Community >> View Post
·
Post By
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Subj: Re: Trump and the porn star
Posted: Wed May 16, 2018 at 07:23:01 pm CDT (Viewed 681 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Trump and the porn star
Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 at 09:09:06 pm CDT (Viewed 661 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But Ted Kennedy consistently was voted in as senator until his death in 2009. For over 40 years democrat voters didn't care that he killed a woman. I'm not attacking democrat voters, just showing that your claim of a high bar being lowered by Trump voters is farcical.
      And again, you mislead by not taking context into account. You say Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne as if it were homicide. It was a car accident. If you were driving a car and your wife died in an accident, even one for which you were at fault, would you label yourself a wife-killer? That's pretty absurd. He's not faulted for Kopechne's death so much as for not reporting it to authorities until 10 hours later. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a two-month suspended jail sentence. A grand jury reviewed the case and did nor refer indictments on anything. But you make it sound like voters are forgiving Kennedy of murder.
    He was drunk, drove the car into the water, and left her there. She didn't drown, but was alive in the car underwater, and suffocated when her air ran out while she was fully conscious. The car, and her body were discovered before Kennedy called the police 10 hours later. He left her there to die instead of doing anything which could have saved her. He passed multiple houses on his way back to his family, and there is no reason he could not have called police or other emergency services within minutes. The fact that you are playing semantics and equating this to any innocent car accident proves my point more then I ever could. You are making this incident seem far more innocent for one reason, Kennedy's political party aligns with your political beliefs more than the party opposing him.


Wrong. I hate Ted Kennedy. I think he was horrible for the Democratic Party, especially when he ran against Carter. I think his not reporting the car accident until 10 hours later was egregious. However, he still didn't murder the woman, and I don't think there's any evidence to indicate that he knew she was still alive after the car had been submerged a few minutes. In other words, his supporters don't support him while simultaneously holding the belief that he killed someone, and that you believe this is the case is a straw man argument.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I know of no liberals who believe Clinton performed violent rapes and that should be overlooked. This is a straw argument.
    You yourself said "Many liberals have turned an unkind eye toward Bill Clinton in the Me Too movement". Why now? No facts have changed regarding the accusations. So why turn an unkind eye now rather than five years ago? My point being, while the Clintons were active politically, this was viewed as "a right wing conspiracy". But now, you point out liberals have turned an unkind eye. Facts in the cases didn't change. The only thing that changed is the Clintons are no longer politically useful.


Wrong again. Something huge changed. Society. The Me Too movement is a consciousness raising moment which empowered women to no longer accept a culture of sexual harassment. It's analogous to the acceptance of homosexuality building up to the legalization of gay marriage in 2015. Sometimes sudden change happens in just a few years like the Civil Rights Movement building up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And in any case, the unkind eye is toward the perception of Clinton's taking advantage of power dynamics with Lewinsky, not outright rape as you claim. Clinton has never been legally charged or prosecuted for rape.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I'm honestly confused. Why would you pay someone to drop a lawsuit that had been dismissed? That doesn't make sense. Clinton paid Jones $850,000 to drop the case, as stated here:
      Simple, Jones was appealing after it was dismissed.
    Again you are playing semantics for those who align with your political beliefs. Both Clinton and Trump paid a woman to keep quiet, and go away with accusations.


That's just wrong because Clinton's payment was only for ending the appeal of the law suit, not for keeping quiet. If Jones had to keep quiet, then Trump wouldn't have been able to parade her in front of the press and air her grievances.


    Quote:
    Just because Paula Jones appealed it afterward doesn't change that the pay off happened. You post with great concern about Trump's payoff, yet try to blur what happened with Clinton's payoff because of actions which happened after the fact. You further prove my point of what people will excuse when politicians agree with them.


I don't have to blur. I'm just stating the facts. The Jones suit was very public. Nothing about it was hidden. Trump tried to hide the entire Stormy Daniels affair and may have broken campaign finance laws to do so. You just refuse to admit differences in context.




How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software