Michelle Obama: Selective outrage[W:64]

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

CanadaJohn said:

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the debate tactic of hyperbole. But I do see that you continue to be familiar with the debate tactic of direct personal insult and attack when no counter argument is available to you. Well done.

Click to expand...

Your argument was nonsense and the best counter argument is ridicule. But since you're doubling down, here's your comment:

Face facts - Bill Clinton is an accused rapist who sexually assaulted several women over the years and is admitted to having "sexual relations" with a young intern in the Oval Office while President, somewhat relatable to what Weinstein is accused of, and yet somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100% of Democrats think Clinton is/was the best President ever. Not a matter of picking teams, but a matter of having a moral compass that requires you to reject such individuals as undeserving of your support.

As I said, no better example of the left's lack of moral standards for themselves and those they support.

Click to expand...

I won't bother, but it should be painfully obvious to you that all anyone needs to do to show the stupidity and partisan hackery of that post is to substitute "Donald Trump" for "Bill Clinton" and GOP for Democrats - the bolded items above. Trump is also on his third wife, is an admitted serial adulterer and womanizer, not to mention his many examples of completely unethical business practices. In short DJT is completely devoid of any known ethical boundaries at all, as amoral or immoral as anyone you'll run across in your life, has no connection to any religion, and despite being a supposed $billionaire has effectively used roughly $0 of it to assist others with donations to charity or otherwise.

And this man got the overwhelming majority of EVANGELICAL votes in this country, was the Republican pick for POTUS nominee and is now POTUS. The GOP "moral compass" did not lead republicans to "reject" him as undeserving of their support but to EMBRACE him despite knowing his just complete lack of ethics or morals, and elect him POTUS. They did it because they saw this unethical person as a tool to accomplish their goals - that's all that mattered. They made a figurative deal with the devil, these moral paragons of virtue in the GOP and evangelical communities!

So it's quite incredible to see you throwing stones at Democrats on this issue when the GOP is, right now, smack dab in the middle of the most fragile glass house ever constructed!

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

CanadaJohn said:

Sorry if the truth is disconcerting to you. Bill Clinton is exhibit number one. For hardcore Trump ideologues, No other exhibits necessary.

Click to expand...

FIFY, CanadaJohn. :lamo

I knew that was what you actually meant to say, so.......you're welcome.

For every "Bill Clinton", I can give you 2 or 3 Donald Trumps.

Care to play?

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

MaggieD said:

She should have known, IMO. It was public knowledge at LEAST two years ago. But I’m not sure.

Click to expand...

Well, no, it was not even close to "public knowledge" years ago. That term has an accepted meaning and you abusing it doesn't help the case any. His status as alleged rapist and serial sexual predator became public knowledge this month with the NYT and then the New Yorker articles and all that followed.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

SonOfDaedalus said:

So, Michelle Obama knew that Harvey Weinstein was a sexual predator and sent her daughter to work for him anyway? Does that make sense to you?

Click to expand...

It's just more Obama-bashing.

Nobody has provided any evidence that the Obanas had reason to know. They just say "well they should have known", even though the people saying it didn't know themselves. (Or if the people accusing the Obamas did know, they're even more complicit because they should have gone to the authorities rather than wait to bash the Obamas on DP).



I won't be surprised if ten pages later, these people will say "ok ok, fine. I was full of it. But it's OK that I did it because the left something something Trump something something."

That's where we are in politics these days. No sensible thought, people just trying to get the other guy and then claiming they're justified based on some story on how they were gotten in the past.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

JasperL said:

Well, no, it was not even close to "public knowledge" years ago. That term has an accepted meaning and you abusing it doesn't help the case any. His status as alleged rapist and serial sexual predator became public knowledge this month with the NYT and then the New Yorker articles and all that followed.

Click to expand...

Take a look at two links and a video on Bubba’s Post #60.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...ichelle-obama-selective-outrage-w-64-a-6.html

She probably wouldn’t have been worried. Her daughter has SS protection, after all. But to think that the SS didn’t vet this guy even ASIDE from Seth McFarland’s joke at the Oscars is just too far fetched.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

Mr Person said:

It's just more Obama-bashing.

Nobody has provided any evidence that the Obanas had reason to know. They just say "well they should have known", even though the people saying it didn't know themselves. (Or if the people accusing the Obamas did know, they're even more complicit because they should have gone to the authorities rather than wait to bash the Obamas on DP).

I won't be surprised if ten pages later, these people will say "ok ok, fine. I was full of it. But it's OK that I did it because the left something something Trump something something."

That's where we are in politics these days. No sensible thought, people just trying to get the other guy and then claiming they're justified based on some story on how they were gotten in the past.

