Sexual assault just doesn't matter to you at all.
Unless you think a Democrat did it.
I'm not concerned with the statute of limitation. If any of the criminal acts of when he's been accused are proven out, I'm with everyone else calling for his withdrawal or expulsion, if elected.
And, multiple Republicans have not jumped on McConnell's bandwagon. You just can't trust the motives of politicians.
His other controversies were national, as well.
You know, if Roy Moore's downfall results in a similar accounting of all the s bags in Congress, it's an acceptable loss. Even if he's innocent.
But, this had better result in a house-cleaning because, the level of offense just isn't proportional to that afforded the acts of others that are apparently in the Good Ol' Boys Club of Washington.
Sexual assault just doesn't matter to you at all.
Unless you think a Democrat did it.
That's generally true.
Again, if we're talking about a 32 year-old dating a 17 or 18 year old; if everyone is consenting, I don't see the issue. Maybe I'm not as up on the accusations as you.
Meh, it's all about context.
Federal judges and Circuit courts defy the Supremes all the time.
maybe.
Meh, it's all about context.
Federal judges and Circuit courts defy the Supremes all the time.all the time
That's a crime. I've already said if he's guilty of a crime, he should not be in the Senate.
Nope. Not my position. Although, it would be nice if the Democrats were held accountable for their behavior.
Guilty by what standard?
Which Republicans do you think are guilty of sexual assault or harassment?Nope. Not my position. Although, it would be nice if the Democrats were held accountable for their behavior.
Why did you keep referring to victims as "lying s"?
Franken back then was just a comedian doing what comedians do. Kind of like what he does in the Senate now.
Well, more than a story would be nice.
Other than Roy Moore, which others are accused?
What would work for you?
I'm talking in the history of the Republican party. Have any of the "stories" ever met your burden of proof?Other than Roy Moore, which others are accused?
I don't know. I haven't seen anything yet and, again, I question the timing.
Bob Packwood immediately comes to mind.
After Weinstein, why would anyone question the timing? What motive do you think the lying s would have to lie?
You believe his accusers in that case?Bob Packwood immediately comes to mind.
Why?
Money works with a lot of people. Extortion is an option.
As I recall, yes.
I don't recall.
Seems legit.
An option for whom?
Walk me through your extortion option -- how is any of this possibly extortion?
Jesus, you're not running for the Senate.As I recall, yes.
I don't recall.
Tim Mahoney (D)
John Edwards (D)
Eric Massa (D)
Anthony Weiner (D)
David Wu (D)
Al Franken (D)
See it would be bipartisan if you included Trump in there
Lol if trump is in that picture you cry 'prove it'
There are no accusations against Trump at all. Yoni said so.
Al Franken is rightfully being hammered by both sides now, and there don't appear to be any left-wing Breitbarts to stir up doubt among the LCD party cheerleaders.
White Evangelicals Have Warmed To Politicians Who Commit 'Immoral' Acts
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/49889...t-immoral-actsThat's what a new PRRI/Brookings poll says. In 2011, 30 percent of white evangelicals said that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." Now, 72 percent say so — a far bigger swing than other religious groups the poll studied.
The magic "R" makes everything ok. Sexual assault, lying, stealing, nepotism, political witch hunts, rank incompetence, infidelity is all ok, as long as they have the magic "R".
If Obama had appointed an in-law with no science degree to a scientific post within the government, is there any doubt this would have rocketed up to the top of Fox "news" priority of Things to be Outraged About?
Very slowly...for Pavlov.
Person wants a person to accuse another person of some indiscretion.
Person finds something embarrassing or legally compromising about a person.
Person threatens to reveal embarrassing or illegal activity unless person does what they want.
Slow enough for you?
You're right but, I don't remember that much about the Packwood case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)