Manafort fesses up.

[oxmixmudd]

Wikipedia? Seriously?

Also, don't think I didn't notice how you carefully cut out the part stating that this is what Clinton claims.

That would be a characterization. There was no 'careful cut', which would imply somehow I'm on Clinton's side with this. I am not.

That is Clinton's defense. But that defense has no teeth if they did not testify to the same under oath. Or if they did not describe the interactions as consensual to friends.

The point of my post was NOT to defend Clinton (though that is consistent with how you interpret any post that pushes back against a Republican or your own POV)

The point was to say 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'. You can't objectively (or morally) use two opposing standards of proof, one for Democrats and the other for Republicans.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No, it's because I gave you a substantive response citing credible, relevant sources, and you just laughed it off.

No - MM - i did not. I gave no response to it at all, because it wasn't relevant to my point. I did read it and, as I said, always appreciate any additional information on a topic. And that information reinforces my own view that Clinton - in this area - is a pretty bad apple.

But that isn't the point. I was responding to your double standard of proof as regards Clinton and Trump*, and the impact of an unfair standard potentially on Kavanaugh.

Jim

*Most specifically that you give a major pass Trump on area's you willingly crucify Clinton. With the caveat that it is not Clinton you should go lighter on, but rather Trump you should be more critical of.

[Sparko]

You never disappoint MM*.

As I said, I am no fan of Clinton - he is as much a cad in this area as anyone.

However, while I realize you will defend Trump till his dying breath, and that your absolute hatred of all things non-Republican knows no real bounds, nevertheless, nothing in your response says anything contrary to or of any value in rebuttal against my comment. In summary, it is simply hypocritical to hold two different standards of proof for nefarious goings on. One very loose and hyper-skeptical of any accusers, which you apply to Republicans, and one very strict and naively trustful of the accusers, which you apply to Democrats.

Jim

*And I do always appreciate additional information on any topic, regardless the source - so thanks for that element of your post.

Jim you said it was never proven he committed rape (true) but then you went on to say in your quote that he was not even accused of it by the women, that is was entirely consentual. MM showed you that last part was false, the women DID accuse him of rape.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim you said it was never proven he committed rape (true) but then you went on to say in your quote that he was not even accused of it by the women, that is was entirely consentual. MM showed you that last part was false, the women DID accuse him of rape.

I did not say he was never accused. I said it was never proven and pointed out contradictions in their testimony.

Your mantra is that none of the charges against Trump have been proven. You repeatedly point to contradictions as justification for dismissing the accusations.

My point is not your failure to properly assess Clinton, but rather your turning of a blind eye to the same or similar offenses when it comes to Trump.


Read more carefully MM.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Jim you said it was never proven he committed rape (true) but then you went on to say in your quote that he was not even accused of it by the women, that is was entirely consentual. MM showed you that last part was false, the women DID accuse him of rape.

Two different testimonies* at two different times == contradiction.

I'm not sure how you are being confused by this Sparko.


Jim

*

Source: wikipedia

noting that (in the case of Broaddrick and Willey) they previously testified under oath ...

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

I ... pointed out contradictions in their testimony.

No, you pointed out a self-serving Wikipedia quote from Bill Clinton claiming a contradiction but deceptively cut the quote to avoid revealing the fact that it was coming from Bill Clinton (what other reason is there for you to start the quote in the middle of a sentence instead of quoting the entire thing?). To counter this, I gave you sources quoting the women themselves along with other sources who were told about the incident at the time it happened, and you literally laughed it off and launched into a pathetic ad hominem fallacy.

Read more carefully MM.

Speaking of reading more carefully, you were responding to Sparko, not me.

[Sparko]

Jim you said it was never proven he committed rape (true) but then you went on to say in your quote that he was not even accused of it by the women, that is was entirely consentual. MM showed you that last part was false, the women DID accuse him of rape.

I did not say he was never accused. I said it was never proven and pointed out contradictions in their testimony.

Your mantra is that none of the charges against Trump have been proven. You repeatedly point to contradictions as justification for dismissing the accusations.

My point is not your failure to properly assess Clinton, but rather your turning of a blind eye to the same or similar offenses when it comes to Trump.


Read more carefully MM.


Jim

Oh the irony. I am not MM.

[Roy]

Oh the irony. I am not MM.

Though you are sometimes hard to distinguish.

[oxmixmudd]

Oh the irony. I am not MM.

DIf I do that? Sorry about that. I do see you two the same at all, though I was Hasting the both of you at the same time

[guacamole]

There is no evidence that Trump is a sexual predator. Trump had extramarital affairs with consenting partners. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, committed rape. And please don't insult our intelligence by trying to create a moral equivalence between what Trump merely said on the infamous Access Hollywood recording, and what Clinton actually did.

Trump is no choir boy, but there is a BIG difference between him and Slick Willy

The point is that both liberals and Christian conservatives hold to a doctrine of ideology over integrity.

[guacamole]

And you don't see me defending any of Trump's sexual escapades. Not a single time.

And the point wasn't really about defending sexual escapades, but about overlooking them, because "he's on our side."

[Sparko]

And the point wasn't really about defending sexual escapades, but about overlooking them, because "he's on our side."

He hasn't had any escapades while in office or for a long time previous. He claims to have become a Christian. Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt that he has changed until he proves differently?

[One Bad Pig]

DIf I do that? Sorry about that. I do see you two the same at all, though I was Hasting the both of you at the same time

Could you please translate this?

[oxmixmudd]

Oh the irony. I am not MM.

Ok, let's try that again. Running to catch a plane and the speach recognition on this phone is not the best.


Sorry about the mix up. I do NOT see you and MM as 'the same', though I do seem to be confusing 'names and faces' a bit here. A life long frustration that I work to avoid but I've been rushing around a lot lately and have not had time in many cases to proof my posts.


Jim

[guacamole]

He hasn't had any escapades while in office or for a long time previous. He claims to have become a Christian. Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt that he has changed until he proves differently?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when I see some of the fruit of the spirit in his life. Being a Christian doesn't mean I have to accept the claims of everyone else who says they're a Christian, especially a politician who thinks he can manipulate my vote. If we are cynics and believe that we should suspect that most politicians are dishonest, then it is wise to be cynical about Trump's claims of finding Jesus.