Ah, Quaker and CC are rating sexual assault/rape allegations based on random criteria so they can say that stuff ain't so bad when it's a Pub doing it. Lol, you guys are the exact same as the Ds turning a blind eye to Biden because he's not from the Trump/Kavanaugh political spectrum.
"THIS SHIT'S HORRIBLE...unless it's one of us, in which case there probably was a good reason!"
posted by like_thatEveryone: We are pointing out the hypocrisy of the left wanting to place Kavanaugh's head on a stake and now doing a complete 180 with Biden (even though there is more corroborating evidence).
CC: The difference is Biden did it as a public servant for 40 years and trump did it privately as a businessman.
lolwut??
Yeah, that definitely earned a "YIKES."
posted by QuakerOatsWell, asking taxpayers to pay for a congressman’s sexual assault settlements is actually light years different than a settlement related to a complaint or confidential agreement in the private sector.
If a politician and a private business owner each killed a man, I swear you'd go, "Well, at least the private business owner paid for his own lawyer," if the politician was a Democrat. You know, because that's apparently the relevant part. Not the murder part.
If two people may have committed sexual assault, then the problem is that they're committing sexual assault. Fuck's sake.
Yeah, QO/CC went down the rabbit hole of terrible arguments on this thread. You should really just both stop posting at sexual assault at all for any candidate as you are OBVIOUSLY out of touch with reality.
posted by QuakerOats
Well, asking taxpayers to pay for a congressman’s sexual assault settlements is actually light years different than a settlement related to a complaint or confidential agreement in the private sector.
Ayn Rand couldn't have said it better.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieAyn Rand couldn't have said it better.
As big of a dick as Ayn Rand was as a person, her philosophy would be categorically at odds with sexual assault. Not even she would be on QO's side of this.
My statement of it is a wash is both Biden and Trump seem to have shady pasts. No one has the moral high ground.
Yet, when push comes to shove, it won't matter. People will vote for their guy because they simply do not want the other to win or will chose the lesser of two evils. If these allegations with Biden are deemed viable, I highly doubt it will force Biden from the race. For the Democrats, the stakes are too high. If that makes them hypocrites, they will gladly take it if it means a viable way to beat Trump.
For people in swing states that may go over to Biden or Trump, things like the economy, COVID and if you think Trump is an asshole or a greater leader will be the deciding factor.
Just more evidence that people on far ends of the spectrum are idiots.
Holy Christ. I was not arguing the moral high grounds; I was pointing out that taxpayers should NOT be paying for sexual assault/harassment settlements out of a congressional slush fund paid for by taxpayers. PERIOD. Hard to imagine that seemingly intelligent people missed that point.
posted by QuakerOats
Holy Christ. I was not arguing the moral high grounds; I was pointing out that taxpayers should NOT be paying for sexual assault/harassment settlements out of a congressional slush fund paid for by taxpayers. PERIOD. Hard to imagine that seemingly intelligent people missed that point.
I didn't know anything about a slush fund of taxpayer money paying off victims. Do you have a reference (preferably not Breitbart or like)?
posted by O-TrapAs big of a dick as Ayn Rand was as a person, her philosophy would be categorically at odds with sexual assault. Not even she would be on QO's side of this.
Hey, even John Galt had needs.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI didn't know anything about a slush fund of taxpayer money paying off victims. Do you have a reference (preferably not Breitbart or like)?
posted by QuakerOats
It doesn't say anything in there about Biden. Did he pay his accuser out of this fund?
I still wouldn't consider his case any worse than someone paying a settlement privately, but that's another issue.
posted by QuakerOats
An editorial board post from 2017 that has nothing to do with Joe Biden (aka, the current topic).
posted by QuakerOats
Holy Christ. I was not arguing the moral high grounds; I was pointing out that taxpayers should NOT be paying for sexual assault/harassment settlements out of a congressional slush fund paid for by taxpayers. PERIOD. Hard to imagine that seemingly intelligent people missed that point.
Your response was to a conversation calling into question the "big difference" in the accusations of sexual assault between Kavanaugh and Biden. At best, if this is what you meant, then it's irrelevant to what's actually being discussed.
Nobody's arguing that taxpayers should pay for sexual assault settlements. People are arguing that a sexual assault claim isn't less problematic if the accused paid the settlement out of their own pockets.
Duh.
posted by QuakerOats
Holy Christ. I was not arguing the moral high grounds; I was pointing out that taxpayers should NOT be paying for sexual assault/harassment settlements out of a congressional slush fund paid for by taxpayers. PERIOD. Hard to imagine that seemingly intelligent people missed that point.
posted by O-TrapYour response was to a conversation calling into question the "big difference" in the accusations of sexual assault between Kavanaugh and Biden. At best, if this is what you meant, then it's irrelevant to what's actually being discussed.
Nobody's arguing that taxpayers should pay for sexual assault settlements. People are arguing that a sexual assault claim isn't less problematic if the accused paid the settlement out of their own pockets.
So, the final conclusion of today's discussion is that Quaker is really horrible at debating because he'll go off-topic simply to shoehorn in a meaningless "R >>> D" comment about something no one else even considers relevant to the actual conversation.
posted by Heretic
posted by O-TrapYour response was to a conversation calling into question the "big difference" in the accusations of sexual assault between Kavanaugh and Biden. At best, if this is what you meant, then it's irrelevant to what's actually being discussed.
Nobody's arguing that taxpayers should pay for sexual assault settlements. People are arguing that a sexual assault claim isn't less problematic if the accused paid the settlement out of their own pockets.
So, the final conclusion of today's discussion is that Quaker is really horrible at debating because he'll go off-topic simply to shoehorn in a meaningless "R >>> D" comment about something no one else even considers relevant to the actual conversation.
In Quaker's defense, he wasn't the one who originally did that. Spock opened that door.
Yeah but CC and Quaker are connected at the mentally challenged hip, so they’re more or less the same.
SMH.
Everyone go have a drink, or two ……
posted by O-TrapIn Quaker's defense, he wasn't the one who originally did that. Spock opened that door.
In some ways, that makes it worse, because it's taking something CCSpock said and treating it like a serious, legit point when the appropriate action to his posts is to channel John Goodman in The Big Lebowski and give him a "SHUT THE FUCK UP, DONNIE!" Or 50 of them. Consort with the site idiot and be treated equally to him on an intellectual level.
Saw where Bernie made a statement that the finger gate allegation needed to be looked into.
Likely to try and end it long before the votes come in. But if the Bernie bros dont vote for Biden....he is toast.
