garland might of been a good pick, but given all Obama had done prior with executive action, the idea of him getting more was repugnant, so that was another non-issue.

Trump is admittedly at times a crude, crass, thin-skinned moron who is blunt with his words at times. But then again so were many other Presidents on both sides of the aisle, especially if one looks at our early Presidents. Barrack Obama was also notoriously thin-skinned. The truth is, I'll take someone who is all of that and clearly has no off-switch, than someone who resembles what the Beatles would call a "Plasticine Porter" and a deluded sense of intellectual or moral superiority, when she and her party really don't.

A very old friend of mine who is a New York Democrat and was a Bernie supporter was pissed when I said "Look Sanders is a decent candidate, but he and O'Malley are window-dressing to sell a illusion of choice. Hillary WILL be the nominee regardless of what anyone thinks or wants." Lo and behold, he came back a few months later and said. "Hate to say it, but you were right." A few months later, and lo-and-behold, the Debbie Wasserman Schultz crap came out confirming it. Do you think I want any part of that hot mess with the above things in the balance? Hell no.

Ultimately though, it boiled back to the fact that Hillary Clinton was a flawed and poor candidate. When coupled to the actions of her husband, who she was bound to by bullying various women with threats if they came forward, Hillary was a fake and the poster child for what was wrong with Washington. She was and is, a useless figurehead for other forces that could of been packaged and sold as an action figure circa 1980s called "The Politician".

Furthering my decision was the fact that while I voted for Obama in 2008, Hillary came off as less invested in actually leading the country and handling issues I cared about; and far more invested in being the historic first!, female President. At least Obama wasn't that pretentious in Campaigning. He didn't rub in everyone's face that he was Black. He was just a Candidate running who happened to be that as well. But worst of all? Hillary behaved in all her televised debates and interviews as if she was somehow entitled to the Presidency or owed it. This is why Obama beat her pantsuit off in the Democratic Nomination.

Ultimately whether you folks on MMOC agree with me or not, I don't give a shit. I voted for the candidate that I believed was the better of the two, and I do not regret that decision even now. It's done. The election was a year ago. Now we'll have to see where that goes. I'm looking forward to finding out if Mueller is the vengeance crazed Comey sycophant I initially took him for, or if he's actually trying to do the right thing.

My respect for him has of late gone up a notch since he fired Peter Strzok. The real question will be whether this was done to give an illusion of actual legitimacy, or whether it was done for the right reasons. Namely that Peter Strzok was a rabid anti-Trump Tweeter who couldn't be expected to be unbiased. It'll ultimately depend on what the charges are and the way the argument is framed.

If Trump did do something legitimately wrong, I'll be the first to demand his removal from office. But if it's a bullshit charge fueled by Democrats attempting to change the election, I'll oppose it. But in either case, due process will be given to the accused whether the internet armchair litigators like it or not. That's pretty much my stance on matters.

Wow. That went a bit off topic, but it was a answer to questions so I suppose it applied.

Take it to PMs if you want to dialogue / debate more. I don't want the thread going off topic any further than it already has.

[Machismo]

I won't know if Hillary Clinton is innocent or guilty until someone that is not James Comey or Loretta Lynch and is completely detached from the political ambitions of both parties investigates it fully. At this point Republicans would witch hunt, and the Democrats would give it a pass to save face. The same ironically is playing out in reverse across many sex scandals for both parties. If partisanship is calling both sides morons then I'm glad you changed the word's definition to that, and I salute you having Merriam-Webster on speed-dial. I too have a few words I'd like the definitions changed on. I'll PM you them.

You claim we you can't stand race baiters and we need honesty... and you voted for Trump. Trump is a race-baiting liar. Therefore, you are either a hypocrite, lying, or suffering from some pretty massive cognitive dissonance.

I'll let you decide which it is.

[The Penguin]

You claim we you can't stand race baiters and we need honesty... and you voted for Trump. Trump is a race-baiting liar. Therefore, you are either a hypocrite, lying, or suffering from some pretty massive cognitive dissonance.

I'll let you decide which it is.

So was Hillary. In fact I would estimate she and Barrack Obama were many times worse on those offenses. Ergo logically, I must take it then that this would mean the same applies right back at you. You can decide for yourself what that means, but we all know you already had formed your conclusion long before I ever spoke once, and it's obvious with the contempt you've underpinned most of your previous statements with.

I won't stoop to name-calling or make unhinged claims such as the ones you are making. Nor will I treat words with someone who clearly has no interest in looking at any views outside their own. You simply are not worth the effort to respond to because you have nothing of merit that can be responded to. Good luck Machismo. When you want to talk in a mature fashion, perhaps we can resume our dialogue.

[Machismo]

So was Hillary. In fact I would estimate she and Barrack Obama were many times worse on those offenses. Ergo logically, I must take it then that this would mean the same applies right back at you. You can decide for yourself what that means, but we all know you already had formed your conclusion long before I ever spoke once, and it's obvious with the contempt you've underpinned most of your previous statements with.

I won't stoop to name-calling or make unhinged claims such as the ones you are making. Nor will I treat words with someone who clearly has no interest in looking at any views outside their own. You simply are not worth the effort to respond to because you have nothing of merit that can be responded to. Good luck Machismo. When you want to talk in a mature fashion, perhaps we can resume our dialogue.

Then don't vote for either one of them... but that's not what you did, is it? We have a list of more than a thousand of Trump's lies. We have countless quotes of Trump being a race-baiting douchebag... yet you still voted for him. You are the one who claimed we cannot have race baiting, and we need honesty, you said those words. However, you then turn around and voted for Trump. Once again, that demonstrates your clear partisanship, not mine. Lucky for me, I didn't vote for Trump, nor did I vote for Hillary. I get it, you are pissed that I pointed out your hypocrisy, most people tend to get upset when other people point out their logical inconsistencies. My claims are not unhinged, they are based off of your words. Are you going to deny that you said you did not want race baiting, and that we needed honesty?

"We do not need race-baiters. We need solutions and honesty."

You voted for Trump... you are the one who is clearly unhinged, and obviously doesn't give a shit about either of those things.

[The Penguin]

Yeah yeah, feel free to spew whatever nonsensical drivel you must to save face. But mark this much. At the end of the day the ACA's Individual Mandate is still toast, and we have Gorsuch on the bench. Impeach 45 "if" you can, I have gotten what I wanted most of all out of the deal.

Have a Merry Christmas.

[Orbitus]

Yeah yeah, feel free to spew whatever nonsensical drivel you must to save face. But mark this much. At the end of the day the ACA's Individual Mandate is still toast, and we have Gorsuch on the bench. Impeach 45 "if" you can, I have gotten what I wanted most of all out of the deal.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Until the Democrats take power back and repeal literally everything that Trump did.

[The Penguin]

Until the Democrats take power back and repeal literally everything that Trump did.

Hey, by all means if you want to hasten the destruction of the Democrat party, sure go for it. Be my guest and try by all means. I mean it'd be amazing (and by amazing I mean lolworthy) to see it attempted. I guess you didn't get the memo when you lost the House and Senate due to ObamaCare being forced through the first time without a single Republican Vote and all that. People said no. Reid and Pelosi said yes. That's why you keep bleeding seats and also why Trump beat Hillary's pantsuit off. See you when your back Orbi.