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.
Rep. Kathleen Rice, the New York Democrat, walked out of the House Democratic Caucus meeting on Wednesday morning before it concluded, citing frustration with her colleagues' inability to take a harder stance on sexual-harassment allegations against Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat.
According to The Washington Post's Dave Weigel, Rice abruptly left the meeting, telling reporters outside, "I don't have time for meetings that aren't real."
originally posted by: face23785
A while back I remember a thread asking why conservatives are always "on the wrong side of history" on social issues. It's a relatively common talking point I've heard from a number of liberal friends. There are some instances where I would agree conservatives have been, for example I personally couldn't care less who marries who. And I'm by no means trying to allege all liberals have been on the wrong side of this issue. Disclaimer over.
This tidal wave of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations has, in my mind, put a major spotlight on the true colors of some powerful liberals. Let's not forget, in the 90s, many were completely dismissive of all the allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Bill Clinton. The accusers were ridiculed, mocked, smeared. It was no big deal for this powerful man to use his position to coerce a sexual relationship from an intern. This was the President. We have laws against teachers having relationships with students, even if the student is 18, because they are in a position of power over them. I would argue the Presidency is a much more powerful position than a teacher.
Of course the counter-argument is "well it's not just liberals in positions of power that do this". Granted. I completely acknowledge this. This problem has no partisan blinders. What I'm talking about is the reaction to the problem. Many prominent conservatives were screaming from the rooftops about Clinton, and prominent liberals had their fingers in their ears because Clinton had the same politics as them.
Here we are 20 years later, and we almost had a repeat. Nancy Pelosi was visibly reluctant to condemn Conyers. It's clear to me she was forced to call for his resignation by the outcry of lower-ranking women in the party and the realization that there was enough public ire about this issue that she had no choice. Kathleen Rice walked out of a meeting because she said party leadership wasn't taking the issue seriously enough. (Interestingly, I couldn't find a link to this on CNN, which I try to use so liberals can't accuse me of using fake news sources, so that's from Business Insider).
Rep. Kathleen Rice, the New York Democrat, walked out of the House Democratic Caucus meeting on Wednesday morning before it concluded, citing frustration with her colleagues' inability to take a harder stance on sexual-harassment allegations against Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat.
According to The Washington Post's Dave Weigel, Rice abruptly left the meeting, telling reporters outside, "I don't have time for meetings that aren't real."
If you read between the lines, it sounds like the meeting was probably more about "how do we best run damage control" rather than "how do we fix this problem". They still haven't woken up to the fact that they have been enablers of this kind of behavior ever since they looked the other way for Clinton. This NY Times piece where this woman clearly recognizes that she was wrong for ignoring Juanita Broaddrick all these years was a stunning admission to me. She acknowledges they excused a sexual predator for decades, and that it was wrong.
Like any issue, it's not black and white. There are plenty of conservatives that excuse this kind of behavior too. We can point at what's going on with Roy Moore right now. And of course there's Trump. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the Republican Party of Alabama or Donald Trump represent mainstream conservatism. My point here is that over the years, by and large, mainstream liberals were on the wrong side of this, and they're starting to wake up to that. Mainstream conservatives, by and large, have usually been critical of this type of behavior. There are examples contrary to both those assertions, for sure. It's a generalized observation. Maybe if liberals had joined conservatives with Clinton, we would have had this watershed moment 20 years ago, and maybe set in motion the path to rectifying this or at least cutting down on it, saving countless victims.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history
They've never been on the right side of history.
EVER.
Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history
They've never been on the right side of history.
EVER.
Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?
That and founding the country itself.
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history
They've never been on the right side of history.
EVER.
Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?
That and founding the country itself.
Really the PILGRIMS were liberals ?
Last time I checked they can't even admit GOD even exists, and are always running around screaming separation of church and state while dictating to the church.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I can't recall anything remotely resembling what liberal means in their entire platform throughout history ?
It's nothing but an authoritarian ideology.