Respectful Politics Thread (Let's Just See)

[jvcarroll]

Well also on CNN this morning it was reported that some of the friends of Schneiderman's victims warned them not to tattle because he does so many good things for the party. Horrifying, but not at all surprising. Shades of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Roy Moore, Trump, and so many others, from both parties. And how many monsters are still in government that we don't know about because they "do good things for the party"? This is why nowadays I have to laugh a little when I'm lectured about the virtues of voting. It's long past being any kind of virtue. We don't know these people, and the party system ensures that we never do, until it's too late.

That's what I was saying in my previous post: "Behind the scenes, however, the Dems in his office reportedly told his accusers to stay quiet. That's terrible. I hope the accusers name their names too!! The truth is that sexual abuse has no partisanship. How it's dealt with once the charges come out, at least these days, is the only difference." Internal office politics aside, once this hit the news, no one had his back and that's how it should be. Roy Moore, on the other hand, had lots of party support including the Trump administration and top evangelicals. That's not parsing hairs. That's a big difference. But I agree that the act and the wanting to cover it up for some "greater good" are not partisan issues. Once again, once it hits the news, it's a whole different ballgame between dems and republicans for the most part. In fact, I think it's too much so on both sides. Dems are too willing to discard people on just an allegation alone and republicans are too willing to stand by the accused no matter what.

 

[MuppetsRule]

If it's not a partisan issue then why are you making it one? And I'm sorry, but your response is parsing hairs. It's wrong but Democrats are better at dealing with it publicly? And what's with the "once it hit the news no one had his back'? Really, "once it hit the news"? I'm sorry, but nobody should have had his back before it hit the news. There should be NO qualifier of "once it hit the news" necessary. If they try to put pressure on the accusers to keep it quiet before it hits the news, and then once it does hit the news they do a better job of dealing with it, to me, at least, that comes across more as a CYA move then an honest moral condemnation of it. Maybe I'm taking it wrong but your post is basically saying that the Democrats are better at political damage control than the Republicans so that makes it just a wee bit better. That's what it comes down to. But you're right. The Dems do a better job of condemning it publicly than the Republicans. But let's not pretend that sexual abuse occurs at a greater rate with Republicans than with Democrats. That's what really matters here. I don't give a rat's behind how they deal with it or who does it better. Perhaps I'm jaded but to me how they deal with it is nothing more than damage control.

I agree with Heralde here. There is no difference with the parties. Their principles are for sale and can be molded and bent depending on the political ambition.

I'm not sure if anyone here has seen the trailer for the movie about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddik? There's a line of "What do we do now?" And the answer is "We tell the truth. At least our version of it." That seems to be even more true in today's political climate. For BOTH parties!

And is "but Roy Moore" now the Democrats version of the Republicans "but Hillary'?

 

[D'Snowth]

Soooooo. . . .

Uh, apparently Maryland Republicans are threatening Maryland Democrats with gun violence if Trump is impeached. . . .

 

[CensoredAlso]

That's what I was saying in my previous post: "Behind the scenes, however, the Dems in his office reportedly told his accusers to stay quiet. That's terrible. I hope the accusers name their names too!! The truth is that sexual abuse has no partisanship. How it's dealt with once the charges come out, at least these days, is the only difference." Internal office politics aside, once this hit the news, no one had his back and that's how it should be. Roy Moore, on the other hand, had lots of party support including the Trump administration and top evangelicals. That's not parsing hairs. That's a big difference. But I agree that the act and the wanting to cover it up for some "greater good" are not partisan issues. Once again, once it hits the news, it's a whole different ballgame between dems and republicans for the most part. In fact, I think it's too much so on both sides. Dems are too willing to discard people on just an allegation alone and republicans are too willing to stand by the accused no matter what.

True you did say that about the people in the office, sorry if that got lost. But yeah like MuppetRules said, it’s not all that impressive to be all righteous only after the story has gone to press.

And the Dems never kicked Kennedy or Clinton to the curb, on the contrary they were lionized. Still are. No matter what it seems.

I get what you’re saying that the Reps are less likely to turn tail and apologize, because that’s not part of their image. That is true. But again, that the Dems happen to be better at PR is still small comfort.

And let’s call out the elephant in the room. For both parties, the issue that triggers their hyper partisanship, is abortion. Clinton and Kennedy supporters didn’t want to lose their pro choice position. Roy Moore and Trump supporters didn’t want to lose their pro life position (Well, Moore’s anyway, Trump would say anything, lol).

Anyone who thinks abortion isn’t a major issue election season is kidding themselves. It’s always there. And it’s quite ironic that Democrat women fight so hard to protect disgusting men for this reason, and then laughably claim men should have no say on the issue, lol. Such women are full of it, to say the least. Yes, the pro life community has a lot of hypocrisy. And they are in excellent company with the pro choice community. Talk about who stinketh the most...

 

[CensoredAlso]

Soooooo. . . .

Uh, apparently Maryland Republicans are threatening Maryland Democrats with gun violence if Trump is impeached. . . .

They shouldn’t worry. I don’t think the Dems have the guts to go for it.

 

[jvcarroll]

True you did say that about the people in the office, sorry if that got lost. But yeah like MuppetRules said, it’s not all that impressive to be all righteous only after the story has gone to press.

And the Dems never kicked Kennedy or Clinton to the curb, on the contrary they were lionized. Still are. No matter what it seems.

