It's amazing what pieces of shit people will turn into when defending their favourite rapists.

Baden
9.9k
I have nothing but the greatest of respect for women..
— Frank Apisa

Nobody respects women more than me.
— Trump

I've been referring to the way you talk about women, nothing else. In that respect, you two are twins even in your excuses. — Baden

You are digging a hole for yourself, Baden...and I do not mind encouraging you to dig deeper.

If you need a sharper spade or shovel...just ask. I'll be happy to help you.

Baden
9.9k
I have nothing but the greatest of respect for women..
— Frank Apisa

Nobody respects women more than me.
— Trump

I've been referring to the way you talk about women, nothing else. In that respect, you two are twins even in your excuses. — Baden

By the way...if you would stop digging for a moment and take a look at those two quotes...

...you will see a world of difference in what was being said.

Take another look.

Yes, I imagine for someone who has lived a humdrum life and gotten laid infrequently, that may seem to be "talking badly about women."

It is not...and the women with whom I've romped would laugh in your face for considering it to be so. — Frank Apisa / Trump

Anyway, I'm done with making that point. We can move on.

You said Kavanaugh was, and I quote, "scum" because he, in your opinion, lied about what happened with his accuser. Biden has said these accusations are false. If they are true, you agree he is also "scum"? — Baden

My recollection is that I thought, and think, Kavanaugh scum not because of what he lied about, but that the various lies of his testimony were unnecessary. That is, not what he did as a privileged and arguably immature older adolescent, but what he was doing in Congress.

Perhaps we can cast it this way: Biden is the man you seem to think he is, or not, and if not is more likely the man most people seem to think he is, and not the man, e.g., that Trump has insistently and incessantly manifested himself as being. If you cannot tell the difference between the two men - at least in-so-far as they're presented - that's not a good read on your part.

It's a fair point. There is indeed a difference between Biden and Trump. Trump is a piece of shit and everyone knows it, and Biden is a piece of shit but he's managed to fool some people into thinking he isn't. The latter being more dangerous, really.

I dislike both Biden and Trump regardless of whether these latest allegations are true. And the reasons for my respective dislike are fairly distinct, so yes I can tell the difference. No argument there. My point to you is that if you are not consistent in terms of Biden lying about this (if he is) as opposed to Kavanaugh then you are not credible. That's a fair point isn't it?

The latter being more dangerous, really. — StreetlightX

As with Obama, personality trumps substance.

If you cannot tell the difference between the two men - at least in-so-far as they're presented - that's not a good read on your part. — tim wood

I don't think this is how we should do it. We shouldn't judge people on presentation because sloppy people can be awesome. Kindly old Irish people can turn out to be drunken bastards.

I think this is a call for you to back down on some of your viciousness, because you're going to vote for Biden not knowing whether he committed sexual assault or not. This is the reason the liberal media isn't covering this. It's hard them to come to terms with it.

Kindly old Irish people can turn out to be drunken bastards. — frank

Tell me about it. :lol:

Baden
9.9k
Anyway, I'm done with making that point. We can move on. — Baden

Okay...start shoveling the other side.

Tell me about it. — Baden

:starstruck:

This is the reason the liberal media isn't covering this. It's hard them to come to terms with it. — frank

Yep.



If I'm inconsistent you can feel free to point it out, especially if you're willing to quote me. Meantime, take a chill pill. Nobody needs to have a coronary over this.

I dislike both Biden and Trump regardless of whether these latest allegations are true. And the reasons for my respective dislike are fairly distinct, so yes I can tell the difference. No argument there. My point to you is that if you are not consistent in terms of Biden lying about this (if he is) as opposed to Kavanaugh then you are not credible. That's a fair point isn't it? — Baden

To the degree they are the same, I agree. As different, I differ. And would not you agree that to hold me not credible without qualification is similarly out of order?

When I consider Biden's history (always to be understood as what's been reported of it), his tenure as VP, and in particular Obama's apparent and oft-stated regard for him, I suppose him a more-or-less decent fellow. if elected, with luck his could be a great administration - if he takes on the task of rehabilitation and hires the right people. Or maybe that's too much to hope for. The other guy is much worse - or maybe you do not think so - which would be interesting. But that's the bottom line. Him or the other guy: hold your nose and vote!.

