It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Watch Al Franken make a statement regarding his political future

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I personally, as someone who knows Roy Moore's political career very well, do not believe one bit of the accusations against him. The establishment has been trying to destroy him his entire career, and nothing came of it until he drew the ire of the national parties. This man has had mud slung at him in previous elections like no one I have ever seen, and nothing could be proven. If he had ever said the word "damn" in a deserted bathroom stall when he pulled a hangnail, it would all be public record accusing him of being 'sinful' for cursing.

That's not an exaggeration. The establishment hates him, with a purple passion. The people love him. He's been a thorn in the side of the PC crowd since his first election.

30 days before his election, leading the challenger by double-digits after defeating his primary rival (establishment Republican), a sure bet to hit the Senate with that cowboy diplomacy he's known for, and suddenly there's all these allegations from 40 years ago with no proof?

Yeah... I don't believe a word of it. I'd believe hookers urinating on Trump in Moscow before I'd believe this.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: CrawlingChaos


A) these are not women on the street.. they are “friends” at drunken parties in a lot of cases..



Can you clarify this for me ? So it's ok for me to force myself onto a woman because i'm drunk at a party and we know each other as "friends" ? It's ok to force myself onto a woman because she's drunk at a party and knows me as a "friend" ?


Both of those sound disgusting.


If a drunk guy at a party tried to kiss you , then leaves instantly upon being rebuffed, we’re you really assaulted???



Uh... Yes ! Especially if he continues harassing me in the hopes I "break down" and let him.


B) even in a worst case scenerio “guy on the street “ situation involving my sister/daughter/exc, though I might punch him if I was there at the time, no I do not think he should be fired 20 years later.



So deep down inside you do view it as an attack upon that person, wouldn't allow it to happen to YOUR daughter, but someone else it's ok, because she knew the guy... As a friend... And hey they were probably drunk at a party anyways...


Boys will be boys, and all that ?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Some media outlets are reporting there could be another 20 to 30 congressmen. This is good news and bad. It may get so bad that they just say # it and stop kicking them all out.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Some media outlets are reporting there could be another 20 to 30 congressmen. This is good news and bad. It may get so bad that they just say # it and stop kicking them all out.

30 is big, but a manageable number. But definitely there may come a "tipping point" where so many congressmen have been accused that they just decide to stop caring about it.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The precilla thing is disgusting.. Roy Moore’s is not upon looking it up...


Alabamians are typically, from my experience being one of them, just shaking their heads in disgust at the accusers.

TheRedneck


They're saying, "Shame on you for bringing this up 30 years after it allegedly occurred!"

That's the thing: Moore is not some newbie. This is like his 5th or 6th election, and these accusers are just surfacing now. And very conveniently just before a special election to fill a senate seat. That doesn't prove the accusations aren't true, but the circumstances are suspicious, whether Democrats recognize it or not.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: face23785
Some media outlets are reporting there could be another 20 to 30 congressmen. This is good news and bad. It may get so bad that they just say # it and stop kicking them all out.

30 is big, but a manageable number. But definitely there may come a "tipping point" where so many congressmen have been accused that they just decide to stop caring about it.


That was what I was getting at. 20-30 is what they're saying right now. It may get bigger. They may not all be current reps though, I would imagine it includes some that are no longer in Congress. Time will tell I suppose.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The precilla thing is disgusting.. Roy Moore’s is not upon looking it up...


Alabamians are typically, from my experience being one of them, just shaking their heads in disgust at the accusers.

TheRedneck


They're saying, "Shame on you for bringing this up 30 years after it allegedly occurred!"

That's the thing: Moore is not some newbie. This is like his 5th or 6th election, and these accusers are just surfacing now. And very conveniently just before a special election to fill a senate seat. That doesn't prove the accusations aren't true, but the circumstances are suspicious, whether Democrats recognize it or not.


Yes and this is precisely why false accusations are so damaging. Many people have witnessed false accusations before, and then when something like this happens with questionable timing, and knowing false accusations do happen, it may be just enough to make some people doubt. If false accusations weren't as prevalent, the timing alone may not be enough to make so many people question.

False accusers should always be prosecuted. They cause so much damage not only to the people they accused, but to real victims.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I've been voting since 1994. I've learned by now that false accusations are a standard feature of national elections. I can't remember a presidential election that did not feature accusations by one or more women against one candidate or the other or both. Most of them follow the same pattern: the alleged events were a long time ago (usually beyond any statue of limitations), no evidence is ever presented, and after the election the woman/women disappear from the public eye. I bet if these women were investigated, you would find that a huge fraction of them were in fact being paid by some affiliate of the DNC or RNC to make their accusations.

It definitely hurts any real accusers, because they struggle to be heard above all the background noise of likely bogus claims. I believe Juanita Broderick when she said Bill Clinton raped her, because she's one of the very few accusers who did not disappear into the shadows again after the election.

I always wondered why, with all the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton, none of them seemed to have any interest in pursuing a claim of actual criminal rape. Now that we know about the congressional hush money fund, I think I've figured out why.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I think even rape has a statute of limitations in some states, that may be why no criminal charges were pursued.

ETA: According to this the statute of limitations for rape in Arkansas is 15 years.
edit on 8 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

But certainly that would have made much better grounds for impeachment than lying about getting blowjobs from an intern.
Yet the GOP leaders had zero interest in Juanita Broderick.

Now we know that looking into events with actual criminal potential would have opened up a huge can of worms.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

A) Of course it’s not ok, but that doesn’t make it sexual assault either.. there is a mile of difference between rape and “he grabbed my butt at a party and backed off when rebuffed..”


So should we be putting all the Jr. High kids who do it on the sex offenders registry??? By your definition they just sexually assaulted someone??

Because that would literally put 80+% of adolescents male and female on the list..


EVERYTHING has a spectrum..

Rape, child molestation, stalkers and actual sexual harrassment where your boss is pressuring you to sleep with him to keep your job/get a promotion/he’ll retaliate, all have serious physical, emotional, economic and legal ramifications.

Those can scar someone for life..

“Some random person at a party grabbed my butt”
Does not have serious ramifications..

That will not scar someone’s life..

Pretending rape and an unwanted sexual advance WHERE THEY STOP WHEN REBUFFED are equal might be attempting to make unwanted touching worse, but imho only makes rape look better..


B) how is it “especially if he keeps trying to wear me down “ , when I specifically said “he stops when rebuffed?!?!

That is the whole crux of the argument.. you can’t change that variable to try and make your point.. I have repeatedly said that refusing to stop crosses the line..


C) no I do not look at it like an attack on a person..

I have been in fist fights.. that is an attack on a person..

...


Imho ACTUAL sexual harrassment/assault requires a threat of violence/retaliation and/or refusing to take no for an answer..

In a situation where you go up to some aquantience at a party , grab her/him on the butt and spin her around and try to kiss her. None of those things are present.

It is VERY BALLZY.. and is probably more likely to get you slapped or maybe punched if she has a boyfriend you didn’t notice.

(And you being slapped /punched wouldn’t be an assault either.. because you asked for it..)

Now, if it is a complete and total stranger, they would have no reason to think that the girl would be interested.. an aquanteince however.. maybe he thought y’all were making eve contact and half drunk decided to go for it..

Your pretending like things like that are not par for the course in courtship..

What if she was thinking the same thing??

imho what matters is if there is a threat of ANY KIND behind it or a refusal to leave her alone afterward..


(Off topic... for all that said , how many old couples do you hear the wife say “I really didn’t like him at first, but he was just so persistent??? )

The courtship line is inherently blurry.. it’s all a gamble where you are guessing how the other person feels.. so imho you have to draw a bright line in a place everyone can understand where subjective feelings are removed from the equation



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

PS I have a daughter .. 13 even..

I hope she is a strong enough person where if placed in a situation where she rebuffs some unwanted come on, it doesn’t even ruin her night, let alone cause the kinda damage that requires firei g some one 20 years later..



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I have to ask you... what do you think of Franks resignation over a discussion with women in his office about needing a surrogate mother?

Seems to me this is getting so far out of hand, we need to just make it illegal for a man to speak to a woman or to make any physical contact with a woman, even casual/accidental.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Everyone not a political shill , who has ever heard her account has zero interest in Broderick.. it is the worst story ever and reads like some fangirl fantasy porn. Not real life..

She was not some family friend that Clinton had access to..

It’s been a over a year since I looked it up but, her account is that she worked at a hospital Clinton did the ribbon cutting ceremony at, or a fundraiser maybe.. then Clinton came back to her hotel room and raped her..


There is no evidence clinton spoke to her privately, went to her hotel room nor did anything more than give her his autograph.

It is even less evidence than against Moore, which is super thin itself..

Plus, I always catch crap for this but it is true..

Broderick is and was VERY unattractive.. AKA not the kinda person who has billionaire playboy’s try and go back to her hotel room..

It is the equivalent of me going to a hunger games premier and claiming Jennifer Lawrence raped me afterward.. sure I guess it doesn’t break any laws of physics, but no one would put money on it..



.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

In a way I think this is us rewriting the rule book..

We spent the last couple centuries where you could legally rape your wife and once a woman had sex , sex was ruined concerning all other men.

Where banging your boss to get ahead was frowned upon, but common place and unsurprising..

I think this is society trying to redraw those lines, but on the crack rock steroid of social media and global communication..with all the grace of a bull crashing through a China shop..

I’m very unemotional..

Imho emotions are subjective and should be ignored in all civil , legal and career objectives..

No one makes anyone feel anyway..

Feelings are not real..

You can’t draw those lines in a subjective nature..

You have to draw a bright red one around instances where a legit threat of force or retailiation took place.. not a precieved one.. but a real one..well, the intent to portray a real threat or retaliation...

Which I guess “wearing someone down “ would be beginning of what is unexceptable for me personally.

Because how do you measure persistence?!!

What’s cute and what’s creepy??

Reguardless the line has to be somewhere you can safely point to..



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

A) Of course it’s not ok, but that doesn’t make it sexual assault either.. there is a mile of difference between rape and “he grabbed my butt at a party and backed off when rebuffed..”



You don't have to rape someone, to sexually assault them. End of story. You are attempting to white-wash unacceptable behavior into some kind social-norm to explain away a politically unfavorable pattern of behavior.

Would you send your daughter to a party with Frankin as "friends" ? I bet not. And neither would I, which unfortunately is the only common ground we're going to reach on this topic.

Best of luck to you, maybe we'll find a shared opinion elsewhere.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


What’s cute and what’s creepy??

Exactly.

The difference between an unwanted sexual advance and a wanted sexual advance is no more than one is wanted and one is unwanted. That difference only exists in the mind of the one getting the advance. There is no physically possible way for a man to know in advance if it is wanted or unwanted. In essence, a man can now be held accountable for the thoughts of those (women) around him.

That's beyond wrong... it's beyond ludicrous... it is insane.

Sure, there are certain lines that have to be drawn... a rejection is a rejection and should be respected. Coercion based on power structures is wrong, and should not be tolerated. But to blanketly condemn men for making an initial contact? That is worse, IMO, than allowing some women to go abused, because it places even more power in the hands of the woman than abuse places in the hands of the man. The woman still has a chance to garner enough attention to stop the abuse, while the man is woefully unable to even prove innocence.

We are entering something terribly dangerous for society here... the absolute breakdown of the legal system.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: face23785

But certainly that would have made much better grounds for impeachment than lying about getting blowjobs from an intern.
Yet the GOP leaders had zero interest in Juanita Broderick.

Now we know that looking into events with actual criminal potential would have opened up a huge can of worms.


She claimed Clinton raped her in 1978. It was almost 20 years old when Clinton was impeached. How would they prove it? Maybe they just figured there was no way the Senate would convict him based solely on an accusation.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

best this about it was when local news cut his speech short when they realized nobody gave 2 donkey turds about him.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I do not think it is necessarily worse.. but it is absolutely not acceptable..

I almost never agree with sacrificing anyone at the alter of “just in case..”


I also do not think it will be dangerous.. imho the left wing social issue over reactions are annoying , not a threat to the fabric of society..


More later running..

edit on 8-12-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join