Making sexual advances at an underage girl is all good because they didn’t “do the deed” but a blowie in the White House between consenting adults is worthy of outrage (note that I’m intentionally ignoring the power dynamics at play here)? Oh, Republicans.
I also saw on the news some choice deflection by Steve Bannon complaining about WaPo’s role in this and the Pussy Grabbing tapes as some sort of #fakenews liberal conspiracy (while completely ignoring one was a taped admission of guilt, and the other is allegations).
It is hilarious to watch the religious right figuring out how to defend Moore. First there is the denial that he did what he is accused of. Then they hedge their bets in case he is guilty by minimizing the act of assaulting young girls by abusing his position of authority.
I don’t think he goes down. The Democrats obviously held onto this until he couldn’t get his name taken off the ticket, like Dubya’s surprise DUI in 2000. That’ll be taken into account.
I think Clinton likely was (is?) a sexual predator and a sleazy creep, and sexual contact with Lewinsky given their positions at the time was wrong even if she signed a letter requesting it.
Republicans trying to use him as an excuse, though, just makes me want to punch my monitor. Sexual misconduct from a place of power, sexually abusing people, rape, sex with people below the legal age of consent - these are not partisan issues. Molesting kids doesn’t cancel out because one person who did it was a republican and another a democrat. What the hell?!?
Completely agree. I merely feel in that specific instance that was jokingly referenced above that it was probably completely consensual…however, totally inappropriate given both of their positions. Consent does not constitute appropriate OFC.
I think that’s spot on to where the affront is. and how transparent it all is just about political lines.
In the real world, yes, they are. Men and women in both parties have looked the other way when it’s someone on their own side for decades. Anyone who ignored abusers with an (R) after their name while seething with outrage at the (D)s, and vice versa, should try to STFU, just a little.
You’ve got it backwards, I think. It’s not that fundamentalist Christians are drawn to molesting kids and teens; it’s that people drawn into that kind of a thing often adopt a holier-than-thou Christian persona, both to deflect suspicion and (I believe) to excuse their actions to themselves. “I’m a good church-going born-again Christian man, what I did can’t be that sinful. And if it was, surely God will forgive, right? It’s all okay.”
except, if you believe the post’s reporting then you should believe what they say about how they learned about all this.
Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore.
it’s not all just politics out there: this team vs that team. to claim that it is only serves to undermine the excellent reporting work that the post has been doing as of late.
inconvenient facts don’t need vast conspiracy when occams razor will suffice.
