American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean, let's be honest, if Biden was still running and had been convicted of a dozen rapes over the last 10 years, a strong contingent of this thread would still be telling everyone to shut up and just vote blue.

I mean... you'd probably still have to, no?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Is Bill on tape saying it's ok for celebrities to grab women by the genitalia?

Is Bill on tape bragging about walking into the Miss USA locker room whenever he wanted?

Compared to Bill, there was more evidence pointing to Trump being a sexual predator, even before you take the E Jean Carroll rape incident into account.

Are you saying you wouldn't have believed Trump to be guilty of rape without those accompanying tapes?

And you're moving the goalposts.

When it's Clinton, it's "Accusations are not proven facts."

When it's Trump, it's "Accusations associated with a pattern of problematic behaviour are facts."

Again, how convenient for you.

How many allegations against Clinton would we need to see before a pattern of problematic behaviour was established?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Helping Trump win is not the answer either. Continuing to push the "Dems platformed a sexual predator" narrative helps Trump win. You might not think it does, but it does.

Even if the allegations against Bill are true (I'm not saying they are or aren't), the combined suffering caused in all those cases put together is very small compared to the amount of human suffering that would come about from Trump regaining power. It's amazing to me how unwilling people are to take a step back and see the big picture here.

In your estimation, how many rapes and sexual assaults should be we OK with compared to a Trump presidency? What’s the rape and sexual assault threshold before a Trump presidency actually becomes preferred? 100? 1000? Unlimited?

If we’re judging this based on combined suffering.

Ballpark is fine.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Helping Trump win is not the answer either. Continuing to push the "Dems platformed a sexual predator" narrative helps Trump win. You might not think it does, but it does.

You know they could have avoided that, right?

Even if the allegations against Bill are true (I'm not saying they are or aren't), the combined suffering caused in all those cases put together is very small compared to the amount of human suffering that would come about from Trump regaining power. It's amazing to me how unwilling people are to take a step back and see the big picture here.

Textbook Blue MAGA. The ends justify the means.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

That they should only do so when it’s politically beneficial to their party of choice. Otherwise quit stirring up trouble for the good guys because we’re trying to stop the destruction of democracy and western civilization. It’s big picture thinking here, what’s a few sexual assaults from decades ago vs the literal end of the world? Not so big a deal now is it. Don’t be another fool who doesn’t understand politics.

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Helping Trump win is not the answer either. Continuing to push the "Dems platformed a sexual predator" narrative helps Trump win. You might not think it does, but it does.

Even if the allegations against Bill are true (I'm not saying they are or aren't), the combined suffering caused in all those cases put together is very small compared to the amount of human suffering that would come about from Trump regaining power. It's amazing to me how unwilling people are to take a step back and see the big picture here.

Wait if you just post the thing that I did when I was melodramatically over the top mocking you it ruins the whole bit.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Equating people to MAGAs because the ends justify the means for them is pretty absurd. Not seeing anything remotely close to MAGA behaviour from anyone at the DNC regardless of how much tolerance for contrariness they have. That really does reek of both sides-ing.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Wait if you just post the thing that I did when I was melodramatically over the top mocking you it ruins the whole bit.

Just wheel Bill Cosby out for a speech. If he's pro-Harris and can get a few more votes from certain segments of the population, who cares that he made dozens of women suffer over a few decades?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Except maybe one person in this thread can ACTUALLY vote in the election. So the conversations here mean less than nothing.

You think there's only one American scrolling through and/or commenting here?

I don't think anything said here is swaying any significant number of people if any at all, but there are obviously more than a single American on the board.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Equating people to MAGAs because the ends justify the means for them is pretty absurd. Not seeing anything remotely close to MAGA behaviour from anyone at the DNC regardless of how much tolerance for contrariness they have. That really does reek of both sides-ing.

Not saying from the DNC. The cultish "don't criticize Democrats, regardless of what they do or else you're just a Trump supporter," from Dem supporters in this thread is what we're referring to.

Equating leftists with Trump supporters for valid criticisms of the Democratic party, and then bitching about purity tests is quite something, too.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I'm more worried about what happens in the future than what happened 30 years ago...

Making it ok for rich and powerful men to (allegedly) sexually assault young women that they have power over is probably something we want to eliminate in the future.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Are you saying you wouldn't have believed Trump to be guilty of rape without those accompanying tapes?

And you're moving the goalposts.

When it's Clinton, it's "Accusations are not proven facts."

When it's Trump, it's "Accusations associated with a pattern of problematic behaviour are facts."

Again, how convenient for you.

How many allegations against Clinton would we need to see before a pattern of problematic behaviour was established?

You're committing the black-&-white fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

There are more options available than just 1) totally sure someone is innocent or 2) totally sure someone is guilty

I never said accusations are proven facts. I'm saying that problematic behavior makes it more likely that someone is guilty. There is much more problematic behavior in Trump's case than Bill's. Therefore in 2016 Trump would have been in the category of likely sexual predator, but still not entirely sure. Bill is in the possibly sexual predator but can't be sure category.

Allegations are not proven facts. But we did have Trump on tape saying he could grab women by the you know what because of his celebrity status, and walking into the Miss USA locker room. So that's direct evidence of problematic behavior, not just accusations.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Except people hate bill cosby. What a moronic example, even accounting for hyperbole and your poorly made points. He’s reviled and a convicted serial rapist.

The number of people concerned about Clinton is minuscule. It’s not a controversy at all. People still like him. He’s never been convicted, let alone accused or tried for rape.

He might be an old skeezy perv but almost no one cares. It’s such a pointless hill to die on. He has nothing to do with Kamala Harris or her viability as a presidential candidate.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I mean... you'd probably still have to, no?

Missed this. I guess what I'm saying is you don't get to say MAGAs are deplorable for voting for a rapist if you too would also vote for a rapist.

You can take the moral high ground of not being a neofascist, white supremacists, etc., but it really does seem like you're just using rape victims as a political cudgel and don't actually give a #### about them as humans.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I hope she speaks at least briefly. Just to give a soundbite about him using an AI generated image of her to try to trick people into voting for him without her permission and how that's not surprising because he's "never been big on consent". Something to that effect would have a measurable impact on polling.

Political operative in training? I like it!

[afc wimbledon]

Politics is Darwinian at it's heart, the end does justify the means because the end effects the world whereas the means effects a handful of people

There is no moral reason why we should tax the eff out of the rich, it is frankly unfair but we want to do it because we can improve the lives of the majority by giving a minority a bit of a thumping

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Ped

Making it ok for rich and powerful men to (allegedly) sexually assault young women that they have power over is probably something we want to eliminate in the future.

I never said it was ok (accusing me of saying this quite frankly revolting). I'm saying there is an election that Democrats absolutely must win, with the stakes so high that literally nothing else matters if Trump wins. Good luck reigning in the power of rich and powerful men in the world Trump and his Heritage Foundations buddies are poised to usher in.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Except people hate bill cosby. What a moronic example, even accounting for hyperbole and your poorly made points. He’s reviled and a convicted serial rapist.

He had his conviction tossed. By Mathgod's own standards accusations are only facts if there's a conviction.

The number of people concerned about Clinton is minuscule. It’s not a controversy at all. People still like him. He’s never been convicted, let alone accused or tried for rape.

Ah well. If people like him, who cares about the people he's harmed?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Except people hate bill cosby. What a moronic example, even accounting for hyperbole and your poorly made points. He’s reviled and a convicted serial rapist.

The number of people concerned about Clinton is minuscule. It’s not a controversy at all. People still like him. He’s never been convicted, let alone accused or tried for rape.

He might be an old skeezy perv but almost no one cares. It’s such a pointless hill to die on. He has nothing to do with Kamala Harris or her viability as a presidential candidate.

Yeah, but what’s being argued is that not only do people care, but that even bringing it up could hand the country over to the fascists.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There is no moral reason why we should tax the eff out of the rich, it is frankly unfair but we want to do it because we can improve the lives of the majority by giving a minority a bit of a thumping

You can absolutely make a moral argument that it's fair to tax the rich more.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I never said it was ok (accusing me of saying this quite frankly revolting). I'm saying there is an election that Democrats absolutely must win, with the stakes so high that literally nothing else matters if Trump wins. Good luck reigning in the power of rich and powerful men in the world Trump and his Heritage Foundations buddies are poised to usher in.

It isn’t OK but it also doesn’t matter?