Worst Judge Dredd cosplay ever.
It appears to have started at the point you popped in and started bashing Democrats, so “funny and sadly predictable” may well be an accurate description.
I’ll try to be a little more explicit in who I was criticizing in my post. I was criticizing people from both parties who defend the wrongdoers in their own party rather than throwing them under the bus. My personal observations on this matter are that Democrats as a whole are a lot more willing to throw their fellow Democrats under the bus than Republicans are willing to do to their fellow Republicans.
Please. This is a thread about a Democrat attorney general who appears to be a criminal, a misogynist, racist, and a hypocrit. Why not use the other 89% of threads on the board to criticize the Republicans? The cognitive dissonance must be upsetting for the echo chamber.
FYI, the adjective descriptor for the party is “Democratic”, not “Democrat”. No big deal, but I thought you might like to know.
Which you used to bash Democrats in general.
You did exactly what Gyrate claimed. Echo that.
Kind of.
You’d say “He’s a Democrat” or “He’s a Republican.” Because of that equivalency, it wouldn’t be grammatically improper (I don’t think) to say “The Democrat Attorney General” anymore than “The Republican Attorney General.” However, saying “The Democrat Party” is very clearly a shibboleth of Republicans and conservatives. Mark Levin, for instance, says it constantly. They can never bring themselves to say “Democratic.” It’s always “Democrat Party, Democrat Party.” I don’t know why it became this way, though. Is it because the inflection of the word, without the “ic” at the end, sounds like “crap” or something?
I would guess it’s because Democratic sounds the same as democratic.
Wikipedia gets into the why: Democrat Party (epithet) - Wikipedia
To paraphrase an online quip:
Democrats: “It doesn’t matter that he’s a Democrat. He’s a vile abusive asshole.”
Republicans: “It doesn’t matter that he’s a vile abusive asshole. He’s a Republican.”
Tweeden’s partner at KABC News (radio) was conservative pundit John Phillips, who is a longtime friend of Roger Stone. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tom-arnold-leeann-tweeden-was-coached-on-al-franken-sexual-assault-allegations
Roger Stone knew in advance that Tweeden was going to accuse Franken. Psychic powers?
If that is supposed to prove that “the right” Frankened Franken, it doesn’t.
Franken did what he did. The picture doesn’t lie.
The leadership of the Democratic party came down on him hard.
He resigned, after much protesting.
All allegations of abuse should be taken seriously and investigated to a reasonable degree. (I’ve previously given the example of someone accusing the Pope of committing rape in Alaska, on a day the Pope was seen by millions to be continuously in Rome. Establishing that fact would be enough to clear the Pope. In other cases, more investigation would be appropriate; some allegations will clearly be more credible than others. But all deserve to be taken seriously.)
In the case of Schneiderman, as I said, I trust that the particular individuals who reported this case did indeed investigate to determine whether the allegations were credible. Such investigation should include the possibility that the accusations are false and politically motivated, given the political implications of this case. And all investigations–whether the accused is a Democrat or a Republican–should examine the question of whether the allegations might possibly be politically motivated.
Franken resigned due to political pressure from a party that wanted to bend over backwards to be seen to take women’s accusations seriously. There is evidence to suggest that political motivations were as important as actual convictions of having been assaulted (recall that one woman’s accusation was that Franken touched her waist while a photo was being taken). Schneiderman, it appears, resigned because he anticipated that the accusations against him were substantial, well-documented, and could not be dismissed.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Interesting.
One, what you are typing isn’t true. B. Even if it were, so what? The proportion of Republican bashing to Dem bashing is at least 837172 to 1 on these boards.
One, what you are typing isn’t true. B. Even if it were, so what? Your argument appears to be “I should have a free pass to get away with gratuitous partisan attacks in this thread because I feel picked on elsewhere on this board.” Is that really what you meant to say?
By that argument we can all say “The proportion of Democrat bashing to Republican bashing is at least 837172 to 1 on the internet and in the media - FoxNews, Breitbart, Limbaugh, etc have been churning out slanders and lies about Democrats 24/7 for decades - so we’re entitled to take as many free shots at Republicans on this board as we like”, right?
Or maybe you shouldn’t employ tactics you’re only going to whine about when you get called on them.
If I find an example of a connected left-wing guy who had advance knowledge of some soon-to-break story about the Trump-Russia investigation, would you conclude that the whole issue is a left-wing setup?
Pointing out inaccurate characterizations of a post and double standards of an echo chamber is not whining.
Franken resigned because there are enough Democrats like me, at high and low levels in the party, who don’t believe we need to tolerate even relatively minor incidents of sexual assault and harassment (of which the photograph of the groping or pretend-groping, alone, qualifies, not to mention the numerous other credible allegations) at the most highly honored positions in the country.
Which will, hopefully, be the standard going forward for the party. And I think the country will, at some point, come to this position as a whole, which will require the Republican party to (finally) get there. Which makes it politically smart as well.
Only if the situation were genuinely analogous, which is to say that the “soon-to-break story” would have to be of accusations of personal misconduct that would lead to widespread calls for the accused person to resign. Sexual, in other words. And note that I wouldn’t “conclude,” as you suggest, that it was a left-wing set-up any more than I’d “conclude” that a right-wing set-up had occurred. What I suggest in both situations is that investigation of accusations include the possibility that shenanigans may have played a role in the accusations being made.
In other words, a connected left-wing person saying ‘it’s about to be Mike Pence’s time in the barrel’ and the news that broke was that a meeting with Russians Pence hadn’t previously disclosed, had occurred, then: that doesn’t suggest shenanigans.
But if a left-wing person said ‘it’s about to be Mike Pence’s time in the barrel’ and that same day, four young men came forward with stories about Pence forcing himself on them, then: yes. I’d call for investigations into the men’s stories to include the exact same questions I outlined in post #38 of this thread (but for the left instead of the right):
***Were any of these men seen in the company of [a known left-wing operative] recently?
***Have any of them been recent recipients of mysterious gifts of property, cash, etc?
***Have any of them recently been given lucrative contracts to work for a left-wing-associated business?
Link to the earlier post: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20948221#post20948221
In the too-crazy-to-believe-file, even for today’s world, an attorney for two of the women allegedly assaulted by Mr. Schneiderman filed a letter brief in Michael Cohen’s case, requesting that any correspondence and documentation with his clients be kept under seal. In the course of this brief he doesn’t explain why he thought that sharing this information with Cohen and Donald Trump “some years ago” was such a great idea.
In other words, the idea that Schneiderman was going to save us from Trump was misleading all along since Donald Trump has had dirt on Schneiderman for years.