I just do not understand the focus on Monica Lewinsky. That was obviously consensual, and yes, there are plenty of men and women who will engage in sexual activity with people who are famous or powerful because they are famous or powerful. It's certainly sordid, but no, rube, that isn't rape.
It's all the other allegations of non-consensual sexual activity that are the problem. And there's too much smoke there to ignore, even for someone with the types of political enemies Bill Clinton has. If you honestly review the history of these allegations and come away thinking "I really can't tell if there's anything to be concerned about here, this could all be made up nonsense", I simply do not give your critical reasoning skills a ton of credit.
... And yes, Trump is worse, because as far as I know there are no credible allegations of Clinton sexually assaulting children. But "he's not the worst predator ever to occupy the oval office" is not the hill you want to be fighting on.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
They gave Obama a keynote spot in 2004 before he had any pull whatsoever and before anyone knew who he was. There was basically no way to even see him speak prior to that, given there was no Youtube. Shapiro is far more established as one of the best prospects they have going forward as a national figure and it doesn't hurt that he can get a crowd fired up like few others.
It's essentially a coach who has an all-star player who's having a breakout season and they've decided to not put him on the power play and play him 14 minutes in game 7... that team's fans should be calling for the coach's head.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
They gave Obama a keynote spot in 2004 before he had any pull whatsoever and before anyone knew who he was. There was basically no way to even see him speak prior to that, given there was no Youtube. Shapiro is far more established as one of the best prospects they have going forward as a national figure and it doesn't hurt that he can get a crowd fired up like few others.
It's essentially a coach who has an all-star player who's having a breakout season and they've decided to not put him on the power play and play him 14 minutes in game 7... that team's fans should be calling for the coach's head.
I don't really remember Obama prior to 2004, but Shapiro is 4+ years away from even being considered as a Presidential candidate, and if Harris wins, she will likely go for a second term, so Shapiro is probably 8 years away.
I don't disagree with you on the stupidity of it, but Obama was running within 4 years of 2004, so gearing up for the next election cycle.
I think its clear the Democrats gave Shapiro a boot in the ass with the VP pick. He's a much stronger candidate than Walz, plus from a swing state that matters.
So you're right, the coach should be fired, cause the moves are pretty dumb.
The reason Obama GOT the nomination in 2008 was that 2004 speech - without it he wouldn't have been a player in the primaries. That put him on the map. Most of the MEDIA in attendance at the 2004 DNC didn't know who he was, aside from his title - they'd never heard him talk before. There was no reason to think, when that decision was made, that he'd be anywhere NEAR a presidential run in 2008. And they gave the guy 16 minutes.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Kamala isn’t 81 and if she wins this election it’s safe to assume she runs again in 28. A mid week speaking slot at the DNC isn’t making or breaking someone who, should they ever run for president, won’t do so until 2032. This is backup quarterback syndrome at its finest.
The Following User Says Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Bill Clinton has spoken at every DNC for the past 50 years. He may have a spotty personal record but he’s never been convicted of a crime. It’d be a bigger news story if the Dems abandoned him now than if they let him speak. If the majority of people believed he was a rapist, he’d have been jettisoned long ago. But for better or for worse the accusations against him aren’t particularly strong.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Of course she's going to run again in 28. But you establish people to be national figures, and they can help you win this year, and again in 28, and then they're set up to be the candidate in '32 when Shapiro will be 59 years old. And what if she loses? She ain't running again in 28 in that case. If that happens, who, right now, would you put your money on to get the Democratic nomination?
Hell, the same applies to Buttigieg. He gave maybe the best speech of the whole evening. You want to build the bench up so that you have that depth, so that when these people show up at a campaign stop in Milwaukee six weeks from now they're a big deal for the crowd and not the "who's that guy" opening act... to not even mention the juice it gives them in their own local spheres.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Mayor Peter is Awesome. I like Shapiro a lot with just a little bit of exposure. Completely forgot about AOC who could be Shapiro's running mate in 28. I think this process is demonstrating a very strong bench for the Democrats. Plus they are smart, serious people that know how to play politics. They are setting themselves up very nicely. The Repubs are dead in the water with no one around to pick up the pieces. MTGreen? That is the future of your party? JD weirdeyes? Good luck.
Walz was not the best pick? Are you paying attention? He is going to be the breakout superstar of this whole thing. Plus he appeals to women, white dads, students, football players, LGBT, mid-westerners, farmers, unions, normal working people, etc., etc. He brings way more than just PA, and I bet he is going to be very identified with by tons of people in PA. A very wily pick.
As to Bill. I really like Bill. I think he is smart and charming and deep down, I suspect (or hope) he is a good guy. He has his demons. That none of the accusations ended in a conviction, or even charges if I recall correctly, makes me wonder if it was more political theatre. It is disgusting to blame the victim and we should believe her. However, these sorts of dirty tricks are not unheard of in kill or be killed politics. Trust but verify and I am not sure the verify part has been fulfilled. As to him speaking, obviously the positive legacy has been judged to outweigh the negative as mentioned above.
