Well if you're frustrated that people missed your point, how do you think I feel? I'll try to distill it: This latest news cycle makes Trump look bad. If your response to that is whatabout Clinton, there are no words to express how vile I think that is. You can have Clinton. I concede the point. You see? You can't whatabout this because I conceded already. Now {everyone} stop trying to find ways to deflect.
If you think my main point was just what about Clinton, then you still aren't getting it. Both Clinton and Trump are but 2 contact, associates, whatever who could allegedly be a client in this massive long term operation. I am more concerned with the massive long term operation and ALL those involved in the possible abuse of minors. Not just nanana Trump or Clinton was on the list. Let's count up the liberals and conservatives on the list and see who is winning. See how silly that is given the horror of the bigger picture?
Well if you're frustrated that people missed your point, how do you think I feel? I'll try to distill it: This latest news cycle makes Trump look bad. If your response to that is whatabout Clinton, there are no words to express how vile I think that is. You can have Clinton. I concede the point. You see? You can't whatabout this because I conceded already. Now {everyone} stop trying to find ways to deflect.
Easier said than done. Do you know how many emails between Epstein and Clinton were on that server?!!?!
Well if you're frustrated that people missed your point, how do you think I feel? I'll try to distill it: This latest news cycle makes Trump look bad. If your response to that is whatabout Clinton, there are no words to express how vile I think that is. You can have Clinton. I concede the point. You see? You can't whatabout this because I conceded already. Now {everyone} stop trying to find ways to deflect.
Understood and nah. I'm absolutely convinced that all of Epstein's associates are of the highest caliber, just like him.
That very well may be, just as long as you condemn them all equally regardless of their political persuasion which was my entire argument. I was never defending or judging anyone either way, I have no idea what all of these rich and powerful people were up to and sadly now we will never know. Let me break it down for you. This is an enormous story of misogyny, patriarchy, sex trafficking and a wealthy, powerful, ruling elite who thinks they are above the law. This is about a man pimping young girls (and seeing Michael Jackson and Pete Townsend on the list probably some boys too) to the ruling elite of which I include the entertainment industry because in the modern world they are part of the ruling elite as well and getting away with it in plain sight for over 25 years. Yet the public only cares about Trump or Clinton looking bad, this is why it saddens me that this is in this thread and only discussed in this context. What about the victims? Pretty sure they aren't thinking about the politics of the dirty old man on top of them.
"What about the victims? Pretty sure they aren't thinking about the politics of the dirty old man on top of them." Again, a golden opportunity to expand on your thoughtful and compassionate insights in another thread.
Understood and nah. I'm absolutely convinced that all of Epstein's associates are of the highest caliber, just like him.
That very well may be, just as long as you condemn them all equally regardless of their political persuasion which was my entire argument. I was never defending or judging anyone either way, I have no idea what all of these rich and powerful people were up to and sadly now we will never know. Let me break it down for you. This is an enormous story of misogyny, patriarchy, sex trafficking and a wealthy, powerful, ruling elite who thinks they are above the law. This is about a man pimping young girls (and seeing Michael Jackson and Pete Townsend on the list probably some boys too) to the ruling elite of which I include the entertainment industry because in the modern world they are part of the ruling elite as well and getting away with it in plain sight for over 25 years. Yet the public only cares about Trump or Clinton looking bad, this is why it saddens me that this is in this thread and only discussed in this context. What about the victims? Pretty sure they aren't thinking about the politics of the dirty old man on top of them.
"What about the victims? Pretty sure they aren't thinking about the politics of the dirty old man on top of them."
Again, a golden opportunity to expand on your thoughtful and compassionate insights in another thread.
Understood and nah. I'm absolutely convinced that all of Epstein's associates are of the highest caliber, just like him.
That very well may be, just as long as you condemn them all equally regardless of their political persuasion which was my entire argument. I was never defending or judging anyone either way, I have no idea what all of these rich and powerful people were up to and sadly now we will never know. Let me break it down for you. This is an enormous story of misogyny, patriarchy, sex trafficking and a wealthy, powerful, ruling elite who thinks they are above the law. This is about a man pimping young girls (and seeing Michael Jackson and Pete Townsend on the list probably some boys too) to the ruling elite of which I include the entertainment industry because in the modern world they are part of the ruling elite as well and getting away with it in plain sight for over 25 years. Yet the public only cares about Trump or Clinton looking bad, this is why it saddens me that this is in this thread and only discussed in this context. What about the victims? Pretty sure they aren't thinking about the politics of the dirty old man on top of them.
