Moore had better win for the fate of the GOP and the Alt-Right

[adrina]

Trump has nearly 20 allegations of sexual abuse lobbied against him.

Last I checked, Hilary Clinton had 0.

False equivalency at its finest right here, folks.

Nor do her actions justify the continuing protection of accused men or the ignoring of women.

Our choice was between someone who helped protect her husband of a handful of accusations or a man with almost 20 accusations.

There is no hypocrisy in pointing out that millions of women and the world have been irrevocably harmed by not believing women and by automatically protecting men.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I cannot take the credit, funny as it was.

I know, Paul Begala, but glad to see that quote from him. Pretty sweet.

 

[doowdniw]

I still don't understand how he was even allowed to be on the ballot for a Federal position after being thrown off the bench for contempt of Federal court orders and disregard for the US Constitution.

Alabama.

 

[BobBalouski]

Trump has nearly 20 allegations of sexual abuse lobbied against him.

And you made the overtly specific effort to completely edit this, and only this, out of my post you quoted:

Anyone who supported either Clinton or Trump presidential bids last fall has absolutely no logical business pontificating about any evils of sexual assault/abuse when they, in fact, voted for it.

Last I checked, Hilary Clinton had 0.

The point of the post I replied to was blaming men for silencing women's accusations, of discrediting women just to protect men. Can you name any man who has done more to silence women's accusations, to discredit those women themselves than Hillary Clinton did/does simply to protect her man?

False equivalency at its finest right here, folks.

Always a personal problem when the self-inflictor can't stay on point. You should try working on that a bit more.

 

[doowdniw]

I'm not just talking about Moore but all of the men regardless of politics that have been so accused and harmed.

Moore's accusers are irrelevant to this as all of his accusers were on the record, weren't they?

 

[doowdniw]

I know you said partial list, but how could you exclude ol' Blake Farenthold, the cuddly Republican from Texas, who settled his sexual harassment suit with taxpayer dollars.


http://78.media.tumblr.com/87edd48cdefa6a0bde6f594503c41bfd/tumblr_p0nm8vrKHP1qzjw8go1_400.jpg

And don't forget Newt, poster boy of right-wing morality.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The only harm is when they're innocent, buddy. Is Trump innocent? Is Moore innocent? Doubtful in both cases.

 

[richard_daily]

The point of the post I replied to was blaming men for silencing women's accusations, of discrediting women just to protect men. Can you name any man who has done more to silence women's accusations, to discredit those women themselves than Hillary Clinton did/does simply to protect her man?

Your post had a point, other than deflection and misdirection?

Hilary Clinton's personal business is her personal business. I didn't even vote for the lady, but I can tell that you don't like her, probably just because she's a woman.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And don't forget Newt, poster boy of right-wing morality.

The same Newt that divorced his terminally ill wife on her cancer death bed? That Newt? I don't believe in the Christian Hell, but if I did, I'd drag him there myself. Nothing wrong with divorce per se, but you can't let a dying woman go with some dignity and avoid putting her through that extra pain? That's next level scumbaggery, Newt! Almost as bad as backing Donald Trump!

 

[sr71plt]

Can you name any man who has done more to silence women's accusations, to discredit those women themselves than Hillary Clinton did/does simply to protect her man?

Well, yes, that would be easy, starting with Donald Trump.

But I'm surprised that those of you still scared of Hillary Clinton (boo) don't get it on why Hillary did the "good, supportive wife bit for Bill." It wasn't "simply" to protect her man. It was primarily to protect her own political future, in a circumstance that supporting him did less damage to her (and try not to forget that she was a victim, not a guilty party in his infidelity) than walking away from him would have been.

She's the more political strategist and ambitious of the two Clintons (which, if she were a man, would be a credit to her; since she's a woman, many give her demerits for having political ambitions). If she'd dumped Bill, she'd be dumping the network that eventually led her to the U.S. Senate, the State Department, and as the first female presidential candidate of a major U.S. party. That she had to pick the lesser of two evils wasn't because of anything she'd done--it was because of what her husband had done. You're vilifying her for what her husband, not Hillary, did. And you're giving the women who messed around with a married man (most of whom reflected Bill's bad, redneck taste) a free pass. I can only think of one woman he had an affair with who had an ounce of moral fortitude to try to resist him. The rest knew and were full partners in what they were doing with Bill.