Click to expand...

The thing that's a little bit funny is if these allegations about HW were as well known as the Obama bashers allege on this thread, there is a 100% certainty, no doubt about it, bet your house on it, that the right wing would have used Hillary's and the Obama's association with a known rapist and sexual predator in targeted ads for YEARS. So not only wasn't it well known, it wasn't known enough for the bottom dweller right wing attack monkeys doing opposition research to discover and use against every Democratic politician who has ever been seen in the same room with this guy, which, again, we KNOW would have happened if these allegations were even 1/100th as well known as these people are assuming while bashing the Obamas for no reason.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

CanadaJohn said:

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the debate tactic of hyperbole. But I do see that you continue to be familiar with the debate tactic of direct personal insult and attack when no counter argument is available to you. Well done.

Click to expand...

:lamo
So you're saying that you have absolutely no clue when it comes to formal debate tactics and scoring, huh?

Hey, Einstein..........for the record, it's a well-known debating "tell" that uses of hyperbole and strawman arguments (i.e. diversion tactics) are signs that the opposition KNOWS they are losing.

When you have facts on your side, hyperbole is unnecessary. In fact, it's counterproductive to a winning argument because it results in (at best) confusion, rather than clarity.

But hey, don't let anyone tell you that you weren't being clever...even brilliant...earlier in this thread, ok? :lamo

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

JasperL said:

The thing that's a little bit funny is if these allegations about HW were as well known as the Obama bashers allege on this thread, there is a 100% certainty, no doubt about it, bet your house on it, that the right wing would have used Hillary's and the Obama's association with a known rapist and sexual predator in targeted ads for YEARS. So not only wasn't it well known, it wasn't known enough for the bottom dweller right wing attack monkeys doing opposition research to discover and use against every Democratic politician who has ever been seen in the same room with this guy, which, again, we KNOW would have happened if these allegations were even 1/100th as well known as these people are assuming while bashing the Obamas for no reason.

Click to expand...

Great point.


Where were the ads? Oh, hell, you just know Trump would have mentioned it during the debates. He rubbed elbows with BOTH Hollywood and Hillary, to boot.

He mentioned Rosie O'Donnell, of all people. Think that was the 2nd debate, but not sure. It was at least one of them. I spilled my drink.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

Mr Person said:

It's just more Obama-bashing.

Nobody has provided any evidence that the Obanas had reason to know. They just say "well they should have known", even though the people saying it didn't know themselves. (Or if the people accusing the Obamas did know, they're even more complicit because they should have gone to the authorities rather than wait to bash the Obamas on DP).



I won't be surprised if ten pages later, these people will say "ok ok, fine. I was full of it. But it's OK that I did it because the left something something Trump something something."

That's where we are in politics these days. No sensible thought, people just trying to get the other guy and then claiming they're justified based on some story on how they were gotten in the past.

Click to expand...

But it's kind of stupid. If the Obama's knew why would they send their daughter to work for him? To claim that the Obama's knew is to show a lack of critical thinking skills.

Moreover, Harvey Weistein is not a politician. Why is this a political issue? Conservatives are so petty. If Clint Eastwood were accused of being a predator I wouldn't celebrate. I still love Clint Eastwood's movies and I'm perfectly fine with him being a conservative nut talking to chairs. But these nuts so passionately hate anyone who is openly liberal that they rejoice when even a non-politician liberal falls into scandal. If football players support liberal causes they can't watch football. It's so pathetic.

The problem is these conservatives are so much more passionate about their idiotic agenda than liberals. And the most passionate liberals don't vote because nobody ever meets their absurdly idealistic standards.

Oh, and they ignore that Trump is also a sexual predator. With Trump they believe all those women are lying. Again, a fascinating study in human psychology.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

Mason66 said:

You saying this like it was a secret what Weinstein has been doing for years.

The fact that it "broke" a certain day, does not mean people didn't know about it before that.

Click to expand...

That is the point I was making in my Post #18. I can't believe that as well connected as the Obama's were to the entertainment world that adored them, that they had never heard any of the persistent rumors and whisperings re Weinstein. Perhaps they figured nobody would dare compromise THEIR daughter but her internship would help keep the money flowing? Who knows?

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

MaggieD said:

Take a look at two links and a video on Bubba’s Post #60.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...ichelle-obama-selective-outrage-w-64-a-6.html

Click to expand...

Yea, I've seen it. “Congratulations,” MacFarlane said. “You five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.”

I'm not sure how anyone hears that line and concludes HW is a known sexual predator and rapist. YOU didn't know he was a sexual predator and rapist, no one in the public had made that accusation, it wasn't in the news until just recently, the Obamas and Clintons and others have been photographed for years with the guy, and no one objected to these prime political targets associating with a rapist and sexual predator.