There is an element of forgive and forget in the US, a christian dominated culture, where forgiveness is a pretty big deal, and this appears to be more prevalent the richer and famousier you are. Is the balance correct? No, probably not. Should we burn people at the stake forever because they did one, two, five, ten bad things? No again, at least to a degree. I think it does beg an interesting discussion.
The reason Obama GOT the nomination in 2008 was that 2004 speech - without it he wouldn't have been a player in the primaries. That put him on the map. Most of the MEDIA in attendance at the 2004 DNC didn't know who he was, aside from his title - they'd never heard him talk before. There was no reason to think, when that decision was made, that he'd be anywhere NEAR a presidential run in 2008. And they gave the guy 16 minutes.
And it's 2024 now not 2004 and the ability for someone like Shapiro to find an audience and grow is much greater. No one knew who Waltz was a month ago either, now he's a political star.
__________________ MMF is the tough as nails cop that "plays by his own rules". The force keeps suspending him when he crosses the line but he keeps coming back and then cracks a big case.
-JiriHrdina
2028 is a while away, most likely will be here tomorrow saying that.
Anyways no one thought Biden would be sewered this much, especially going against Trump again but here we are.
2 years into Harris term he approval rating could be in the gutter, and at least you have someone ready to step in.
Walz is also amazing. I had no idea he has this much charisma, the guy could play to a WWE crowd.
I remember when Michelle said when they go low, we go high. I like how they have figured out with Trump when he goes low, you just low blow him and he is going to lose his #### like he has.
At some point they will have to stop that and start talking policy though.
Bill Clinton has spoken at every DNC for the past 50 years. He may have a spotty personal record but he’s never been convicted of a crime. It’d be a bigger news story if the Dems abandoned him now than if they let him speak. If the majority of people believed he was a rapist, he’d have been jettisoned long ago. But for better or for worse the accusations against him aren’t particularly strong.
I do wish people like the Clintons, Schumer, Pelosi and yeah even Bernie just ride off into the sunset with Joe. Particularly the Clintons and Pelosi are so polarizing and even a lot of Democrats are sick of them, whenever I se them speaking I think "Read the room. No one wants to hear from these old folks anymore."
Thank you for your service (sort of). Now go away.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
2028 is a while away, most likely will be here tomorrow saying that.
Anyways no one thought Biden would be sewered this much, especially going against Trump again but here we are.
2 years into Harris term he approval rating could be in the gutter, and at least you have someone ready to step in.
Walz is also amazing. I had no idea he has this much charisma, the guy could play to a WWE crowd.
I remember when Michelle said when they go low, we go high. I like how they have figured out with Trump when he goes low, you just low blow him and he is going to lose his #### like he has.
At some point they will have to stop that and start talking policy though.
Agree with everything but there has been more policy talk already from the Dems than 4 years with the cheeto as president, nevermind his campaign.
Rube and people like Rube are the reason these neo-fascist nut jobs have so much power, there is nobody to blame but yourself.
You might be right, you might be wrong. But I just scrolled through 4 pages of people arguing about how a guy who is not the candidate, who has not been convicted of anything, and will not have a direct influence on policy regardless of who wins, is effecting your view of this convention.
It's politics and if I were running a Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to vote for me, I would take the vote. And all of this if before we get into the proven facts about the other guys misconduct.
Take a lesson from Tim Walz, mind your own damn business, people just want to be left alone for the most part, do good things and don't police the thoughts of others (just their actions). Especially if it doesn't have a direct impact on the outcome or policy direction. And stop dying on every hill you see, it doesn't make you righteous, it makes you dead.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Rube and people like Rube are the reason these neo-fascist nut jobs have so much power, there is nobody to blame but yourself.
You might be right, you might be wrong. But I just scrolled through 4 pages of people arguing about how a guy who is not the candidate, who has not been convicted of anything, and will not have a direct influence on policy regardless of who wins, is effecting your view of this convention.
It's politics and if I were running a Jeffrey Dahmer wanted to vote for me, I would take the vote. And all of this if before we get into the proven facts about the other guys misconduct.
Take a lesson from Tim Walz, mind your own damn business, people just want to be left alone for the most part, do good things and don't police the thoughts of others (just their actions). Especially if it doesn't have a direct impact on the outcome or policy direction. And stop dying on every hill you see, it doesn't make you righteous, it makes you dead.
“Don’t police the thoughts of others” is a wild line to throw in a post exclusively dedicated to policing the thoughts of others.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I do wish people like the Clintons, Schumer, Pelosi and yeah even Bernie just ride off into the sunset with Joe. Particularly the Clintons and Pelosi are so polarizing and even a lot of Democrats are sick of them, whenever I se them speaking I think "Read the room. No one wants to hear from these old folks anymore."
Thank you for your service (sort of). Now go away.
The rest sure but Bernie? He’s as awesome as ever.
“Don’t police the thoughts of others” is a wild line to throw in a post exclusively dedicated to policing the thoughts of others.
Cool,
I'm not policing Rube, I'm just calling him an insufferable dead guy on a hill, whos rhetoric directly contributes to the divisions in society that are fueling and ever more dangerous right wing movement.