So, if you are going to go after her on the "Bill can't keep it zipped up" issue, be honest and do so because you don't believe women should have political ambitions that men have.

 

[sr71plt]

The same Newt that divorced his terminally ill wife on her cancer death bed? That Newt? I don't believe in the Christian Hell, but if I did, I'd drag him there myself. Nothing wrong with divorce per se, but you can't let a dying woman go with some dignity and avoid putting her through that extra pain? That's next level scumbaggery, Newt! Almost as bad as backing Donald Trump!

Not to mention John McCain, who abandoned his first wife, who had been shattered in an automobile accident, to have an affair with and substitute an heiress.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Not to mention John McCain, who abandoned his first wife, who had been shattered in an automobile accident, to have an affair with and substitute an heiress.

I wonder what his pastor thinks of that. It's one thing to leave your spouse if you're genuinely incompatible. It's quite another to leave her for old money to further your career.

 

[BobBalouski]

Nor do her actions justify the continuing protection of accused men or the ignoring of women.

Hillary Clinton's repulsive actions were intentionally committed to protect her man, to silence his many accusers, to discredit them as much as possible. And you voted for her as President, anyway. How do you feel actually voting for what you claim to despise so much, compared to all those Republicans who clearly didn't have the stomach to be like you last night?

Our choice was between someone who helped protect her husband of a handful of accusations or a man with almost 20 accusations.

"a handful" versus "almost 20", that's how you score your repugnant hypocrisy simply to exert your sexism and partisanship to justify voting for a person who so viciously acted to silence her man's accusers, to discredit them as much as possible, simply to protect his and her political ambitions? Forgive me for asking, but why do you give her any credit at all when you totally discredit any man who does the exact same?

Anyone who actually does believe as you obviously just pose to had an undeniably clear choice of whom not to vote for last November, but you voted for the exact type of person you claim to despise, anyway. Good thing a whole bunch of Republicans in Alabama yesterday weren't as blatantly hypocritical as you.

There is no hypocrisy in pointing out that millions of women and the world have been irrevocably harmed by not believing women and by automatically protecting men.

Yet there's nothing but hypocrisy in pontificating that, and then fully supporting a person who viciously attacked women who claimed to be raped and assaulted, intentionally to silence and discredit them, just to protect her man.

Hillary Clinton and you are large parts of that problem of irrevocable harm you so easily assign to others via really nothing but sexism and partisanship. You should try dealing with that as much as you personally can before projecting your blatant guilt onto anyone else.

 

[contrifan32]

Sarcasm aside, there is no way to recover or make up for what has been lost. From the world or from the women. Going forward is what counts.

But thank you for your sincere inquiry and concern.

Actually I was not being sarcastic. Your previous diatribe had a "Zumi" tone that suggested that its literally pay back time.

 

[sr71plt]

Hillary Clinton's repulsive actions were intentionally committed to protect her man, to silence his many accusers, to discredit them as much as possible. And you voted for her as President, anyway. How do you feel actually voting for what you claim to despise so much, compared to all those Republicans who clearly didn't have the stomach to be like you last night?

It's fun to see that the woman still scares the shit out of those like you.

 

[BobBalouski]

So, if you are going to go after her on the "Bill can't keep it zipped up" issue, be honest and do so because you don't believe women should have political ambitions that men have.

Or, instead of irrelevantly introducing your own self-serving, effeminately sexist dogma, you can try discounting to any degree you like the fact that Hillary Clinton intentionally and aggressively acted to silence and discredit every woman who accused her husband of rape and assault, simply to protect him and, of course, her own political ambitions. After all, such irrevocable harm to all women was the disingenuous point of the post I specifically responded to (the actual sexist point being to just blame men for what men, Hillary Clinton and countless other women actually do).

 

[BobBalouski]

It's fun to see that the woman still scares the shit out of those like you.

Fear projection is a personal problem, and not asking for help is the surest sign of needing it.

