(09-23-2020, 05:16 PM)jj22 Wrote: How many words is a audio recording admitting sexual assault worth? 

(09-23-2020, 05:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, why bother? The back and forth just reinforces what we have been saying.

(09-23-2020, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuuuuhhhhhmmmmm.......as many as recorded. Is that a trick question?

As to the point: Is it sexual assault if they allow you to do it?

(09-23-2020, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuuuuhhhhhmmmmm.......as many as recorded. Is that a trick question?

As to the point: Is it sexual assault if they allow you to do it?

(09-23-2020, 05:24 PM)jj22 Wrote: 20+women didn't really approve of it. Nor did the teenage girls he walked in the dressing room of.

(09-23-2020, 04:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: By itself? Maybe not. But, you gotta admit, crying for impeachment before he's sworn in and then actually moving forward with impeachment sure does look shady, does it not?

(09-23-2020, 05:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: A picture is worth a 1000 words. Any photos of Trump grabbing to 20+ women against their consent?

I was asserted that open-minded Liberals hold their candidates to higher moral standard than hypocritical Conservatives and someone brought up Franken as Exhibit A.

I pointed out, that the big difference was because there was a photo. Do you think Franken would have been required to step down if there was just an allegation?

Don't answer that it was rhetorical

(09-23-2020, 05:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: my rhetorical questions really triggered you huh. you keep trying to use it back at me.

But yea, I'll judge the guy who admits to it.

Pictures are worth 1000 words for a reason (multiple way to interpret). Funny you use that saying as you clearly don't realize what it means. Here's a hint, the saying means it can be taken in many different directions, unlike an audio that the person flat out admits to it.

So yea, a pic is worth 1000 words. But you need 1000 when you have to use interpretations.

(09-23-2020, 06:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Quite possible he'd have stepped down.   And the Hollywood Access tape is every bit the equivalent of the Franken picture.

Further, it's not always about "stepping down." 

Even if no one can make a candidate step down, there is still the question of whether and to what degree the party condemns such actions, whether a candidate is pressured to apologize--and does--and whether other social costs may be exacted. 

Before Trump there was some chance that Republicans would condemn sexual misconduct--even allegations thereof--in one of their politicians. I mentioned the examples of Cain and Gingrich above.

After Trump that is difficult, because you'd be condemning one of your own on evidence that should convict your unapologetic party leader.

Few are willing to do that, in part out fear of Trump's retaliation. This is another way in which Trump lowers standards, from the top down.

(09-23-2020, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The one's that the GOP are more forgiving of:

Kavanaugh

Trump

come to mind. 

(09-23-2020, 06:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Ok, then regarding that "difference" you asked about.

The main one is that Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court and Trump is president.

Franken is back in Minnesota.

bfine32 Wrote:I mean other than him been a "held to a higher standard" Dem.

(09-23-2020, 06:06 PM)Dill Wrote:  And the Hollywood Access tape is every bit the equivalent of the Franken picture.

(09-23-2020, 06:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You guys are doing a crappy job of showing how Dems hold theirs to a higher standard than the GOP hold theirs.

Pretty sure all you're showing is the Dems hold the GOP to a higher standard than they do theirs.

Trump stating that there are women that let you grab them is no way as damning as a photo of Franken actually doing it to a sleeping woman. It is what the difference was. 

But  you guys keep holding yours to a higher standard.

(09-23-2020, 06:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What would be your reaction if Trump told black folks that if you don't vote for him, you're not really black?

(09-23-2020, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These types of posts have steadily eaten away at your credibility of late.  I say this as a person who knows a woman that Trump groped at a party and then laughed about it, so I'm not defending Trump.  I'm pointing out how absurd this statement is.  I really think the hyper partisanship of the current day is affecting you and I'm not saying that facetiously.  

(09-23-2020, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So as I asserted:

(09-23-2020, 07:18 PM)Dill Wrote: You are not "pointing out" anything except your own feelings about my credibility. 

But your feelings aren't evidence that actually discounts the asserted equivalence or establish it as absurd and/or "hyperpartisan." 

To do that, you need to focus on evidence for or against the equivalence, 

explain why it is credible to suppose that Franken or Biden or any Democrat holding federal office could survive the Hollywood access tape, were they in Trump's position. 

Or conversely, why is it credible to suppose Trump would not survive a picture of a pretend-grope among voters who don't seem to care much if he really gropes, voters who never take Trump literally, who always know when he is "really joking."

(09-23-2020, 04:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I know, but it felt like you were saying that way 'cause you didn't like agreeing with what I said. 





By itself? Maybe not. But, you gotta admit, crying for impeachment before he's sworn in and then actually moving forward with impeachment sure does look shady, does it not?

(09-23-2020, 07:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once again, it's ok when Dill uses his opinion to prove a point, but you do not extend the same courtesy to others.  Unless you agree with them of course.  No amount of ten paragraph responses will change this basic fact btw.

(09-24-2020, 12:02 AM)Dill Wrote: Hmmpf. Clear enough you cannot explain why my equivalence between the Franken photo and the Access tape is "absurd," though I've offered you an outline on how to do that, if it is possible.  

And you'd like to make that deflection really about some dill double standard.   So a few notes on the dodge: 

I haven't "used my opinion to prove a point."  And it is not an "opinion" that proves a point--if "point" means the conclusion of a sound argument.

I once again asked you to support a claim with evidence other than your feelings. I.e., something other than "opinion."

Once again, you won't/can't do that.  

People who see no difference between arguments and opinions respond as you do. As if all "opinions" are equal and everyone has a right to one. Then the demand for external evidence and rational support is unfair. Discourteous. A double standard. Ok for me to use my supported "opinion" (in a ten paragraph post organizing external evidence) but not for you to use your unsupported impressions.

I asked you to move beyond "opinion," turn your claim into a sound argument supported by something other than impressions.

But you wouldn't go there. 

And that's what this is really about. Twice in two days now you've stood up for your right to accuse without support.  Because you don't want to write a "ten paragraph post", i.e., show your work.  

(09-24-2020, 12:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a lot of words to say, "It's ok when I do it".