Trump did his deeds as a private citizen and Clinton did all of his an elected official while in office. Both are still subject to the same prosecutions for what they did, but Clinton's was way more heinous because it involves a gross abuse of power as an elected official. While that makes no difference to most here, it does to me.
I assume that you believe Bill Clinton, while holding elected office, sexually assaulted a woman or women. I also assume from your first sentence quoted above that you believe that Trump sexually assaulted a woman or women, but only while he was a private citizen. As far as I know, statutes regarding the punishment of sexual assault don't impose a greater punishment if the sexual assaulter holds elected office at the time the assault took place. Perhaps you think it's more morally wrong when an elected official sexually assaults than when a private citizen sexually assaults but I don't. If the elected official used the powers of his/her office to cover up the crime, than yes I'd agree with you that such behavior would be more wrong, because it entails an additional crime such as obstruction of justice.
If you're just referring to consensual sexual relationships then, again, I don't see a difference. Having a consensual affair is not "a gross abuse of power as an elected official." That is why most Europeans were puzzled that the Lewinsky affair was such a big deal. You seem to forget, Kurt, that Monica Lewinsky actively pursued Bill Clinton; she was not a trapped and helpless subordinate and she did not work under him directly on a day-to-day basis.
Kurt, you wrote
Really now. Your hindsight is precious. I don't know what you were doing then, but to those of us who saw it as obvious back then, we took the heat directly, primarily by Hillary as she called our reaction a "vast right wing conspiracy". And the left / democrats all went lock step and ignored the abuse of power and dismissed it as nothing more than consenting adults doing what they do. So in light of that, when someone who was well known for being a rich jet setter playboy decides to run for POTUS why is it not right to look at his behaviour in the same way y'all did Clinton's in deciding whether or not to vote for him ? The standards were only changed after he was elected. There was no bait and switch. He was not caught in office behaving this way. It was an open book. Most of us looked at it in these terms. It was okay for you all, so what makes us any different ? Now because y'all happen to hate Trump so much, you can conveniently rewrite the rule book and throw the has been Clinton under the bus because he is no longer relevant and in the light that you now shine on these behaviours, can no longer defend him either as you have up until this very minute with your revelation above.
"And the left / democrats all went lock step and ignored the abuse of power and dismissed it as nothing more than consenting adults doing what they do."
It'd be great if you could tell us whether you're talking only about Clinton's consensual extramarital affairs or including the accusations of sexual assault lodged against him. Since you used the word "consenting", I'll stick to that. I have no idea what public opinion would make of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky now, but IIRC Bill Clinton's popularity rose in polls after he admitted the affair, and rose during the impeachment proceedings. So "the left/democrats" were hardly alone. And those impeachment proceedings went nowhere; again IIRC most Americans polled thought they were purely politically motivated.
"Now because y'all happen to hate Trump so much, you can conveniently rewrite the rule book and throw the has been Clinton under the bus because he is no longer relevant..."
Maybe you haven't noticed, but public attitudes about people in power having sex with subordinates (even consensual sex) have changed considerably over the last few years. I think Clinton would face more condemnation now if it came out that he was having or had a consensual affair with a subordinate.
I think most people who don't like Trump condemned him for having an affair with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, but they were/are more incensed that he tried to cover up the affairs and so possibly obstructed justice.
And then there's the simple matter of likability: Clinton is a far more other-regarding and pro-government person than Trump, who still astonishes the public with his narcissism, callousness, outright viciousness towards others and disregard for the duties of a president. Americans were more willing to overlook stories of Clinton's possible sexually predatory behavior and his consensual affairs because they didn't jibe with his likability. Also, frankly, one woman accusing Clinton of rape changed her story so many times that it was hard to believe her. Again, times have changed. Women are speaking up. Americans are far more willing to believe accusations of sexual assault and rape against public figures. The stories about Trump's sexual assaults on women jibe with his public displays of contempt towards almost everyone around him. So let's put aside the accusations of hypocrisy. Besides, most of the ill will towards Trump does not have much to do with his treatment of women and accusations of sexual assault against him.
On another note...
I believe that you all will have a lot to discuss in the near future about Jeffrey Epstein...if you want to (I'm seeing a lot of weariness about Trump in comments on RPF). From a Vanity Fair article:
According to attorney David Boies,some 2,000 pages of documents regarding his client Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a former Mar-a-Lago locker-room attendant and Epstein accuser, are set to be released in the next â10 days to two weeks.â The secrets contained in the documents have been the subject of fevered speculation ever since a federal appeals court panel noted that the pages could describe episodes of alleged abuse by Epstein and appearances by ânumerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders.â
...
