• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Roy Moore campaign refuses to substantiate claims about accuser

Fletch said:
Too bad I didn't say that. Try responding to what I write not what you wish I had written.
Click to expand...

Except that's what the "but Conyers! But Clinton! But "insert person X here"!" argument that y'all love so much amounts to. Like it or not, there is no reason to double down on electing scumbags, and especially not because scumbags have been elected before.
 
What we are seeing, reading, hearing every day is just the modern version of an old Soviet propaganda tactic, known as "whataboutism"
Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another. It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Just following liberal democrat, socialist lead.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the Repubs, conservatives are so clueless, so inept in politics, they can do nothing more than copy the liberal democrat, socialist lead? That's the way I read the connotation of your words.
 
Somerville said:
Are you saying the Repubs, conservatives are so clueless, so inept in politics, they can do nothing more than copy the liberal democrat, socialist lead? That's the way I read the connotation of your words.
Click to expand...

You were complaining about so called "whataboutism" and I merely pointed out that the children of the left, in all shades of it, did nothing but for the past 8 damned years....So, my advice is 'suck it up buttercup'
 
Tigerace117 said:
Except that's what the "but Conyers! But Clinton! But "insert person X here"!" argument that y'all love so much amounts to. Like it or not, there is no reason to double down on electing scumbags, and especially not because scumbags have been elected before.
Click to expand...

Somerville said:
What we are seeing, reading, hearing every day is just the modern version of an old Soviet propaganda tactic, known as "whataboutism"
Click to expand...

Sorry, but pointing out liberal hypocrisy and double standards is not a propaganda tactic but an attempt to break the propaganda tactics of the left where they accuse others of what they are guilty of doing. The idea that Moore is somehow not moral enough a man to serve in a congress that keeps people like Conyers in a position of leadership is laughable
 
j-mac said:
You don't have a say in Alabama politics....
Click to expand...

Alabama is part of the United States; the decisions people there make affect everyone.

This is really not as hard a concept to grasp as you seem to think.
 
j-mac said:
I for one don't think that Democrats are "Satan", just dull, humorless, and kind of dumb.
Click to expand...

Your posts show that you are in no position to try to call anyone else "dull" "humorless" or "dumb".
 
Fletch said:
Sorry, but pointing out liberal hypocrisy and double standards is not a propaganda tactic but an attempt to break the propaganda tactics of the left where they accuse others of what they are guilty of doing. The idea that Moore is somehow not moral enough a man to serve in a congress that keeps people like Conyers in a position of leadership is laughable
Click to expand...

Doubling down on electing scumbags and shrieking "but liberals" as an excuse is a tactic. It's not a good tactic, but it is a tactic, and one which disgusts people.

Except you are arguing for doing the exact same thing that you accuse others of doing! Do you seriously not see the problem with the dull line of "logic" there?

The idea that anyone should elect a scumbag like Moore when it is well known he is a scumbag and politics already suffers from an overabundance of scumbags is hilarious. You have no room to whine about Conyers when you advocate electing people just as bad as him.
 
j-mac said:
You were complaining about so called "whataboutism" and I merely pointed out that the children of the left, in all shades of it, did nothing but for the past 8 damned years....So, my advice is 'suck it up buttercup'
Click to expand...

For some reason, I do not view pointing out the tactics of political opponents as "complaining", but then one thing I have learned here on Debate Politics, too many who post here have created their own definitions of words for no other reason than to attack their opponents.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Doubling down on electing scumbags and shrieking "but liberals" as an excuse is a tactic. It's not a good tactic, but it is a tactic, and one which disgusts people.

Except you are arguing for doing the exact same thing that you accuse others of doing! Do you seriously not see the problem with the dull line of "logic" there?

The idea that anyone should elect a scumbag like Moore when it is well known he is a scumbag and politics already suffers from an overabundance of scumbags is hilarious. You have no room to whine about Conyers when you advocate electing people just as bad as him.
Click to expand...

Except I have never argued for the election of Moore. So you have no point.
 
Fletch said:
Except I have never argued for the election of Moore. So you have no point.
Click to expand...

Except Trump supporters continue to argue for and defend Moore across the website. So whether you do so or not is irrelevant; there are enough others doing so to make all the difference.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Except Trump supporters continue to argue for and defend Moore across the website. So whether you do so or not is irrelevant; there are enough others doing so to make all the difference.
Click to expand...

Then take your issues up with them
 
HowardBThiname said:
I don't think they could have replied in any other manner -- without getting their tits deeper in the wringer.

The presented the case against the accuser, but in order to "prove" it, they'd have to give the Post personally identifying information about the accuser, and that would not bode well for the campaign. If it's true about the addresses, the Post can easily verify it. Old telephone books are kept at most public libraries.

Just the fact that they put out the case tells me that Moore is serious about defending his honor, which further tells me there's reason to suspect the stories of the accused.

This is getting more interesting by the day.

Jones, on the other hand, might have overstepped by actually putting out an ad with the women's names and their childhood pictures and making his own accusation. That might not go over well with the voters who were, up to this point, saying Jones was holding himself "above" the fray.

Yep, this is gonna be fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Simply put, Jones is pretty close to dropping his nuts in the fryer.
 
Fletch said:
Except I have never argued for the election of Moore. So you have no point.
Click to expand...

Try all you want, I don't think you could ever get your point across.

You know how strong willful ignorance can be these days.
 
I lost any and all faith in any and all people who's ambition has landed them in to powerful places of high office. Ever since as I watched Frank Underwood kiss that dude in the back stairwell, politicians have turned my stomach.

Seriously, I shudder to think what is in the closets of our elected leaders. Something about those kind of people that leads them towards freakdom.

I got no time for their perverted asses.

I have fish to catch. Deer to hunt. Stages to rock. Galaxies to defend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom