Lots of folx on the left got really worked up about Trump being inappropriate towards women. Yet Ashley Biden just authenticated her diary to a judge which authenticates what she said about Joe taking "inappropriate" showers with her. Meanwhile Tara Reade has fled the country, because she's not one of the "all women" who get believed when they accuse a politician of sexual assault.
Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Pot/Kettle?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/15/tara-reade-left-trail-of-aggrieved-acquaintances-260771
Unfortunately, there is the rare 1% (or whatever the low number is) of sexual harassment/assault charges that are actually false. Probably oftentimes by people who are not in a great emotional/psychological condition. Reade certainly sounds like one of those, given the details and data that has arisen.
IF, on the other hand, there were 20 other women alleging the same thing, THEN that would be a more serious thing. Or even 2 or 3 other women.
It would be easier to take your concern about Reid more seriously IF you were worked up about Trump's sexual harassment, assault, and actual perversions. BUT, you've voted for the man, you clearly must be dismissing ALL the claims against him.
It would be easier to take your claims of concern about Ashley Biden if you also condemned the stealing of her personal diary (if it was hers) for money by a shady partisan attack group. It would be easier to take your claims of concern for Ms Biden more seriously if you also expressed concern for the established rape-y behavior of Trump towards his daughter.
IF and when a more serious charge against Biden comes up, you can bet that we'd be against him for it. But gossip and innuendo by partisan opponents - ESPECIALLY when they vote for the established pervert, Trump - is nothing but inconsistent nothing-ness.
"Unfortunately, there is the rare 1% (or whatever the low number is) of sexual harassment/assault charges that are actually false. Probably oftentimes by people who are not in a great emotional/psychological condition. Reade certainly sounds like one of those, given the details and data that has arisen."
Interesting, so all of the accusations against Biden, The Kennedys, Clinton, Franken etc all just happen to fall into this mythical/unproven "1%" of women who are not to be believed. I guess we understand now that "Believe all women" was a lie, and which women we should really believe.
"IF, on the other hand, there were 20 other women alleging the same thing, THEN that would be a more serious thing. Or even 2 or 3 other women."
So, as long as it's only one woman and one daughter confirming "inappropriate showers" it's all good. Let's just ignore those women. Can you tell me the dates and outcome of the court proceedings where Tara Reade's claims were adjudicated to be false and where she was adjudicated to be emotionally/psychologically unstable? You sound like the Clinton staffers who's job it was to trash the women who accused Bill of sexual assault/impropriety/harassment.
"It would be easier to take your concern about Reid more seriously IF you were worked up about Trump's sexual harassment, assault, and actual perversions. BUT, you've voted for the man, you clearly must be dismissing ALL the claims against him."
Perhaps you've missed my extended conversations with Art where he takes me to task for almost the exact opposite of this. I'll try to stay consistent and pay attention to the number of times Trump has been charged with a sexual crime and how many of those trials he was convicted in. Because, as you point out, there are crazy women who falsely accuse men of rape. Some who clearly do so for a big financial payout. Let's not forget that Carroll literally can't remember details of the event, couldn't bring criminal charges, and relied on a law specifically enacted for her to sue Trump civilly for her "win". Let's also not forget that one of the sponsors of the law has claimed that it's unconstitutional.
"It would be easier to take your claims of concern about Ashley Biden if you also condemned the stealing of her personal diary (if it was hers) for money by a shady partisan attack group. It would be easier to take your claims of concern for Ms Biden more seriously if you also expressed concern for the established rape-y behavior of Trump towards his daughter."
If the diary is ever found to have been stolen, then I will gladly condemn those who did so. It's amusing when you invent some subjective "rape-y behavior" from Trump to divert attention from the fact that Biden's daughter accused him of sexual impropriety when she was a child. When you go on the offensive like this, instead of acknowledging the reality of Biden's issues, it makes you look like someone who is so opposed to Trump that you'll ignore Biden's sexual improprieties.
"IF and when a more serious charge against Biden comes up, you can bet that we'd be against him for it. But gossip and innuendo by partisan opponents - ESPECIALLY when they vote for the established pervert, Trump - is nothing but inconsistent nothing-ness."