You're using the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to make conclusions you didn't make at the time and no one else outside a small community did at that time.

Seriously, I mentioned it above but I'll ask you directly - if HW's conduct was as well known as you with perfect hindsight now allege, don't you think the chances are in fact exactly 100% that his associations with prominent democrats like Hillary and Michelle and Barack and many others would have been featured in roughly 100,000 political ads by now? As far as I know, we went through the entire made up "Pizzagate" nonsense, but no one on the right wing figured out HW was an actually prime target to smear Democrats with? Surely you must know that if it was as well known as you suggest, there are 1000s of bottom dweller right wing attack dogs who wouldn't hesitate to drag HW through the mud if it meant some would rub off on the biggest of Democratic big whigs.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

JasperL said:

Yea, I've seen it. “Congratulations,” MacFarlane said. “You five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.”

I'm not sure how anyone hears that line and concludes HW is a known sexual predator and rapist. YOU didn't know he was a sexual predator and rapist, no one in the public had made that accusation, it wasn't in the news until just recently, the Obamas and Clintons and others have been photographed for years with the guy, and no one objected to these prime political targets associating with a rapist and sexual predator.

You're using the benefit of 20-20 hindsight to make conclusions you didn't make at the time and no one else outside a small community did at that time.

Seriously, I mentioned it above but I'll ask you directly - if HW's conduct was as well known as you with perfect hindsight now allege, don't you think the chances are roughly 100% that his associations with prominent democrats like Hillary and Michelle and Barack and many others would have been featured in roughly 100,000 political ads by now? As far as I know, we went through the entire made up "Pizzagate" nonsense, but no one on the right wing figured out HW was an actually prime target to smear Democrats with? Surely you must know that if it was as well known as you suggest, there are 1000s of bottom dweller right wing attack dogs who wouldn't hesitate to drag HW through the mud if it meant some would rub off on the biggest of Democratic big whigs.

Click to expand...

Frankly, that’s probably the best argument anyone’s made. That it would have been used against HC if it were indeed common knowledge. Unless the liberal press decided to ignore it.... ? I find it difficult to believe that this guy even harassed someone like Angelina Jolie and the whole Hollywood scene didn’t know it. And the SS didn’t investigate her internship...

Letchers stand out like sore thumbs.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

MaggieD said:

Frankly, that’s probably the best argument anyone’s made. That it would have been used against HC if it were indeed common knowledge. Unless the liberal press decided to ignore it.... ? I find it difficult to believe that this guy even harassed someone like Angelina Jolie and the whole Hollywood scene didn’t know it. And the SS didn’t investigate her internship...

Letchers stand out like sore thumbs.

Click to expand...

Goodness, you're unnecessarily making this partisan, starting with effectively attacking the Obama's based on conjecture. There is also a "conservative" press, conservative talk shows, an entire conservative network in Fox with the most watched news on TV, and none of THEM reported it either, and they are in the same position as the Obamas to hear these rumors.

And it's probably true the whole Hollywood scene had some vague knowledge that HW was a womanizer and was amenable to sleeping with his stars - maybe they even believed that doing so with him might help their careers. But that's true in every industry - as I said here, I saw it in accounting for goodness sake, my wife who is also an accountant had an experience not at all unlike what's being reported with HW by Jolie and others who rebuffed him but were shaken by the ordeal. But like I said there, knowing the boss is a womanizer, and that women might sleep with him to advance their careers, is NOT the same as knowing the guy is a rapist, and sexual predator who made jobs contingent on having sex with him.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

MaggieD said:

Frankly, that’s probably the best argument anyone’s made. That it would have been used against HC if it were indeed common knowledge. Unless the liberal press decided to ignore it.... ? I find it difficult to believe that this guy even harassed someone like Angelina Jolie and the whole Hollywood scene didn’t know it. And the SS didn’t investigate her internship...

Letchers stand out like sore thumbs.

Click to expand...

Wait....

:wow:

Your first sentence compliments his argument as "the best" on this subject. His argument directly refutes yours. Why on Earth would you then repeat it in the rest of the post?





The fact remains that there is every reason to think we'd have heard about this long ago if it really was known that Weinstein had committed sex crimes. There is no reason to think Obama would know. And if Obama were caught sending the SS to investigate private individuals for personal reasons, that would be a scandal.

You cannot credibly snark about "anonymous sources" every time someone runs an article reporting bad things about Trump, then turn around and accuse the Obamas of having reason to know about Weinstein without so much as one anonymous source.