The first batch of documents is likely a preview of a much bigger document release. âThey represent 5% of the total record,â Boies told me. The appeals court has also ordered that 10,000 pages from Giuffreâs lawsuit eventually be unsealed. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska is holding a hearing to determine how to proceed with the unsealing of the remaining documents.
As for the headline of the article, it may not be as revelatory as one would think. From the article:
The period when Giuffre was in Epsteinâs orbit was also a time during which Epstein was forging his relationships with his most famous friends, including Bill Clinton. Just how exposed the former president is to Epsteinâs crimes has also been a subject of much debate. According to a person close to Clinton, the former president was introduced to Maxwell by Miami-based cruise-industry executive Phil Levine. âClinton and Ghislaine became super close,â the source said. Maxwell also helped Clinton secure a six-figure investment from Epstein that provided some seed money for the Clinton Global Initiative in 2005, the source said. (A spokesperson for Bill Clinton declined to comment for this article. In an email, Levine denied that he'd introduced Clinton and Maxwell.)
So abuse of power / office is meaningless as a special circumstance to you.
I did not say — or even imply — that.
i only addressed your presenting Trump as being someone who presented himself as an open book to those who voted for him — something you have repeatedly stated in posts about Trump the past few years. That those who voted for him knew what they were getting. I am pointing out that this is not the case — unless the claim is based on his supporters knowing that he lies and knowing when he is doing so.
And I say that Trump was judged using the same standards that defenders of Clinton used during his terms in office.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 11, 2019 - 7:04pm
kurtster wrote:
So abuse of power / office is meaningless as a special circumstance to you.
I did not say â or even imply â that.
i only addressed your presenting Trump as being someone who presented himself as an open book to those who voted for him â something you have repeatedly stated in posts about Trump the past few years. That those who voted for him knew what they were getting. I am pointing out that this is not the case â unless the claim is based on his supporters knowing that he lies and knowing when he is doing so.
No, he was not and is not. Yes, he had a reputation as a playboy, but he denied having affairs with Stormy Daniels and the former Playboy model. And he denied having paid them off to be silent about those affairs — during his candidacy for President.
So abuse of power / office is meaningless as a special circumstance to you.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 11, 2019 - 6:38pm
kurtster wrote:
(Trump was an open book)
No, he was not and is not. Yes, he had a reputation as a playboy, but he denied having affairs with Stormy Daniels and the former Playboy model. And he denied having paid them off to be silent about those affairs â during his candidacy for President.
I and many others have known about Epstein for years
You can can count me as one of those. The Lolita Express is well known to Clinton followers, if nothing else, or should be.
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
So, yeah. Bring up Bill Clinton, I don't care. Feed him to the sharks. Because I know no one here's got the balls to bring up Clinton and not understand that that means Trump has to face the same punishment.
I had no intention of wading into this but I was called out so I feel that I must defend myself here at some level. . ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I will give you Pizzagate. It's all true, 100% of it. As long as your dragnet isn't conveniently avoiding Trump. If you're throwing whataboutisms now, about Epstein? If you're saying "sure, Donald Trump raped babies, but what about Bill Clinton?" and using that as an excuse to let Donald Trump not pay any price forraping babies? Oh. My. God.
Atty Gen'l Bill Barr's father got Jeff his start on Wall Street. Jeff got in trouble with the baby-raping scheme a long time ago but in 2005, US attorney Alex Acosta* got him a plea deal for 18 months (reduced to 13 months) where Jeff got to leave prison for 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and in the bargain, the US agreed to not prosecute any known or unknown potential co-conspirators who might have flown on the Lolita Express.
So, yeah. Bring up Bill Clinton, I don't care. Feed him to the sharks. Because I know no one here's got the balls to bring up Clinton and not understand that that means Trump has to face the same punishment.
*You know, Alex Acosta, now the US Sec'y of Labor?
First I see that you have already been called out over Acosta.
Raping babies ? Just WTF are you talking about ? And people accuse me of over the top hyperbole. You just took the grand prize away from me.
So let's get back to where you called me out over this. First off, all's that I have ever wanted is equal justice for everyone. I don't care who you are. If there is something going on, let's bring on the charges and let the chips fall where they may. As stated in earlier posts, no one has been convicted of anything yet.
