Hollywood/Political Sex Offense Scandals (Now Louis CK and AL-GOPSenateNom Roy Moore)

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1
6h6 hours ago

Franken: "There is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office."
 
Hawk said:
I call Bill Clinton a rapist on the basis of my personal interpretation of said consensual affair. Throw in a dash of lying under oath for effect.

Again, I don't completely absolve Trump of doing anything. I don't know how much more clear about the subject I can be.
Click to expand...

Both parties say it was consensual but you know better

Gotcha
.....

In spite of what he says, you don't "completely absolve" Trump

how do you drink water with out dribbling it all over your shirt ?
 
57Brave said:
Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1
6h6 hours ago

Franken: "There is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office."
Click to expand...

Why does it not surprise me that Franken took this shot? Not to say the shot wasn't deserved, but goodness...
 
Bill Clinton abused Lewinsky, consensual or not, by using his power over a subordinate. Really is a bad thing. Not to mention what he did to no telling how many other women.

Trump is morally unfit to serve - per his abuse of women, not even counting every other vile thing about him.

Moore shouldn't be on the ballot.

Conyers and Franken are rightfully gone.

Now, how about all the enablers?
 
I disagree with you about Clinton. ML has had 20 years to change her tone - rethink her consent. As far as we (I) know, she hasn't.
So I will take her at her word.
She would be in her 40's now

those that did accuse -- perhaps there is/was fire with the smoke
but, they are rarely brought up - unless Fox or Trump uses them for exploitation or to embarrass HRC
.............

you left Clarence Thomas off of your list
 
57Brave said:
I disagree with you about Clinton. ML has had 20 years to change her tone - rethink her consent. As far as we (I) know, she hasn't.
So I will take her at her word.
She would be in her 40's now

those that did accuse -- perhaps there is/was fire with the smoke
but, they are rarely brought up - unless Fox or Trump uses them for exploitation or to embarrass HRC
.............

you left Clarence Thomas off of your list
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to me about how Monica viewed/views it. She was a doe-eyed, hot-to-trot, subordinate that he used, abused, and tossed aside. It's defenseless.

Throw him on it, especially if there were/are others accusing him. I can't remember if there were.
 
Either Trent Franks is lying or he found the least eloquent, most offensive way to ask a colleague to be a surrogate for himself and his wife—and then tried the line again on another woman.
 
BedellBrave said:
It doesn't matter to me about how Monica viewed/views it. She was a doe-eyed, hot-to-trot, subordinate that he used, abused, and tossed aside. It's defenseless.

Throw him on it, especially if there were/are others accusing him. I can't remember if there were.
Click to expand...

Agree, consent or not (and I really don't think it wasn't consensual) it's wrong now just as it was then. Right now I"m just waiting for some of the party of morality to actually start calling out some of their own with same moral indignity that I see them using on the dirty old Dems
 
Hawk said:
The difference here is that I'm not telling you that your stance is incorrect, or calling it cowardly or wrong-headed or slimy. I acknowledge that your belief could be perfectly on-point. But I have a different take that I've reasoned out in what I think is a pretty rationally unassailable format. You submit that there's reasonable suspicion here - but posit two cases that are ... flimsy, at best. Your chief evidence is the Access Hollywood tape. You can weigh that how you want.

And, with Lewinsky, did her behavior afterwards reflect opportunism?

Clinton admitted wrongdoing, publicly.

It's just not a good comparison.
Click to expand...

They are many more than two cases—I just cited two that had formal lawsuits attached, and one that likewise involved legal divorce proceedings, because that was your goalpost (one that, due to the well-documented statistics with respect to reporting-rates for sexual misconduct/assault, along with the obvious psychic/emotional burden entailed by coming forward against powerful men, I think is a silly goalpost anyways—but I digress). Expanding our scope to what I'd argue we should consider, there are actually nineteen separate documented allegations, without even including the bizarre Jane Doe / Jeffrey Epstein "case" from 2016—and that set actually includes a formal, legal complaint about which I'd forgotten: the ongoing defamation suit brought by Summer Zervos after Trump called her (and the eighteen other women, at various times) liars.

So my "chief evidence" is not a mere tape—which, even by itself, should carry some evidentiary weight—but the intersection of that direct admission of a type of behavior with nineteen different women alleging cases of misconduct that conforms to the behavior self-described by President Trump. That is a lot less trivial of a case for reasonable suspicion than you make it out to be; I'd say it is, moreover, a case for strong suspicion.
 
(I also perversely enjoy that a man with "the greatest memory in the world" can fail to remember, or only vaguely remember, so many women he's definitively met.)
 
jpx7 said:
(I also perversely enjoy that a man with "the greatest memory in the world" can fail to remember, or only vaguely remember, so many women he's definitively met.)
Click to expand...

Or, more accurately, he denies knowing/having met most of them at all.

I mean, just going over the link you provided and I count 6 instances where he outright denies knowing the accuser. No hedging.

The only 'vague' recollection is Vervos, which was pretty clearly a swipe.
 
jpx7 said:
They are many more than two cases—I just cited two that had formal lawsuits attached, and one that likewise involved legal divorce proceedings, because that was your goalpost (one that, due to the well-documented statistics with respect to reporting-rates for sexual misconduct/assault, along with the obvious psychic/emotional burden entailed by coming forward against powerful men, I think is a silly goalpost anyways—but I digress). Expanding our scope to what I'd argue we should consider, there are actually nineteen separate documented allegations, without even including the bizarre Jane Doe / Jeffrey Epstein "case" from 2016—and that set actually includes a formal, legal complaint about which I'd forgotten: the ongoing defamation suit brought by Summer Zervos after Trump called her (and the eighteen other women, at various times) liars.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious - have you reviewed each of those allegations? And are you sure that you want to bring each of them (which, while we're here, are not entirely seperate) into the scope of consideration? My supposed 'goalpost' of formal complaints against Trump was a jumping off point designed to avoid the pointlessness of seriously entertaining the claims of a random woman who alleges Trump fingered her in a Manhattan club last year (no name, no dates, etc.) No statute of limitations here, FWIW.

So my "chief evidence" is not a mere tape—which, even by itself, should carry some evidentiary weight—but the intersection of that direct admission of a type of behavior with nineteen different women alleging cases of misconduct that conforms to the behavior self-described by President Trump. That is a lot less trivial of a case for reasonable suspicion than you make it out to be; I'd say it is, moreover, a case for strong suspicion.
Click to expand...

Can you back up and spend a moment telling me why you think the Access Hollywood tape was a confession?
 
BedellBrave said:
It doesn't matter to me about how Monica viewed/views it. She was a doe-eyed, hot-to-trot, subordinate that he used, abused, and tossed aside. It's defenseless.

Throw him on it, especially if there were/are others accusing him. I can't remember if there were.
Click to expand...

All women are "subordinate" in Christianity. Your characterization is an insult to her. Hot to trot???

Monica was an adult. The "used, abused and tossed aside" claim makes no sense unless you think Clinton was supposed to divorce Hillary and marry her after they got caught.

She was sinnin' just as hard as he was.
 
Runnin said:
All women are "subordinate" in Christianity. Your characterization is an insult to her. Hot to trot???

Monica was an adult. The "used, abused and tossed aside" claim makes no sense unless you think Clinton was supposed to divorce Hillary and marry her after they got caught.

She was sinnin' just as hard as he was.
Click to expand...

If you really don't understand how it was an abuse of power, then I'm afraid you are too far gone as a Clinton homer. I rather suspect, because I actually believe you are a sharp guy and a decent person, you just respond the way you do because I'm the one calling it what it is. Let Julio or jp or another from the other side of the aisle state it and you wouldn't disagree.

You'd even recognize that the "hot-to-trot" reference was a reference calling attention to the fact that she was complicit, that she "snapped her thong" for Clinton, that she's not totally innocent - it was shorthand. But since I said it, you have to, for whatever reason, get all in a tizzy. Yet, just because she sinned doesn't make his abuse of his power and authority over her less wrong. By the way, glad you recognize there's such a thing as sin. Sure you want to borrow such an idea from my world??
 
The saddest thing about this is that it so perfectly crystalizes an ingrained culture of white supremacy that some people are so completely habituated to that they don't even realize that they're living and breathing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top