This is always your response. As long as Biden hasn't done anything worse than be accused of 1 rape and "sexually inappropriate showers", there's nothing to worry about. It's always funny when you defend your guys from stuff you bash others for.
I guess we understand now that "Believe all women" was a lie, and which women we should really believe.
Not what I said. By all means, let us engage in respectful, adult conversation. Beginning by not trying to put words into my mouth.
1. I've always said that we should believe women. Period.
2. I've also always noted that there ARE the exceptions. There are, according to women's rights/rape protection groups, some 2-8% of rape reports, for instance, that turn out to be at least not fully true.
3. GIVEN that reality (ie, that the vast majority of rape/sexual assault charges ARE legit), our default position should be towards leaning towards the reports women give on their behalf.
4. AND, given the reality of the rare exception, we can't just expect that every report is legitimate, even if the vast majority are.
5. Given these realities, then it behooves us to begin by taking women seriously and investigating such allegations and believing what the evidence reveals.
6. In the cases of SOME mentally unstable women (and men, for what it's worth), the stories tend to start breaking down under investigation, problems arise, the facts don't seem to align. This is what we see in the case of Ms Reade. She appears to be someone who has struggled through life.
7. Which doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened, but lacking credible data and lacking a credible witness, you begin to give the benefit of the doubt to the men. This is especially true when the man appears by all testimony to be a decent, upright human.
8. Conversely, in the case of actual perverts and deviants like Trump, when we have MULTIPLE women testifying, then it begins to strain credibility or reason to think, "Well, MAYBE ALL those dozens of women were lying about his attitudes towards women." AND, when the person's own words and behaviors (laughing at sexual assault, ogling and laughing and boasting about walking in with naked teenagers), then it would strain credibility to think that he could possibly be entirely innocent.
And given the case of someone who might ACTUALLY likely have assaulted, raped, sexually harassed women, you don't vote for such a person, no matter how little you like his opponent.
We should trust the testimony of women, AND we should strive to verify and recognize that by and large (far and away) when women say they were sexually assaulted, it's true. I've never said otherwise, nor have other feminists and allies of women and girls.
As to Kennedy and Clinton, they were almost certainly (or certainly) serial philanderers and should be judged as such. They almost certainly used their power and position to take advantage of some women... even if it was willingly agreed upon. But there's a world of difference between that and actual sexual assault and boasting about it, laughing about it.
There will never come an end to me being entirely unable to understand how his confession about boasting about sexual assault was not an end to your pervert's campaign... except to note that the "moral majority" was never either.
Because, as you point out, there are crazy women who falsely accuse men of rape.
What I pointed out is that there are VERY RARE circumstances (much less than 1 in 10... and probably closer to 1 in 100) where women make false accusations... but we should not be naive. It IS the rare exception. When a man has 20+ women making accusations, that should be the end of his campaign.
YOU willingly voted for this man knowing this history of his and hearing his own actually perverse words in multiple instances. The man is a pervert narcissist pig and should not be doing anything but cleaning out toilets far away from people. But people like you put him in power. That will always be on you and people like you.
If the diary is ever found to have been stolen, then I will gladly condemn those who did so.
? Um, condemn away.
"A woman who stole a diary belonging to Joe Biden's daughter and sold it to a conservative organisation has been sentenced to a month in prison.
Aimee Harris will also spend three months in home confinement after taking personal items belonging to Ashley Biden.
Harris, 41, pleaded guilty in 2022 to a charge of conspiracy to transport stolen property across state lines...
The Palm Beach, Florida resident said she received $20,000 (£15,800) from Project Veritas, a group that conducts hidden-camera stings targeting news outlets, government officials and politicians.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68776262
By all means, condemn the thief and the crooks who bought it from her.
It's amusing when you invent some subjective "rape-y behavior" from Trump...
"You can grab them by the **** and get away with it! har har har"
"“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed,” Trump told Stern.
“No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. … ‘Is everyone OK?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible-looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that."
