Top problematic Democrat Rep out of the picture

a reply to: pavil

It seems like he is content with just apologizing.

A spokeswoman for Barton said Wednesday that he had no plans to resign and had filed for re-election.

But thanks for the link anyways.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If your life depended on reading comprehension, you would have starved to death a long time ago.

It isn’t a matter of political bias, but if you can’t separate your bias then you can’t be objective. Trump was discussing the power of fame versus the power of wealth. Wealth only gets you gold diggers. Fame attracts so much more. But to objectively look at Trump’s physical sexiness, I’ve seen better boils on asses.

a reply to: JBurns

What about his ex-wife that took him to court for raping her?

a reply to: Ahabstar

If people like Ben Rothlisberger still have to sexually assault women to get laid despite their fame, I doubt that Trump is having women throw their panties at him at any larger rates than most. If you want to believe that so you don't have to challenge your thinking any, knock yourself out, I don't. I'd like to see some follow through on his allegations similar to how the right demands follow through on any accusation against the left no matter how vague.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If your life depended on reading comprehension, you would have starved to death a long time ago.

It isn’t a matter of political bias, but if you can’t separate your bias then you can’t be objective. Trump was discussing the power of fame versus the power of wealth. Wealth only gets you gold diggers. Fame attracts so much more. But to objectively look at Trump’s physical sexiness, I’ve seen better boils on asses.

For sure! No one ever accused trump of being an Andonus or even a gentleman. But Trump is a billionaire and plenty of very attractive women find that sexy as hell. Are those women gold diggers? Sure. Are they probably in It for more than just love when they marry rich unattractive men? Probably not.

But it is consenting and Trump is merely discussion playing the hand that he was dealt. An ugly, crude, rich man who likes attractive women. So he goes after and gets attractive women who like men like him.

That is far from being a sexual predator or rapist. Now if allegations against trump are proven true then I say off with his head like the rest politically.

Problem is other people here can’t see the difference from their blind political bias.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Ahabstar

If people like Ben Rothlisberger still have to sexually assault women to get laid despite their fame, I doubt that Trump is having women throw their panties at him at any larger rates than most. If you want to believe that so you don't have to challenge your thinking any, knock yourself out, I don't. I'd like to see some follow through on his allegations similar to how the right demands follow through on any accusation against the left no matter how vague.

Rape more times than not has nothing to do ones physical attractiveness both in the victim or suspects part. It is about power and asserting that power over another. These politicians are addicted to it in many forms. Like serving until you’re in your 80’s and being lifelong career politicians.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GuidedKill

A settlement is not proof of guilt either, anywhere other than the court of public opinion.

And stating that going through a mediation process and reaching an agreement during that process is as good as "guilty as hell" is ignorant, considering the mediation process isn't voluntary in this case. Guilty of the claim or not, the mediation period is part of the process.

I’ve seen and have been involved in many mediation processes. It is my personal experience that when mediation’s are required there is usually a party guilty of something. If that wasn’t the case what would they even be mediating about in the first place? It is still a process to settle legal matters which saves the court time and money and is legally honored. Which that in itself means there is a guilty party before the court that needs to be settled.

That fact they don’t admit guilt is the gentleman’s part of the mediation process.

How many medications have you been involved in?

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Ahabstar

If people like Ben Rothlisberger still have to sexually assault women to get laid despite their fame, I doubt that Trump is having women throw their panties at him at any larger rates than most. If you want to believe that so you don't have to challenge your thinking any, knock yourself out, I don't. I'd like to see some follow through on his allegations similar to how the right demands follow through on any accusation against the left no matter how vague.

Rape more times than not has nothing to do ones physical attractiveness both in the victim or suspects part. It is about power and asserting that power over another. These politicians are addicted to it in many forms. Like serving until you’re in your 80’s and being lifelong career politicians.

Right. So a 72 year old man with a narcissism problem having power issues isn't that far fetched. Thanks for proving my point.

a reply to: GuidedKill

It is my personal experience that when mediation’s are required there is usually a party guilty of something.

Cool. Unless you've worked in Congress then your personal anecdote is immaterial. It's written in to the process that there's mediation involved, among other things.

If that wasn’t the case what would they even be mediating about in the first place?

Because the bill was written to put the entire onus on the accuser, not the accused, to get any sort of resolution out of things. Wanna file a claim? Great, you are required to do all of these things.

Which that in itself means there is a guilty party before the court that needs to be settled.

If that were the case then one can only wonder why so many people, including Conyers, have been able to settle at the same time they explicitly deny any guilt. Weird.

That fact they don’t admit guilt is the gentleman’s part of the mediation process.

Nope, it's usually pretty explicitly written. That's why you hear things like "while not admitting liability/fault/guilt...." in reporting about settlements.

How many medications have you been involved in?

I'm not interested in your pissing contest.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Thanks for being a great example of the hypocrisy.

It is hard to determine hypocrisy when we are talking about a wide range of acts as to what would be considered inappropriate actions, unwanted sexual advances or true physical sexual assault. And to add that a person seems to have the ability to change their mind at will to what an act is to them.

As example: I read where a woman said she went to the apartment of one of these guys 9 years ago and ended up having unwanted sex... so I don't know what you call this, or if it really matters.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well other posters in this thread are telling me that liberal politicians should be forced out of office without convictions. To be honest, I think a lot of these things on both the left and the right are being blown out of proportion. "sexual harrassment" is the new "witch", but regardless I just want to see equal application of the law.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GuidedKill

It is my personal experience that when mediation’s are required there is usually a party guilty of something.