So let's get to the Clinton / Trump comparison. I do have the balls to bring this up and in the same way I did before, and it will also probably meet the same reaction that it did the first time I brought it up. If indeed Clinton and Trump have done the same sexual actions in their lives, there is one primary difference.
It is this difference that was poo poo'ed and unanimously swept under the rug the first time I brought it up.
Trump did his deeds as a private citizen and Clinton did all of his an elected official while in office. Both are still subject to the same prosecutions for what they did, but Clinton's was way more heinous because it involves a gross abuse of power as an elected official. While that makes no difference to most here, it does to me. . ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I give you Clinton. I was wrong and refused to believe what is obvious in hindsight.
Really now. Your hindsight is precious. I don't know what you were doing then, but to those of us who saw it as obvious back then, we took the heat directly, primarily by Hillary as she called our reaction a "vast right wing conspiracy". And the left / democrats all went lock step and ignored the abuse of power and dismissed it as nothing more than consenting adults doing what they do. So in light of that, when someone who was well known for being a rich jet setter playboy decides to run for POTUS why is it not right to look at his behaviour in the same way y'all did Clinton's in deciding whether or not to vote for him ? The standards were only changed after he was elected. There was no bait and switch. He was not caught in office behaving this way. It was an open book. Most of us looked at it in these terms. It was okay for you all, so what makes us any different ? Now because y'all happen to hate Trump so much, you can conveniently rewrite the rule book and throw the has been Clinton under the bus because he is no longer relevant and in the light that you now shine on these behaviours, can no longer defend him either as you have up until this very minute with your revelation above. . Again, how precious, or as was also said, Bless your heart ! . ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Our current president is ... guilty of having raped babies.
Your move.
Wow ! Once again, Bless your heart.
That statement is simply beyond the pale. You have lowered yourself to the level of a snake's belly with this remark. I am choosing my words very carefully as no one here cuts me any slack in these discussions here. You'll be happy to know that you have ruined my day since I first looked in here this morning and spent all day trying to come with a very carefully worded response to something I had nothing to say about in this point of time. I was going to wait and see how all of this plays out when I made my first remarks about Epstein's arrest weeks ago and basically said it was a good thing that he finally got dragged off of the streets and that he and all of his buddies might go down in flames with him, even if it included Trump. Again since I had to choose my words and thoughts so carefully, I may not have expressed myself as concisely as I would have liked to given the gravity, but these remarks have been made under gross duress.
So it's your move. Defend yourself. Tell me that there is no difference between an elected official abusing power by forcing sexual activities on underlings, willing or not and a private citizen behaving badly. Right ? They both can be prosecuted for their behaviour, but only one can be prosecuted for gross abuse of power as an elected official, yet you and most others here based upon remarks made in the past see no difference. Why is that ? _________
A closing thought. This is a music site. We are all familiar with the anthem, sex, drugs and rock and roll. Rock and roll is all about the fire in the belly. We give the artists plenty of leeway in regards to their sexual proclivities that are part of what goes on in this world. Trump is also part of this same world as a private citizen celebrity. This is a world full of hedonism and outright debauchery. I made a remark earlier about what Trump and Gene Simmons have in common. Both have that fire in the belly and neither touches alcohol. Both are rich and famous and educated. Both are reality TV stars. They actually have many of the same political viewpoints. The biggest difference between the two is that one makes music and the other builds buildings. How would you judge Simmons if he ever ran for office ? He can't because he had sex with groupies ?
We all live in glass houses. It is time that we all remember that, not just some of us.
Trump's behaviour and boasts inspire the following question:
Is there anybody here who supports the notion that men of stature should be able to aggressively pursue sexual favours from others? How about women of stature?
I would think none.
These days, I would guess that many are scared silly of pursuing office romances because of harassment and law suit fears as well as stalled careers. Maybe Cupid has a work-around.
......surprised in the slightest if Trump were to have been found guilty any more than if Clinton were. In my mind when it comes to the fire down below they are 2 peas in a pod. I have always thought and said that probably right here in this forum. Froth on, Garth.
Yes we are talking about someone else no one is defending Epstein himself. We are talking about all of those that have associations with him first and foremost Trump and Clinton and those that dwell on one or the others presumption of guilt as opposed to both together and all of the others. Scroll back and you will see.
Understood and nah. I'm absolutely convinced that all of Epstein's associates are of the highest caliber, just like him.