What does it take for you to get to "rape-y" perverted-sounding? What does it take for you to say "I would NEVER vote for such a deviant.."?
...to divert attention from the fact that Biden's daughter accused him of sexual impropriety when she was a child.
I've seen no evidence, nor claim from Ms Biden that she accused her father of sexual impropriety. I've seen rumors that have been HARMFUL to Ms Biden, causing her PTSD, in her words, about stories like this, but I've seen no confirmation of such actions or claims.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-afraid/
When I type search terms such as "did ashley biden accuse father of sexual impropriety" and other variations, I get nothing. I suspect you're listening to harmful, satanic gossip and rumors in your dark corners of the so-called "conservative" movement, but you tell me.
Again, when I google and TRY to find support for your salacious and unsupported rumor, I find nothing. What I DO find is this, from Ms Biden herself:
"I am a private citizen,
targeted only because my father happened to be running to be President.
In other words,
the extensive work I have done to move past my trauma
was undone by Ms. Harris's actions. …
Although this criminal act happened more than three years ago,
because of the publicity it drew—exactly as Ms. Harris intended—
I am constantly re-traumatized by it.
I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online.
Repeatedly, I hear others [Craig, perhaps?]
grossly misinterpret my once-private writings and lob
false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love."
Repent, son. Your gossip is not of grace, love or heaven. It is diabolical and it is causing harm ACCORDING TO the one you are taking advantage of.
I see NO evidence of the vulgar claims you make without support. But I hear from the woman you're attacking herself testifying to the harm that YOU and people like you are doing with your gossip and false innuendo.
Repent.
Be a better man.
But thanks for making me look into it further. It just further underscores the harm being done by Trump and his allies and the need to stand against him, just as Jackson (in your other post) spoke of standing against the Nazis (not that the two instances are exactly equivalent EXCEPT in that they're awful, evil actions that should be opposed).
"Not what I said. By all means, let us engage in respectful, adult conversation. Beginning by not trying to put words into my mouth."
Where did I say that you and only you said "Believe all women", It was quite the catchphrase on the left not that long ago. But in your narcissism, you only see yourself.
1. A. You say "believe women", then quickly provide exceptions for certain women, while impugning their mental health.
B. Why not be accurate and unambiguous and say "Believe some women"? It's clearly a more accurate formulation.
2. Always, really?
3. Except when they accuse Biden, Clinton, Franken, and Various Kennedys.
4. Which doesn't prove that any of the reports against trump are valid, not that the accusations against Biden are invalid.
5. So, where is the investigation that proves Trump is guilty of the crime of rape or that Biden is not guilty?
6. Call the women crazy, what's next bimbos?
7. So based on your subjective and biased review of all the data you're prepared to pass judgement on these women. Brave.
8. Again, how many of those claims have resulted in criminal charges or convictions for rape? Or are you just impressed by the numbers?
Yet you'll vote for Biden, no matter what. The fact that you've spun "might, actually, likely" into guilty of rape is impressive. Unfortunately for you, we punish people for what they actually do, not what you hope they've done.
"We should trust the testimony of women, AND we should strive to verify and recognize that by and large (far and away) when women say they were sexually assaulted, it's true. I've never said otherwise, nor have other feminists and allies of women and girls."
Until they accuse DFL politicians. As long as they accuse someone in the GOP, regardless of how little they recall about the event or how much evidence disputes their claims, then it's fair game to call those in the GOP "rapist" regardless of the proof.
"There will never come an end to me being entirely unable to understand how his confession about boasting about sexual assault was not an end to your pervert's campaign... except to note that the "moral majority" was never either."
That's because he wasn't "boasting" about a specific sexual event, he was making a generalization about how certain women respond to men with power, wealth, and fame. That you can't understand that doesn't bode well for your complaints of others misunderstanding you.
"What I pointed out is that there are VERY RARE circumstances (much less than 1 in 10... and probably closer to 1 in 100) where women make false accusations... but we should not be naive. It IS the rare exception. When a man has 20+ women making accusations, that should be the end of his campaign."