Cool. Unless you've worked in Congress then your personal anecdote is immaterial. It's written in to the process that there's mediation involved, among other things.

If that wasn’t the case what would they even be mediating about in the first place?

Because the bill was written to put the entire onus on the accuser, not the accused, to get any sort of resolution out of things. Wanna file a claim? Great, you are required to do all of these things.

Which that in itself means there is a guilty party before the court that needs to be settled.

If that were the case then one can only wonder why so many people, including Conyers, have been able to settle at the same time they explicitly deny any guilt. Weird.

That fact they don’t admit guilt is the gentleman’s part of the mediation process.

Nope, it's usually pretty explicitly written. That's why you hear things like "while not admitting liability/fault/guilt...." in reporting about settlements.

How many medications have you been involved in?

I'm not interested in your pissing contest.

What bill are you talking about?? The Office of Compliance which over saw the fund is basically the HR for congress. There is no law stating these victims have to use this route. This was the route their employer the US government recommended to use to settle what they were considering HR complaints. These victims could have just as easily filled a complaint with their local law enforcement agency if they so choose to...Doubt they were advised that was even an option when they filled their complaints. They were advised to mediate the issue internally in which the rules you discussed apply.

They would file the complaint and it would be mediated internally and paid out shush money and I'm sure a signed confidentiality agreement. They were using their in house lawyers to advise these victims to go this route. There is no law or bill saying they have to. This fund was set up to settle claims against members of the house and congress. It was used to silence the victims and pawned off as an HR process.

Sheesh man.

Oh and in regards to you not wanting to get into a pissing match, that just tells me you haven't been to and or familiar with many mediation processes.

It's ok we are all here to deny ignorance...Lesson one, mediations are a court process. Lesson two, people usually don't need a court process unless there is a guilty party.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pavil

It seems like he is content with just apologizing.

A spokeswoman for Barton said Wednesday that he had no plans to resign and had filed for re-election.

But thanks for the link anyways.

That was a quick retirement. Dont worry I am 100% confident you will have Republicans to ridicule with their depravity very soon. Its what Politicians do.

Doesn't that make you feel better?


Something tells me we need a clean sweep of almost everyone in Congress and that still wont solve the problem

yeeeeah!

I feel a disturbance in the force....oh it's only Don't Tread on Me about to weigh in in......

a reply to: pavil

I'm not looking to ridicule anyone. I'm not ridiculing Moore on a regular basis. I'm just asking for equal application of demands on handling people outed for this behavior.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pavil

I'm not looking to ridicule anyone. I'm not ridiculing Moore on a regular basis. I'm just asking for equal application of demands on handling people outed for this behavior.

That's fine, based on verifiable evidence. Things do have a way of spiraling out of control with this topic. Most Politicians are creeps, lets face facts.

I understand it's a loaded topic. Maybe you'll get lucky and find that Russian hotel tape.

a reply to: pavil

Seriously are you just trying to pick a fight with me or something? Why do I "need to get lucky"? I don't give a # if that video exists or not. I just want... Actually. I'm done. You clearly don't care.

a reply to: GuidedKill

What bill are you talking about??

The law that established the Office of Compliance maybe?

There is no law stating these victims have to use this route.

It's how you file a harassment claim in Congress. They're welcome to file a claim outside of Congress. Of course, they're told that doing so may potentially jeopardize their claims.

These victims could have just as easily filled a complaint with their local law enforcement agency if they so choose to

Yep, that's a criminal complaint, not an HR complaint. We're talking about filing a complaint against your employer, in case you're confused.

They would file the complaint and it would be mediated internally and paid out shush money and I'm sure a signed confidentiality agreement. They were using their in house lawyers to advise these victims to go this route. There is no law or bill saying they have to. This fund was set up to settle claims against members of the house and congress. It was used to silence the victims and pawned off as an HR process.

Again, it's the process for how claims are filed in Congress. That's why it's such a big story: the process was created in such a way that the entire burden is put on the accuser and not the accused, and done so in a way that made it as difficult as it could possibly be. Workplace mediation is an HR tool. It is not a court process. Yes, mediation is a tool used in court as well, for a variety of things. It's also used in a workplace setting.

Oh and in regards to you not wanting to get into a pissing match, that just tells me you haven't been to and or familiar with many mediation processes.

I'm not surprised, given that you like to make things up and then act as if it's factual. All your statement tells me is that you're so bitterly entrenched in your quest for victory that you can't accept the fact that your personal anecdotes don't mean diddly, and that you may not have all the relevant information. Case in point: workplace (as in HR) mediation is not a court process. It's usually legally binding, but it's not a court process any more than signing a contract of employment is a court process.

t's ok we are all here to deny ignorance

I know. Hopefully one day you'll learn to do that. Since you seem to not understand that HR mediation is a thing, here's a helpful article.

Lesson one, mediations are a court process.

Some are. Some aren't.

Lesson two, people usually don't need a court process unless there is a guilty party.

Correct. However, when it's not a court process, that's moot.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: pavil

Seriously are you just trying to pick a fight with me or something? Why do I "need to get lucky"? I don't give a # if that video exists or not. I just want... Actually. I'm done. You clearly don't care.

Sorry you take it that way. I actually agree that its a problem with both Republicans and Democrats. I've stated that numerous times on various threads. You were the one lamenting it was only Democrats. Sorry I've upset you.

a reply to: pavil

Alright. That's cool then. Let's leave it at that.