Doesn't really address the specific point I was making. You called Kavanaugh "scum" because he lied (in your view) about the assault, not for anything else in his character. This has nothing to do with Trump.

There's the quote.

My point is that Kavanaugh is revealed as the scum he is, not because as a boy he did something stupid, but because as a man he's a liar, and the lies matter. — tim wood

I'm saying you need to apply the same to Biden if he's guilty.

Baden
9.9k
This is the reason the liberal media isn't covering this. It's hard them to come to terms with it.
— frank

Yep.

↪Frank Apisa

If I'm inconsistent you can feel free to point it out, especially if you're willing to quote me. Meantime, take a chill pill. Nobody needs to have a coronary over this. — Baden

Right now, I am wishing you could be a little inconsistent. You ARE being consistent...being a nudge; being a troll; being unnecessarily disagreeable...for no apparent reason. I agree with 90% of your advocacy, but you have gone apeshit because I have mentioned something about the Tara Reade story that is almost impossible to be true.

She was standing up fully dressed in a Senate hallway...yet she says he was able to shove his fingers up into her.

Try it sometime. Try it with the woman cooperating...and you will see how difficult it is to do. It takes time and maneuvering...and then more time and maneuvering. And most of the time you are not going to get it done...unless you've coated your fingers with Vaseline.

As for the "coronary" no problem on m part. I am bothered by the fact that you apparently are in a coma.

If we can...let's get back to being reasonable with each other.

There's the quote.
My point is that Kavanaugh is revealed as the scum he is, not because as a boy he did something stupid, but because as a man he's a liar, and the lies matter.
— tim wood
I'm saying you need to apply the same to Biden if he's guilty. — Baden

The same for the similarities, perhaps with some difference as different. My notions of justice, perhaps in some cases being more severe even than yours, are not as Procrustean.

Am I correct to think that your opinion of Kavanaugh is about the same as your opinion of Biden?

A dodge and a diversion. I'm done.

A Parthian shot. And to my thinking without justification. But even so I'm going to trust. You say you're done? Be done, then.

I had a period in my life after a divorce where I was promiscuous...banged any woman willing. I was a lucky guy...and there were MANY willing. I had no real bucks, but I WAS a bartender...and the bartender always has a shot at the leftovers. Yeah, some were skanks, but I've had my share of ultra-fine.

If you think you've gotten laid more than I...we can talk more. But you'd have to come up with some big numbers. Luckily, I found the right lady...and have been true blue for 35 years. — Frank Apisa

lmao

Why do you hold the DNC responsible for Biden's (assumed) nomination as opposed to the voters? — frank

I don't hold them solely responsible. It's true that in South Carolina, for example, he did very well with Black voters, the elderly, etc. More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't.

On the other hand, the DNC was very clear about what they wanted from the beginning, doing all they could to stop Sanders -- including the rapid events of the other candidates dropping out and quickly rallying around Biden. Sanders also never had the media on his side. Now, of course, you hear nothing but how great of a guy he is -- but we all remember the hit pieces escalating every day as it was becoming clearer he could become the nominee and panic set in.

So it's not only the DNC, but mainly. Had they been behind him as much as this senile, weak, milquetoast establishment politician who they have ordained as the nominee and now have to prop up, Bernie would have easily won. Instead they joined the conservatives by attacking him for being "extreme," basically a communist, and more importantly stressed how there was "no chance" he would beat Trump (I had this debate on this forum, in fact -- needless to say that was not backed up with the polling data).

The rest is history. Now we're left with this shadow of a man. I'll be very interested in the VP pick (the most important VP pick in history, in my view), and what further concessions he makes to Sanders' voters.

As with Obama, personality trumps substance. — Baden

Is it really Biden's charming personality? I think Trump is far more entertaining as "personality."

I'm saying you need to apply the same to Biden if he's guilty. — Baden

If it turns out he's guilty, and I hope he is, then maybe the DNC can prop up someone else. It'll never be Sanders, of course, but even Mayor Pete is a better candidate. If not, and Biden is somehow elected, but convicted while in office -- impeach him and remove him, let the VP take over.