Yes, you gave an excuse to excuse Biden. I was unaware to we decided the Truth by vote.
"YOU willingly voted for this man knowing this history of his and hearing his own actually perverse words in multiple instances. The man is a pervert narcissist pig and should not be doing anything but cleaning out toilets far away from people. But people like you put him in power. That will always be on you and people like you."
No, I unwillingly voted for him because the alternative was less desirable. That's your problem, you can't defend Biden as some sort of moral paragon, you can't ignore his repeated and long lasting lies, or his inability to do things like speak and find his way back into the White House without help, so you bash Trump.
I get it, they're both examples of scraping the bottom of the barrel, and I tend to vote for the candidate whose views are closest to mine. So, I'll be less voting for Trump as against Biden.
"By all means, condemn the thief and the crooks who bought it from her."
Consider them all condemned. Yet, you still can't condemn Joe for what was recorded in the diary.
"It's amusing when you invent some subjective "rape-y behavior" from Trump..."
You specifically tried to connect Trump's "rape-y" behavior with his daughter, now you move the goal posts. Look, you just minimized The Kennedys, Clinton, Franken and the rest, Trump is just one more very much like them. Hell, Trump didn't abandon a woman to drown.
You mistake my pointing out the reality of the double standard, with defending Trump's actions. I haven't and I don't. I'm merely trying to suggest that the same standards apply to both.
"What does it take for you to get to "rape-y" perverted-sounding? What does it take for you to say "I would NEVER vote for such a deviant.."?"
It sounds like a rich, powerful, famous guy who's a philanderer. It sounds like any number of actors and athletes who do the same sorts of things every day.
"I've seen no evidence, nor claim from Ms Biden that she accused her father of sexual impropriety. I've seen rumors that have been HARMFUL to Ms Biden, causing her PTSD, in her words, about stories like this, but I've seen no confirmation of such actions or claims."
Yes, because contemporaneously writing about the incident in her diary isn't evidence of anything. Of course, the "I don't see it" excuse allows you to ignore all sorts of things.
"When I type search terms such as "did ashley biden accuse father of sexual impropriety" and other variations, I get nothing. I suspect you're listening to harmful, satanic gossip and rumors in your dark corners of the so-called "conservative" movement, but you tell me."
More personal attacks and ad hom bullshit. The reports are that Ashley Biden verified the provenance of the diary, which includes the references to the inappropriate sexual behavior. But keep making excuses.
"Repent, son. Your gossip is not of grace, love or heaven. It is diabolical and it is causing harm ACCORDING TO the one you are taking advantage of."
It's not gossip, it's reporting two facts. Ashley Biden verified the provenance of the diary (had she not, then the crime goes away), and the diary contains contemporaneous accounts of inappropriate sexual behavior. I see no place where she's repudiated what she wrote or given an alternate explanation. In essence, she feels bad because her diary is being used against her dad. Not because it's not True.
"I see NO evidence of the vulgar claims you make without support. But I hear from the woman you're attacking herself testifying to the harm that YOU and people like you are doing with your gossip and false innuendo."
Again, I've made 2 specific claims, you haven't demonstrated that either is factually incorrect. Nor have I attacked her at all. I feel sorry for her that she had to endure those sorts of things and have them become public. One wonders why she didn't destroy the diary or those pages in the diary, that would have solved the problem nicely.
"Repent."
I did years ago, and continue to do so regularly.
"Be a better man."
If you're an example, I'll pass.
"It's not gossip, it's reporting two facts.."
It's literally NOT a fact. The traumatized victim of your gossip is telling you that your allegation about what happened to her are false.
And again, with the whitemansplaining, telling the victim of your gossip that YOU know best what happened to her, what HER words mean. She is telling YOU that your words are lies and that they're harming her.
Where do get off with your patriarchal, patronizing gossip?
"The diary contains contemporaneous accounts of inappropriate sexual behavior."
Not according to the victim of your gossip. She's literally corrected your false twisting of her words. And you're spitting on her, gladly harming someone you don't know just for the sake of trying to defend your pervert king.
Dan
"I feel sorry for her that she had to endure those sorts of things and have them become public. One wonders why she didn't destroy the diary or those pages in the diary, that would have solved the problem nicely."
I am quite certain she doesn't want your mansplaining pity. She wants you to stop spreading false testimony and harmful gossip. Is your pride that large that you can't read and understand what's she's telling you?
And blaming the victim, too!
Repent. Be a better man. You wouldn't want people to treat your children this way.
Look at what you're doing.
Be better.
Dan
"It's literally NOT a fact. The traumatized victim of your gossip is telling you that your allegation about what happened to her are false."
Fact 1. She authenticated the diary.
Fact 2. The diary says what it says about Biden's actions in the shower.
Those are two facts, which I am repeating.
"And again, with the whitemansplaining, telling the victim of your gossip that YOU know best what happened to her, what HER words mean. She is telling YOU that your words are lies and that they're harming her."
When you make up lies, bullshit, and false crap, it only increases the impression that you are desperately clinging to the dwindling hope that Biden is just a bit less bad than Trump is. The fact that you're doing what you accuse me of doing, while amusing, is becoming tedious.
"Where do get off with your patriarchal, patronizing gossip?"
The same place you do.
"The diary contains contemporaneous accounts of inappropriate sexual behavior."
"Not according to the victim of your gossip. She's literally corrected your false twisting of her words. And you're spitting on her, gladly harming someone you don't know just for the sake of trying to defend your pervert king."
I'll repeat, because you are apparently stupid.
1. She's authenticated the diary.
2. The diary says what it says about Biden showering with her.
As for the rest of your vitriolic, false, attacks on me personally, repent and be a man.
"I am quite certain she doesn't want your mansplaining pity. She wants you to stop spreading false testimony and harmful gossip. Is your pride that large that you can't read and understand what's she's telling you?"
The very fact that you, in all of your whitemansplaining glory, have decided that you are able to speak for her and place your biased hunches about what she thinks and feels out there as if they are fact. says volumes about you and your lack of consistency. You project your actions onto others, and make shit up in order to protect your blind faith in Biden.
"And blaming the victim, too!"
Not at all. I'm merely wondering why, at some point in her father's 40+ year political career, she didn't think that her diary might somehow become a negative factor. It's a reasonable to wonder about. If I, as a child, could save my parent from massive embarrassment by simply destroying a page or two from my diary I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I knew my diary had information that could damage my parent's presidential chances, I'd get rid of it or keep in under lock and key. It's common sense to prevent damaging information from becoming public.
"Repent. Be a better man. You wouldn't want people to treat your children this way."
Well, I wouldn't. Although, isn't the real problem the fact that Biden engaged in behavior that caused his daughter to note his behavior in her diary? Unfortunately, your problem here is your commitment to the notion that Biden is of significantly higher character than Trump.
"Look at what you're doing."
Reporting two facts. That's it.
"Be better."
Coming from someone who's lying about me, that's rich.
I find it fascinating that one of Dan's big complaints about Trump is that "Trump lies". Yet, Biden has a track record of lying in his role as an elected official that is long, well established, and cost him a presidential nomination back when honesty was important to voters. I'm NOT pointing this out to defend Trump, I agree that Trump has a casual attitude towards Truth that bothers me. I'm pointing this out to draw attention to the fact that not only does Dan have a double standard when it comes to presidential candidates lying, but that Dan frequently lies in his defense of "Honest Joe Biden". He remained quiet or supported the lies of the Clinton campaign about Trump. Not even acknowledging when those lies were shown to be lies. He sits silently as Biden's lies are catalogued, likely even spreading some of those lies. Now we see in this thread him lying about me.
Maybe honesty and consistency aren't what Dan really values.
Fact 1. She authenticated the diary.
Fact 2. The diary says what it says about Biden's actions in the shower.
Those are two facts, which I am repeating.
I don't know, I haven't seen what the diary does and doesn't say. I just have YOUR testimony about what it says and I have THE AUTHOR'S testimony about what she said and what SHE says happened and didn't happen.
Who should I trust to know the facts? You or the author of the story and the person the story is about?
You are a liar. She's told you that you're a liar and you're doubling down on your lies EVEN WHEN it's causing her harm. You are the oppressor, the rapist-enabler, the abuser of women in this scenario. You are the one who is blaming the victim. YOU are the one who is not being rational or moral in this scenario.
Put frankly: I don't trust you one single bit as to what YOU THINK in your little mansplaining head she said.
On the other hand, I do trust her to know what did and didn't happen.
The pompous-ass arrogance is astounding... I don't see how you can't see what a total lack of humility or grace you're displaying in your insistence that Craig, the Man knows best.
Repent. You're just wrong.
"I don't know, I haven't seen what the diary does and doesn't say. I just have YOUR testimony about what it says and I have THE AUTHOR'S testimony about what she said and what SHE says happened and didn't happen."
I've seen copies of the diary entry, that you haven't speaks more about your desire to be able to hide behind that "I haven't seen..." excuse than anything. I've also not seen her explicitly denying what she wrote in her diary.
"Who should I trust to know the facts? You or the author of the story and the person the story is about?"
I don't care. You'll likely trust whoever is more aligned with your narrative.
"You are a liar. She's told you that you're a liar and you're doubling down on your lies EVEN WHEN it's causing her harm. You are the oppressor, the rapist-enabler, the abuser of women in this scenario. You are the one who is blaming the victim. YOU are the one who is not being rational or moral in this scenario."
No, repeating those two fact is not lying. But your resorting to vitriol, name calling, and lies, tells me you have nothing of substance.
"Put frankly: I don't trust you one single bit as to what YOU THINK in your little mansplaining head she said."
I haven't trusted you for quite some time, and I still don't care.
"The pompous-ass arrogance is astounding... I don't see how you can't see what a total lack of humility or grace you're displaying in your insistence that Craig, the Man knows best."
Again with your projection, there are probably people who can help you with that, as well as your penchant for personal attacks when you have nothing else.
"Put frankly: I don't trust you one single bit as to what YOU THINK in your little mansplaining head she said."
It's "WHITEmansplaining", Danny-boy! Get it right!
The whole of this conversation is Dan once again inflating the severity of crimes committed an opponent while minimizing the same crimes by an ally. That's how Dan rolls. It's not enough to insist we oppose the crimes regardless of the perpetrator, but that in choosing for whom we might vote as if those sins are all one needs to consider when the state of the nation hangs in the balance is not how mature adults roll. We are now faced with that choice again and Trump still stands as the better choice by a wide margin. And STILL I'd prefer he not have his unsavory past in the mix because that's all immoral liars like Dan have to assert he's somehow "unfit". One must weight the good against the bad and there's no debate about how we are better served with Trump in the White House than Biden or any other Dem likely to replace him should the party choose to do so in Chicago.
Art,
You are exactly right. Dan would have branded Trump a "child rapist" or worse with even less evidence than we're seeing about Biden. It's much more about Dan, than about anything else. His willingness to brush off the DFL legacy of "philandering" as not much at all, while going extremes when describing Trump's philandering. It also points out his eagerness to vote for Biden despite his flaws (which mirror Trump in some ways), while demanding that it's impossible to reach the same conclusion he has about Trump.
A clear example is the E. Jean Carroll case. This is one which not only were laws changed just so she could proceed in her attack on Trump, but yielded no guilty verdict for the charge which was the basis of all of it. Then, to be found guilty of "slander" for calling this woman a liar? I can't get behind any of this shit, but to the Dans of the world, it means he's as guilty as sin.
Thus, my "defense" of Trump is clearly more accurately a demand that his accusers provide more than personal feelings and hearsay of that which negates his good work as president, which is needed now more than in 2016 and of which Dems are incapable of providing.
One more thing about Dan and his vile and demonic hatred for Trump. Dan wants to believe that Trump is more likely what he says than Biden is based on things that have been obvious (like his daughter's diary claims about him). Dan thinks that because there are allegedly 20 or so cases of women with sexual abuse claims, that we must then presume that Trump must be guilty. But as we see, Daniels is a liar. I looked at a list of the women accusing Trump and tried to find something that would compel me to believe any of them are true or likely. Aside from the two sluts, I found at least three or four with incredibly lame claims to be sure. One claims Trump tried to assault her while the woman's husband was in the next room. Even if I was hammered, I'd be able to tell if my wife was stressed in an environment which shouldn't provoke stress. Somehow, this woman endured a groping and none were the wiser after she freed herself? Right. Another claimed he groped in the first class section of a plane trip. Another seated nearby claimed he never saw the two of them together during the flight. Yet another stated he touched her ass, but she initially thought it was someone's camera case or brief case or something, because as we all know, a case feels exactly like someone's hand. So these are all just names on a list until any of them can be proven to be true accusations, and at the same time, if only one of them is true, that's no reason to pretend any of the others must or might be, too. This is not how our judicial system or Christianity works.
Obviously the law that allowed the Carrol case (now claimed to be unconstitutional by one of it's proponents), was clearly passed for this one particular case and I suspect will go away quietly as soon as possible. But remember, the Carrol case was NOT criminal but civil. That's huge for shutting up the "Trump is a racist." crowd.
I'm in the position of finding Trump's sexual escapades deplorable, disgusting, and vile, I haven't seen any actual evidence that justified a criminal charge, trial, or conviction. I can also hold my conclusion that these Trump trials are absolutely a miscarriage of justice, and my disdain for Trump's lack of morality at the same time.
The precedent Biden has set by using the courts to interfere with his election opponent is going to reverberate through the political system for years.
Dan's conclusion that the number of women who've made some vague, unsubstantiated, complaints without enough evidence for a charge let alone a conviction is enough to brand Trump as a "rapist" or whatever. It's just Dan giving a pass to multiple DFL candidates, while holding Trump to a completely different standard.
It's all about evidence that is significant enough to stand up in criminal court, which they don't have.
"I'm in the position of finding Trump's sexual escapades deplorable, disgusting, and vile, I haven't seen any actual evidence that justified a criminal charge, trial, or conviction. I can also hold my conclusion that these Trump trials are absolutely a miscarriage of justice, and my disdain for Trump's lack of morality at the same time."
In this we are of one mind. I see no honest, mature way to be any different on the subject. (I would say that I don't regard womanizing as "deplorable, disgusting, and vile" if it's consensual, but just wrong and immoral. That's quite enough for me.)
I'd argue a bit and suggest that "womanizing" shows an inherent disrespect for women and that is more than simply immoral. I'd also add that those who womanize so publicly and brag about it, also move beyond simply immoral IMO.
I think it depends on what is meant by the term. I haven't looked it up, but I take it as simply a desire and practice in the enjoyment of experiencing relationships with women. I don't see it as necessarily implying exploitative behavior with women. It may indeed express a respectful appreciation. The casual sex aspect makes it immoral, but the mere desire to be in the company of women isn't. If the man allows or provokes false expectations on the part of the woman, I see that as being exploitative, even though the woman has control as to the degree of her participation. To that, the more known it becomes of the character of the man being that of a womanizer, the more potential female partners are consenting to the arrangement by agreeing to "date" the guy.
To "brag" about it? Is Trump doing that, or simply responding to questions about his personal life (assuming you're referring to him)? To state "I just love beautiful women and want to have sex with each one I meet." is more just a statement of fact than a brag. To state how many women one has "bagged" is another thing, and I don't know if he's engaged in that beyond simply stating he's been with many, which indeed can be bragging as well given the context in which it was said.
From a Christian standpoint, with lust alone being problematic, simply dating multiple women is a sinful if sex is involved and simply dating if it is not. Where it is, that's what most immoral about it, as only sex within a male-female marital union is acceptable.
Obviously how one defines a term affects how one thinks of a behavior.
I'll start by saying that it's the term that Dan used to minimize the behavior of the Kennedys, Clinton, Franken, etc. I suspect that he intentionally chose the word for a reason.