 

[BobBalouski]

All the Republicans who couldn't stomach voting for Moore yesterday surely cost him that election just as all the Democrats who couldn't stomach voting for Clinton last year surely cost her the White House.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Clinton wasn't perfect, but she would have saved us a lot of embarrassment and trouble, not to mention saved Net Neutrality and avoid the huge hole in the deficit sure to follow Paul Ryan's plan to line the pockets of his rich patrons with tax breaks on taxes that they hardly pay in the first place.

 

[adrina]

The new Eyer.

Shill extraordinaire.

Yes I could have voted for Jill Stein and absolutely ensured a victory by someone that not only actually committed sexual assault, called his victims liars, threatened to sue them to keep them quiet, continually disrespects women, pushes policies harmful to women and now supports molesters like Roy Moore.

That would have been just swell for women.



Your logic only functions in the bubble of demagoguery and ideological purity.

You betcha Bucky.

Because HRC made a mistake over 30 years ago.

I'm glad to see you hold Trump to those very same standards of your ideological stricture.



And no, there is still no hypocrisy regardless of how you'd like to spin it.

 

[BobBalouski]

Clinton wasn't perfect, but she would have saved us a lot of embarrassment and trouble, not to mention saved Net Neutrality and avoid the huge hole in the deficit sure to follow Paul Ryan's plan to line the pockets of his rich patrons with tax breaks on taxes that they hardly pay in the first place.

Funny, that's the exact excusing, pathetic spirit of totally partisan drivel Trump gave justifying voting for Moore yesterday.

And, since your personal take of "they hardly pay in the first place" is, at very best, completely false, allow me to help with the facts of that matter:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2015/03/FT_15.03.23_taxesInd.png

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The new Eyer.

Shill extraordinaire.

Yes I could have voted for Jill Stein and absolutely ensured a victory by someone that not only actually committed sexual assault, called his victims liars, threatened to sue them to keep them quiet, continually disrespects women, pushes policies harmful to women and now supports molesters like Roy Moore.

That would have been just swell for women.



Your logic only functions in the bubble of demagoguery and ideological purity.

You betcha Bucky.

Because HRC made a mistake over 30 years ago.

I'm glad to see you hold Trump to those very same standards of your ideological stricture.



And no, there is still no hypocrisy regardless of how you'd like to spin it.

I forget who said that "the perfect is the enemy of the good," but 2016 exemplified this point. So many "Bernie or Bust" idiots. Yes, I supported Bernie in the primaries, but then primaries ended, and fair or not, we were stuck with a choice between an experienced stateswoman who had some good and some bad to her or a raving lunatic Twitter and Diet Coke addict who is fond of walking up to strangers and grabbing their genitals. It's not rocket science, especially when he would ban friends of mine from entering the country, deport the families of some of my other friends, and turn over all foreign policy decisions to lackeys of a foreign tyrant.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, the Benghazi thing was a bunch of political crap where Hillary's only sin (which I criticized her for at the time) was in sharing intel with her daughter. The incident was brought on by CIA, not the State Department. The ambassador was only at the consulate because he was trying to ferret out what the CIA wasn't telling him, and Hillary was far, far up the information chain on that incident. There was no way anyone was going to save anyone in that consulate once the terrorists decided to hit it (for good reasons from their perspective--and nothing caused by Hillary Clinton).

The e-mail stuff was a sign of her well-earned paranoia about those out to get her (they've been out to get her for two decades; they're still out to get her) and her arrogance (a standard trait for politicians). The important point is that nothing in any of that comes anywhere close to the treasonous crap the Trump administration is being protected from.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Actually I was not being sarcastic. Your previous diatribe had a "Zumi" tone that suggested that its literally pay back time.

https://media.giphy.com/media/YoKDHux783GY8/giphy.gif

Oh, I'm on your mind, huh? Hey, I like that, let's run with it. So go on, please do tell us all what my "tone" is, ersatz Sigmund Fraud.

Because I can tell you what yours is trying to be about and I know you ain't gonna have warm fuzzies over that appraisal.

 

[sr71plt]

Hillary supported military interventions and coups d'etats + rumours of corruption.
Trump seemed better. That many of his pre-election promisses turned out to be lies, that's a different issue.

Hillary supported anything like invading North Korea, Iran, or, for God's sake, Argentina? Get serious.

And if you didn't know Trump was corrupt--well beyond rumors--before he was elected, you're dumber than a fence post.