Just.....stop.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

Mr Person said:

Wait....

:wow:

Your first sentence compliments his argument as "the best" on this subject. His argument directly refutes yours. Why on Earth would you then repeat it in the rest of the post?





The fact remains that there is every reason to think we'd have heard about this long ago if it really was known that Weinstein had committed sex crimes. There is no reason to think Obama would know. And if Obama were caught sending the SS to investigate private individuals for personal reasons, that would be a scandal.

You cannot credibly snark about "anonymous sources" every time someone runs an article reporting bad things about Trump, then turn around and accuse the Obamas of having reason to know about Weinstein without so much as one anonymous source.

Just.....stop.

Click to expand...

You couldn’t resist, could you?

I have an opinion that the Obamas probably knew. They were rather close to Hollywood. And certainly the SS checked things out as they would for any daughter of any president. Maybe they didn’t know. In any case, what difference does it make? She has round-the-clock SS protection. How worried would they have to be even if they DID know?

We pick the damnedest things to argue about here... Remember, the RIGHT answer will never be known.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

MaggieD said:

You couldn’t resist, could you?

I have an opinion that the Obamas probably knew. They were rather close to Hollywood. And certainly the SS checked things out as they would for any daughter of any president. Maybe they didn’t know. In any case, what difference does it make? She has round-the-clock SS protection. How worried would they have to be even if they DID know?

We pick the damnedest things to argue about here... Remember, the RIGHT answer will never be known.

Click to expand...

A few things, then.

Why would I "resist" commenting? It's a debate forum and I see something I think is wrong/absurd/unfair, I tend debate against it unless the poster is one of the few I've entirely written off. I've spent the last two days with a fever bouncing between 101 and 103. Not really getting any difficult work done today....

"What difference does it make"? is a great question. What's the point of anyone trying to condemn the Obama's over this? I've been asking that myself since Bucky started the thread. I expected this to go a page or two, then vanish.



That said, if they did in fact know of specific sex crimes committed by Weinstein, through lawful surveillance, then I would condemn them for not getting the proper authorities involved. I can not see any excuse for failing to get authorities involved if they already had admissible evidence of specific sex crimes by him.

If all someone has is an unsubstantiated rumor, then I tend to side with the person the rumor is against. If someone gets torn down by a false rumor of this nature, it's very rare that they recover, even if it goes all the way to acquittal. Even recantation by the "victim" doesn't necessarily help, given the public attention span.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

Mr Person said:

A few things, then.

Why would I "resist" commenting? It's a debate forum and I see something I think is wrong/absurd/unfair, I tend debate against it unless the poster is one of the few I've entirely written off. I've spent the last two days with a fever bouncing between 101 and 103. Not really getting any difficult work done today....

"What difference does it make"? is a great question. What's the point of anyone trying to condemn the Obama's over this? I've been asking that myself since Bucky started the thread. I expected this to go a page or two, then vanish.

That said, if they did in fact know of specific sex crimes committed by Weinstein, through lawful surveillance, then I would condemn them for not getting the proper authorities involved. I can not see any excuse for failing to get authorities involved if they already had admissible evidence of specific sex crimes by him.

If all someone has is an unsubstantiated rumor, then I tend to side with the person the rumor is against. If someone gets torn down by a false rumor of this nature, it's very rare that they recover, even if it goes all the way to acquittal. Even recantation by the "victim" doesn't necessarily help, given the public attention span.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I hope your fever is coming down. A 103 degree temp is very high for an adult. You probably feel like crap.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

MaggieD said:

Fair enough. I hope your fever is coming down. A 103 degree temp is very high for an adult. You probably feel like crap.

Click to expand...

Thank you. It didn't spend long all the way up there. But yeah. Fried brains..

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

JasperL said:

Your argument was nonsense and the best counter argument is ridicule. But since you're doubling down, here's your comment:



I won't bother, but it should be painfully obvious to you that all anyone needs to do to show the stupidity and partisan hackery of that post is to substitute "Donald Trump" for "Bill Clinton" and GOP for Democrats - the bolded items above. Trump is also on his third wife, is an admitted serial adulterer and womanizer, not to mention his many examples of completely unethical business practices. In short DJT is completely devoid of any known ethical boundaries at all, as amoral or immoral as anyone you'll run across in your life, has no connection to any religion, and despite being a supposed $billionaire has effectively used roughly $0 of it to assist others with donations to charity or otherwise.