No thinking person likes Joe Biden, in my view. I haven't met one person enthusiastic about his candidacy (although they must be out there?), regardless of the truth or falsity of these accusations.

But all of this truly misses the point. None of it matters as much as other issues. Let him be thrown out of office -- fine. He's essentially a figurehead anyway. What matters is removing the most dangerous president in American history, then the staffing of cabinet positions, department heads, appellate and Supreme Court judges, an administration responsive to activist pressure (as Chomsky points out), etc. etc.

And at this point in history, we can't gamble. But that does NOT mean condoning rape or loving Joe Biden or the DNC or even the Democratic party. Obviously many purists disagree and believe voting third party (or not voting) will send a message. But even if that's true (and I have yet to hear solid evidence supporting this), I don't think we have the time to wait. If I did, perhaps I'd agree with this strategy.

This election is just far too important for sticking to the less dangerous party when we have a sociopath in the White House. Think of a Supreme Court with a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority for at least a generation, or four years of propping up the fossil fuel industry while the effects of climate change are already occurring? It should terrify everyone.

We have to get our priorities straight. Survival has to come first -- then we deal with everything else, like corruption, privacy invasion, Biden's sexual history, corporations buying elections, and so on. All very important, but not existential.

That's as rational as I can state my position.

More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't. — Xtrix

I'm not sure why. Apathy? Jaded? Or not quite agitated enough?

On the other hand, the DNC was very clear about what they wanted from the beginning, doing all they could to stop Sanders -- including the rapid events of the other candidates dropping out and quickly rallying around Biden. Sanders also never had the media on his side. Now, of course, you hear nothing but how great of a guy he is -- but we all remember the hit pieces escalating every day as it was becoming clearer he could become the nominee and panic set in. — Xtrix

I mainly watch PBS and read the NYT. I only glance at CNN and MSNBC. I become tired very quickly of their strong emotional bias. They aren't there to inform so much as to cash in on anxiety. I don't think they manufactured anxiety about Sanders' chances, but I agree that they peddled it.

The rest is history. Now we're left with this shadow of a man. I'll be very interested in the VP pick (the most important VP pick in history, in my view), and what further concessions he makes to Sanders' voters. — Xtrix

He's definitely not a firebrand, that's for sure. Chomsky said a Sanders victory wouldn't do anything without a continuing grassroots movement. Can that proceed without Sanders in office? I wonder if anyone has asked him to talk about that. You're up there, why don't you email him and tell us what he says?

More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't.
— Xtrix

I'm not sure why. Apathy? Jaded? Or not quite agitated enough? — frank

Who knows. Some say the younger voters just don't show up in the numbers that older voters do.

I mainly watch PBS and read the NYT. I only glance at CNN and MSNBC. I become tired very quickly of their strong emotional bias. They aren't there to inform so much as to cash in on anxiety. I don't think they manufactured anxiety about Sanders' chances, but I agree that they peddled it. — frank

I don't think it was manufactured either. There's a filtering process that happens in media -- those who write the op-eds have internalized a set of core beliefs, and are thus quite sincere in their anxieties.

He's definitely not a firebrand, that's for sure. Chomsky said a Sanders victory wouldn't do anything without a continuing grassroots movement. — frank

True, not at least with congress and many state legislatures. Even then it means nothing with a clear activist agenda.

Can that proceed without Sanders in office? I wonder if anyone has asked him to talk about that. You're up there, why don't you email him and tell us what he says? — frank

Up where? And e-mail who? Chomsky? There's no need -- just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him.

just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him. — Xtrix

Will it continue without him as a focal point?

just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him.
— Xtrix

Will it continue without him as a focal point? — frank

There's good evidence to suggest that, yes. The Sunrise Movement isn't based on Sanders as a leader. Nor was the Occupy Movement (in fact he was riding that wave in many ways). The policies of $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, Green new deal, etc., aren't exclusively Bernie's anymore, and that's a good thing.

So in many ways we've seen that these movements and policies have developed a life of their own.

Reminiscing about the latest family reunion eh?