I get what you’re saying that the Reps are less likely to turn tail and apologize, because that’s not part of their image. That is true. But again, that the Dems happen to be better at PR is still small comfort.

And let’s call out the elephant in the room. For both parties, the issue that triggers their hyper partisanship, is abortion. Clinton and Kennedy supporters didn’t want to lose their pro choice position. Roy Moore and Trump supporters didn’t want to lose their pro life position (Well, Moore’s anyway, Trump would say anything, lol).

Anyone who thinks abortion isn’t a major issue election season is kidding themselves. It’s always there. And it’s quite ironic that Democrat women fight so hard to protect disgusting men for this reason, and then laughably claim men should have no say on the issue, lol. Such women are full of it, to say the least. Yes, the pro life community has a lot of hypocrisy. And they are in excellent company with the pro choice community. Talk about who stinketh the most...

I agree. It's still a huge difference and rather puzzling how so many republicans could still support Roy Moore (and would today if he ran against a democrat), but many white conservative christian evangelicals have already sold their souls to the devil in return for judiciary appointments. That's never been a Biblical value. Integrity means nothing unless you stand by your values when it's difficult. You present these things as if there's no difference, but there is. It's not always a better or worse one, but a difference nonetheless. That's what I'm citing.

 

[CensoredAlso]

rather puzzling how so many republicans could still support Roy Moore

Well unfortunately the case presented against him had a lot of problems. The timing did come across as partisan and was essentially tried in the media rather than a court of law. That gave his supporters a lot of leeway to hope it just wasn't true.

(and would today if he ran against a democrat), but many white conservative christian evangelicals have already sold their souls to the devil in return for judiciary appointments. That's never been a Biblical value.

Judiciary appointments are not a Biblical value, but caring for the least among us is. That is what they were concerned about.

difficult. You present these things as if there's no difference

Correct, I do not believe there is a difference between the parties and the way they put party over country.

 

[jvcarroll]

If it's not a partisan issue then why are you making it one? And I'm sorry, but your response is parsing hairs. It's wrong but Democrats are better at dealing with it publicly? And what's with the "once it hit the news no one had his back'? Really, "once it hit the news"? I'm sorry, but nobody should have had his back before it hit the news. There should be NO qualifier of "once it hit the news" necessary. If they try to put pressure on the accusers to keep it quiet before it hits the news, and then once it does hit the news they do a better job of dealing with it, to me, at least, that comes across more as a CYA move then an honest moral condemnation of it. Maybe I'm taking it wrong but your post is basically saying that the Democrats are better at political damage control than the Republicans so that makes it just a wee bit better. That's what it comes down to. But you're right. The Dems do a better job of condemning it publicly than the Republicans. But let's not pretend that sexual abuse occurs at a greater rate with Republicans than with Democrats. That's what really matters here. I don't give a rat's behind how they deal with it or who does it better. Perhaps I'm jaded but to me how they deal with it is nothing more than damage control.

I agree with Heralde here. There is no difference with the parties. Their principles are for sale and can be molded and bent depending on the political ambition.

I'm not sure if anyone here has seen the trailer for the movie about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddik? There's a line of "What do we do now?" And the answer is "We tell the truth. At least our version of it." That seems to be even more true in today's political climate. For BOTH parties!

And is "but Roy Moore" now the Democrats version of the Republicans "but Hillary'?

The act isn't a partisan issue. That's true. But the outcome is much difference once it hits the news and it was a noted liberal who exposed this man in his column in the liberal New Yorker. That does make things different. Republicans, when they decide to handle such things, handle them behind the scenes. Sometimes that can be the better way to go. Not saying things are necessarily better or worse. Things should be dealt with in a case by case basis. On the Roy Moore front, he should have been publicly shames. So should this guy. They're both despicable hypocrites beyond words. The fact that Eric Schneiderman has no high profile poltical supporters while Roy Moore did, however, is notable. Not mentioning that is partisanship. One preyed on children. One preyed on subordinates. All of it is terrible! But, in life, it's what one does when the truth is out there that defines them. Also, getting the truth out there when it's unpopular does too. The democrats passed in the end, but failed horribly on the way they go there. It's not parsing hairs to me. I'm not making the deed partisan. The outcome, however, most definitely is. And that should be examined. ALL of it should be examined no matter what one's party, but the way these things are handled are part of that and one party actually gets it right much more often - - just at the 11th hour. As a liberal myself, I find that despicable as well.

 

[jvcarroll]

Well unfortunately the case presented against him had a lot of problems. The timing did come across as partisan and was essentially tried in the media rather than a court of law. That gave his supporters a lot of leeway to hope it just wasn't true.



Judiciary appointments are not a Biblical value, but caring for the least among us is. That is what they were concerned about.



I'm not sure what you mean there.

Trading on ones values when it's tough is not supported by Biblical teachings, particularly the Crucifixion. How much more light in the world and help for others could Jesus have given if he'd popped out the nails, floated off the cross and showed others who he is? How much more of an impact would it have made if he'd delayed his sacrifice? He didn't because of his values and integrity. He didn't take the easy way out that every single one of us would for the sake of some greater good down the line. Jesus showed us what faith looks like and encouraged us to practice it. That's what I'm talking about. Sacrificing current morality to help salvage future morality is still immoral - as hard as that choice is. It's akin to making a deal with the devil in order to save people. That's still a devil's bargain.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Trading on ones values when it's tough

But they were standing up for a value. They just picked the wrong guy.