And this man got the overwhelming majority of EVANGELICAL votes in this country, was the Republican pick for POTUS nominee and is now POTUS. The GOP "moral compass" did not lead republicans to "reject" him as undeserving of their support but to EMBRACE him despite knowing his just complete lack of ethics or morals, and elect him POTUS. They did it because they saw this unethical person as a tool to accomplish their goals - that's all that mattered. They made a figurative deal with the devil, these moral paragons of virtue in the GOP and evangelical communities!

So it's quite incredible to see you throwing stones at Democrats on this issue when the GOP is, right now, smack dab in the middle of the most fragile glass house ever constructed!

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can post the stories that detail where women have alleged that Donald Trump raped them, such as Bill Clinton did.

Perhaps you can post the stories that detail where an employee/intern of the White House has admitted to having sexual relations with Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

I'm no supporter of Donald Trump, but I do find it remarkable that all these leftists who claim they're not immoral can't find a single word to condemn and abandon Bill Clinton for his illegal and immoral behavior and can only try to equate Donald Trump to him. As a matter of fact, I'm on record here last year of pointing out that Donald Trump has been and likely still is a liberal Democrat who just happened to kidnap the Republican Party to get a path to the White House. So pointing out that Donald Trump is immoral simply proves my point.

Thanks for playing.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

ultmd said:

FIFY, CanadaJohn. :lamo

I knew that was what you actually meant to say, so.......you're welcome.

For every "Bill Clinton", I can give you 2 or 3 Donald Trumps.

Care to play?

Click to expand...

You get nothing from me for your dishonest bastardization of the comments I post. Such a move is beneath contempt.

Remarkable now how the leftists feel the Republicans and conservatives are to blame because they didn't out Harvey Weinstein during the election and use it against Hillary Clinton. The great defenders of women and women's rights feel it's necessary for conservatives and Republicans to out lechers and rapists who attack liberal women who are their supporters. I suppose, since it required conservatives and Republicans to finally out Bill Clinton, and to protect a slew of women from being slandered by liberals and Democrats, it's only to be expected that liberals and Democrats would protect one of their own money merchants until it became impossible to do so.

The more this thread progresses, the more the immorality of the left is exposed for all to see.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

CanadaJohn said:

Perhaps you can post the stories that detail where women have alleged that Donald Trump raped them, such as Bill Clinton did.

Perhaps you can post the stories that detail where an employee/intern of the White House has admitted to having sexual relations with Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

I'm no supporter of Donald Trump, but I do find it remarkable that all these leftists who claim they're not immoral can't find a single word to condemn and abandon Bill Clinton for his illegal and immoral behavior and can only try to equate Donald Trump to him. As a matter of fact, I'm on record here last year of pointing out that Donald Trump has been and likely still is a liberal Democrat who just happened to kidnap the Republican Party to get a path to the White House. So pointing out that Donald Trump is immoral simply proves my point.

Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

All the assault allegations against Donald Trump, recapped | PBS NewsHour

Otherwise, I'll address your comment when you address mine. I'm not going to follow you around as you continually move the goal posts.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

CanadaJohn said:

You get nothing from me for your dishonest bastardization of the comments I post. Such a move is beneath contempt.

Click to expand...

LOL, that's about what I expected.

Implying that you might be a Trump apologist was "beneath contempt"? That's a little dramatic, wouldn't you say?

And after your most recent remarks, above, I'm thinking I was probably closer to right than wrong, earlier.

Re: Michelle Obama: Selective outrage

Mr Person said:

"What difference does it make"? is a great question. What's the point of anyone trying to condemn the Obama's over this? I've been asking that myself since Bucky started the thread. I expected this to go a page or two, then vanish.

Click to expand...

I think many people knew, including Obama and it is shameful they were silent on the issue.

We know why Obama was silent. Hint, it rhymes with "honey."

CanadaJohn said:

Remarkable now how the leftists feel the Republicans and conservatives are to blame because they didn't out Harvey Weinstein during the election and use it against Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

I've pointed out that the GOP didn't use HW as a sledgehammer to pummel Hillary with but you deliberately missed the point. I'm not blaming the GOP, I'm pointing out that assertions that Hillary and others must have known because everyone knew is total bull****. If the GOP knew, they'd have used it. I assume and said very, very clearly that they almost surely did not, same as the VAST majority of Democrats.

The great defenders of women and women's rights feel it's necessary for conservatives and Republicans to out lechers and rapists who attack liberal women who are their supporters. I suppose, since it required conservatives and Republicans to finally out Bill Clinton, and to protect a slew of women from being slandered by liberals and Democrats, it's only to be expected that liberals and Democrats would protect one of their own money merchants until it became impossible to do so.

The more this thread progresses, the more the immorality of the left is exposed for all to see.

Click to expand...

For the record, two "liberal" outlets broke the stories on HW this week - the NYT and the New Yorker.