I think that the difference for me, regardless of the term, is between men who are only interested in sex and variety and those who are interested in relationships. (very broadly) Too many use their wealth and power to exploit or pressure women into sex only to satisfy themselves. AT some point it just becomes a slightly less direct form of prostitution.
BTW, this is one problem with feminism (later wave). They've decided that the way for women to be equal is for women to act like men sexually and seek uncommitted sexual relationships, one night stands, hook ups, or whatever.
As far as trump bragging, let's start with the fact that he's not a particularly good looking guy. He's not young either. I'm fairly sure that most of the women he's had affairs with, aren't that interested in how attractive he is. But, I think that in Trump's case it's the fact that he's not particularly discrete about it. Seriously, don't most men (Dan and Jimmy Carter excepted) see an incredibly attractive woman and (at least for a second) think about some level of physical relationship? The difference is whether or not you say it out loud IMO.
It's ultimately subjective and not worth arguing about. Trump has (or had) multiple affairs, and that's a problem for me no matter who it is. But, given the choice between Trump and Biden, it's hard to even consider Biden.
I'd agree that from a Christian perspective that sex outside of marriage is where the primary line is drawn. But at that point were talking about what's "sinful", and we all have plenty of "sinful" things in our lives. I'd argue, as Stan did, that when it's adultery it becomes a bigger problem. I'm not going to rehash what's at Stan.s but we both addressed it there.
The bottom line is that Trump is a philander/womanizer/playboy or whatever word is used to describe that behavior. He's wrong to engage in that behavior. But, the notion that he's somehow less unfit for office than any of the Kennedys, or Clinton is absurd. The notion that someone who voted for Clinton, can shame a Trump voter based on their sexual behavior is ridiculous.
If the accusations against Biden are True, or even credible, then anyone who says that Trump is unfit must say the same about Biden. This is what happens when both parties scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to candidates.
Art,
The point of this post isn't to rehash Trump's moral failings, or even to compare them with DFL presidents.
The point is that Dan and his ilk will jump on ANY accusation of sexual impropriety against ANY GOP candidate regardless of how flimsy and accept those accusations as of they are fact without regard to the Truth. It's about the hypocrisy of passing a law specifically to allow Carroll to pursue a civil case against Trump, and then declaring the law "unconstitutional" when it's used against one of the DFL backers of the bill. It's about the hypocrisy of allowing Keith Ellison to serve in high office after a very credible claim of spousal abuse from his wife.
It's about the lack of character of those who say that it's impossible to vote for Trump because X, then to vote for a DFL candidate who's done the same types of things.
The point is the blatant hypocrisy of Dan and those like him. Got it.
I don't know that many women would agree with you about Trump's looks, particularly when he was younger. But then, since he was from wealth, one can always say women were attracted to that primarily whether that was the sole reason or not for their attention. There's no accounting for taste and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but wealth does have a way of improving someone's looks. :)
And you can't cite Jimmy Carter as an exception to normal manhood. He admitted in his Playboy interview that he lusts after women in his heart. It's only Dan who doesn't and that could be because he's not just a supporter of the LGBTQ+ agenda. :D
"The point is the blatant hypocrisy of Dan and those like him. Got it."
I'm sorry that I have to keep hammering on it, but Dan keeps missing the point.
"I don't know that many women would agree with you about Trump's looks, particularly when he was younger. But then, since he was from wealth, one can always say women were attracted to that primarily whether that was the sole reason or not for their attention. There's no accounting for taste and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but wealth does have a way of improving someone's looks. :)"
I've hard a saying that goes something like, "A handsome poor man is still a poor man, An ugly rich man, is a rich man.". Even in his youth, Trump was never someone who was conventionally handsome, while not ugly either. My point is that in almost any instance where a rich/powerful man is seeking casual female companionship, money talks loudly in most circumstances.
"And you can't cite Jimmy Carter as an exception to normal manhood. He admitted in his Playboy interview that he lusts after women in his heart. It's only Dan who doesn't and that could be because he's not just a supporter of the LGBTQ+ agenda. :D"
My bad, I guess Jimmy is normal like the rest of us. It's only Dan who doesn't lust.
Post a Comment