MuppetsRule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,658
- Reaction score
- 1,758
I get what you are saying about their tepid condemnation and the qualifying statement "if these are true". And I agree. But here's the thing. First, it's "they aren't speaking out against him". And then when it's pointed out that they are it's, "well, they didn't use the right words." Next, if they use the right words it'll be, "Well, it sounds like a PR firm wrote the statement" or "they're just dong it to look good for political reasons." Where's it all end? If the situation were reversed Republicans would be the same way.It's the nature of poitcs today.That's inaccurate. Please read some of those again. Most Republicans are still tacitly supporting Roy Moore. Mitch McConnell did same kind of spineless thing he always does because he fears being primaried by the Tea Party. He said that IF these things are true, then he should resign. That's not the same thing because the statute of limitations has long run out and he knows that. There will never be any more proof than there is now. There's just the statement by the women and over 30 carefully documented corroborating witnesses and Roy Moore's slick talk and convenient memory.
The GOP in Alabama is making the same exact move, but worse. They're comparing Moore's immoral behavior to Mary and Joseph and some have even stated that the victims should be prosecuted for waiting so long. Read their statements. There's only a few or real people withdrawing their support and even fewer that demanding that he step down immediately.
I loved Mitt Romney's statement. It's my favorite thing that he's ever said. This is a republican problem. They're all more terrified of Bannon's ire than they are a likely pedophile. It's as disturbing as it is gross. Mark my words, this is the moment that things either change drastically or the party will fracture. The elections this week have shown the beginning of America's rejection of Trumpism tactics.
I'm not sure where you're sourcing your things from. Just checking because in this weird age of people calling Fake News at anything they don't like makes it challenging to some. I find the longest papers of record to be the most trustworthy. Their longevity comes from their care and their duty to print retractions any time they get things wrong. Scandal blogs like Breitbart are just chum for the chumps. We have some of those on the Lib side too. It's best to steer clear of all of that. Heck, it's best to steer clear of news blogs altogether. It's crap. They just want clicks and fast. They don't care what's accurate. I'm not saying that you do that, but so many people do. Even one of my parents does that and it make having any sort of conversation tough. I actually have a chart somewhere that I posted a while back. It's very helpful and non partisan. I personally find a blending of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal to be a good mixture of checks and balances.
EDIT: I just read your second post and it's the analysis that I think is off. What the NYT is saying is all behind the scenes. They're not doing any of these things publicly because they're cowards. They're playing it safe in the media while trying to fix things behind closed doors. Treating sex abuse and sexual abusers like that is why we have this issue in the first place. That's terrible and I'm still right on the money here. Maybe it'll be different when they come back on Monday. We'll see. Still, publicly these turkeys are hanging out on the fence what is called a CYA move. That crassly stands for Cover Your A**. And I politely object to the term narrative. It's what's happening. They're doing one thing in public for the cameras and one thing in private. Some sources are contacting the newspapers to make them look good without having to be held accountable by Bannon and his mob.
And as far as the Alabama Republicans I did point out that they do still seem to be supporting him.
And as far as where I'm getting my news sources from? Well, the article I posted is from the NY Tiimes. Have never read Bliebart. Don't really watch any of the cable news outlets, other than maybe CNN when there is a big news story breaking. And I agree about so many of the so-called news websites and blogs. They are crap. Personally I feel that they, along with talk radio and the cable news outlets that aren't putting out news but political opinions are mostly responsible for how we got to be such a divided country in the first place. They all peddle hate, it's just a matter of who to hate. The blogs depend on clicks and the TV and radio depend on ratings for advertising dollars. The way they get them is to say outlandish stuff.
And as far as saying the Republicans are just doing these things behind the scenes I disagree. They've come out and spoken against him. Asked him to withdraw. Legally, they cannot simply remove him from the ballot. But they have taken other steps
1) they removed financial backing
2) they've pushed for a write-in candidate
3) they've explored how and if they can delay the election
4) many have rescinded their endorsement
5) they have talked about not seating him if he does win
I mean, really? It sure seems like they've taken plenty of steps to prevent him from taking the senate seat.
And I know, one can easily say they are just taking those steps for political reasons. But it goes both ways. According to the NY Times article, Democrats have been holding back in this race. But now that there is political blood in the water and they see a chance to gain a seat, they are getting in to the race and throwing more money at it. Both sides play politics.
Last edited: