November 14, 2017

Café time.

IMG_1627

Talk about whatever you want (and use The Althouse Amazon Portal).

66 comments:

chickelit said...

Whose on top?

Saint Croix said...

I just finished my new novel, a murder mystery set in Washington D.C.

It's called Death of a Non-Person.

100 Althouse readers can download it for free at Inkett.

Saint Croix said...

Inkitt, oops.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Congrats, Saint Croix!

Sebastian said...

"It's called Death of a Non-Person." I'd be happy to talk about it, Bayard-like

Several commenters here are perfecting the art of talking about blog posts they haven't read. Could make a nice addendum to Bayard's book about talking about books you haven't read. But we need categories for types of non-post-reading: posts you haven't read, posts of which you have only read the title, posts you have only seen other people comment on, posts you have read but already forgotten, posts in another thread, and, to add a peculiar twist that did not occur to Bayard, posts the blog hostess should have written on the topic the thread should have covered.

dreams said...

The sorry-ass baby boomer generation, the children of the greatest generation turned out to be the sorriest generation.

"Since the Trojan War, generations have always trashed their own age in comparison to ages past. The idea of fated decadence and decline was a specialty of 19th-century German philosophy. So we have to be careful in calibrating generations, especially when our own has reached a level of technology and science never before dreamed of (and it is not a given that material or ethical progress is always linear). Nonetheless, the so-called Baby Boomers have a lot to account for — given the sorry state of entertainment, sports, the media, and universities."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453707/baby-boomer-excess-led-hubris-cultural-decay

tim in vermont said...

Why would they write a book about an abortion?

Saint Croix said...

Here's the pitch I've been using…


On the night before oral arguments at the Supreme Court, an unknown person smuggles a dead baby into the courthouse. The tiny corpse is left inside the courtroom itself, up on the dais, right in front of chair #4. And the entire federal government starts to panic. A mob of federal officers investigates this invasion of a federal building, including members of the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Supreme Court police.

How did this happen? How do you smuggle a dead baby into a courthouse through security? How do you avoid the video cameras and the X-ray scanners? And why would anyone do such a thing?

On the same night the body is discovered, a city police officer is brought in to investigate a different aspect of the crime. Detective Sergeant Saxon of D.C. Homicide is inquiring into the death of this tiny baby. Who killed this child? Why? Is this an aborted infant, or the murder of a newborn?

Saxon is a bit of a loose cannon. He steps on toes. He asks the wrong question and the rude question. He says what other people won’t say, and does what other people won’t do. Also he has way too much fun at his job. He might punch a diplomat, or sleep with a murder suspect. Saxon will cross a line or two, but his heart is in the right place. He’s a cop with spirit, determination, and a never-say-die attitude. And he will crack this dead baby case, even if he has to go up against the FBI to do it.

Saint Croix said...

thanks, IHMMP!

Kevin said...

John Kasich: 'Reasonable people' in power need to come up with a gun control solution

Gee, I wonder why this guy couldn't get the Republican nomination. Can you imagine a serious contender for the Democrats arguing that "'Reaonable people' in power need to come up with an abortion solution"?

Of course not. One of these things is written into the Constitution that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The other one has no such protections but certainly won't be.

David Baker said...

From the Roy Moore thread below, here’s additional insight into Moore’s handwriting and what it means...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I would like to make a request of our hostess. Presumptuous sure. But this week:

First Chris Hayes

Then New York Times

Now The Atlantic

All talking about Juanita Broadrick and making Bill Clinton accountable.

As Goldfinger says three times is enemy action. So who is behind this. Will it catch on or be smothered.

I would love to see Althouse's take on this.

tcrosse said...

So who is behind this. Will it catch on or be smothered.

Cui Bono ?

Kevin said...

Hillary Clinton PERSONALLY Overturned Visa Ban for Islamist Figure Now Accused of Rape

Now if we only knew how much he gave to CGI before she signed...

Bay Area Guy said...

I used the famous Althouse Amazon Portal to buy, Nixon's Gamble by Ray Locker.

So far, absolutely outstanding book.

Thesis: Nixon's idea - to open up China and drive a wedge between it and the Soviet Union -- took a lot of planning and secrecy. In fact, Nixon delayed ending the Vietnam War in hopes of making the deal in China. In fact, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were so concerned about what Nixon and Kissinger were doing in secret, that they started spying on Nixon.

The book doesn't focus on Watergate (at least yet), but connecting the dots, shows that Watergate may have had a strong element of the Right joining with the Left to get rid of Nixon. Right-winger Alexander Haig plays a prominent role.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Cui Bono ?

Cui plagalis?

Humperdink said...

@Dreams Re: Baby Boomer's miserable legacy.

I got into a interesting discussion regarding when this started and/or what caused the downward spiral. I posited it was the riotous 60's that was the start of it. Young people became rebels against authority, with virtual impunity (Kent State being one exception). These people are now teaching at various levels.

The lady I was having the discussion with argued it was the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. That judges determine when life begins, regardless of the science involved. Life became cheap and disposable.

Humperdink said...

Oh lookee, the White-Supremacist-in-Chief has secured the release of the three (3) UCLA basketball players being in held China accused of shoplifting.

Trump must be a college b'ball fan. Either that, or he didn't know the color of their skin. Otherwise, he would have let them rot, right?

Hagar said...

I agree Roy Moore is toast, but think McConnnell should have let it play out in Alabama and he and his fellow GOPe senators should have stayed out of it rather than making it a swamp creatures vs. swamp drainers kind of thing.

buwaya said...

True re Nixon.

He was a brilliant fellow. Behind an odd personality he was a very wise man.
He inherited a war and brought it to a decent conclusion, and made the most significant, strategically consequential foreign policy move since 1945.

He was certain that he had been done in by what would today be called "the swamp".

Luke Lea said...

Readers might check out my "Notes Towards a New Way of Life in America," which you can read for free thru Friday: https://goo.gl/q4kodC

Or you can buy for just $0.99! (Would Ann get a slice of that if you do it through her portal?)

Michael K said...

The book doesn't focus on Watergate (at least yet), but connecting the dots, shows that Watergate may have had a strong element of the Right joining with the Left to get rid of Nixon

Interesting premise.

Buchanan's book about Nixon is excellent.

Big Mike said...

I agree with Hagar.

buwaya said...

"I posited it was the riotous 60's that was the start of it."

Much earlier - "God and Man at Yale", Buckley, 1951
The rot started at the top and drifted down. The 1960's were consequences, not causes.

For more profound speculation, on where it went wrong, or was about to, try Spengler ("Decline of the West")or Ortega y Gasset ("Revolt of the Masses"), or C.S. Lewis ("The Abolition of Man"). Or, of course, Chesterton and Nietzsche.

The truth is somewhere in there.

Mike Sylwester said...

Yesterday Consortium News published an article titled "Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt" by Ray McGovern. He was a CIA intelligence analyst for 27 years and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

The article includes the following passages:

-----

... the Jan. 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” [had a] stunning lack of evidence in support of its Russian guilty verdict. The ICA even admitted as much, that it wasn’t asserting Russian guilt as fact but rather as opinion:

“Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”

Even The New York Times, which has led the media groupthink on Russian guilt, initially published the surprised reaction from correspondent Scott Shane who wrote: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

In other words, the ICA was not a disposition of fact; it was guesswork, possibly understandable guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless. And guesswork should be open to debate.

But the debate was shut down earlier this year by the oft-repeated claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred in the assessment and how could anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies concluded!

.... not only did the full intelligence community not participate in the ICA but only analysts “handpicked” by Obama’s intelligence chiefs conducted the analysis –- and as we intelligence veterans know well, if you handpick the analysts, you are handpicking the conclusions.

... why do you think Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan put up the no-entry sign that kept out analysts from the State Department and Defense Intelligence Agency, two entities that might have significant insights into Russian intentions? ...

... not only did the Jan. 6 report exclude input from INR [i.e. the State Dept] and DIA and the other dozen or so intelligence agencies but it even avoided a fully diverse set of opinions from inside the CIA, FBI and NSA. The assessment –- or guesswork –- came only from those “hand-picked” analysts. ...

-----

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/13/mocking-trump-doesnt-prove-russias-guilt/

Mike Sylwester said...

Continuing my comment at 12:28 PM

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern writes further:

-----

... Trump’s demeanor, however, suggested increased confidence that the Russian “hacking” allegations were the “witch hunt” that he has decried for months. ....

Trump said, “You hear it’s 17 agencies. Well it’s three. And one is Brennan … give me a break. They’re political hacks. ... I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, you have [FBI Director James] Comey. Comey is proven to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker.” ...

Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ...

Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. .... Clapper said, “the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique.”

Brennan ... was CIA director when agency operatives broke into the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee when it was investigating CIA torture.

Former FBI Director Comey is infamous for letting the Democratic National Committee arrange its own investigation of the “hacking” that was then blamed on Russia ....

So far, the powers-that-be in Washington –- in politics, the media and other dominant institutions, what some call the Deep State –- have shown little regard for fairness in the Russia-gate “scandal.”

The goal seems to be to remove the President or at least emasculate him on a bum rap, giving him the bum’s rush, so to speak, while also further demonizing Russia and exacerbating an already dangerous New Cold War.

The truth should still count for something. No one’s character should be assassinated ...

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/13/mocking-trump-doesnt-prove-russias-guilt/

Chris Low said...

I'm wondering if Althouse has read Caitlin Flanagan's Bill Clinton: a Reckoning in the Atlantic yet. I'm curious, because Flanagan makes exactly the same point Althouse has made since the Weinstein scandal first broke. Feminists conceded the battle against sexual harassment when they gave Clinton a pass despite well-documented accusations of sexual assault and violent rape. Flanagan believes the time has come to admit they were wrong to politicize bad behavior, because among other things it gave predatory men a free pass as long as they espoused left-wing causes.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Chris Low,

The Flanagan article about the sins of Bill Clinton is good.

Money Grafs:

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks.

wildswan said...

Do not tell Buwaya but there is a story on the web about young Ja Du of Florida who has decided he is Filipino. He used to watch stories about the culture on TV and now he is one. Episode 1 from Life of a Post-Person.

Bay Area Guy said...

The collective Democratic establishment response to Bill Clinton's various sexual adventures was as follows:

1. Monica Lewinsky - well, it was consensual adultery
2. Juanita Broaderick - ignore
3. Kathleen Wiley - ignore
4. Paula Jones - demonize Ken Starr; marginalize Paula Jones as trailer trash.
5. Gennifer Flowers - well, it was consensual adultery

I know the Left still can't believe Hillary lost in 2016. But many of today's voters were around in 1992. We remember how the Left gave Clinton a pass, and how Hillary was prime enabler of these misdeeds (to keep her political aspirations viable).

That's part of the reason Hillary was so disliked.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Flanagan believes the time has come to admit they were wrong to politicize bad behavior"

Too little, too late. Now that their idol and his enabler have little possibility of wielding political power, the Democrats are going to hold him accountable? Fuck that. His supporters, apologists, and enablers own him. Forever.

wildswan said...

Is it possible to transform our lives so we become like Jesus? When I see how easy it would be to become a man or a furry bunny or Chinese I wonder sometimes why it is so hard to be a Roman Catholic.

wildswan said...

Is it possible that Roy Moore has changed over the last thirty years even if everything alleged were true? I think the papers would say no although they do think that Rachel Dolezal has become black merely by pretending. Or something.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

There isn't a single thing about WJC known today that wasn't known 20 years ago. When every Democrat who excused his behavior has committed seppuku, then we can possibly discuss similar misbehavior by conservative figures. But not a minute before.

buwaya said...

"Ja Du of Florida who has decided he is Filipino."

Responded on Instapundit.
Simplest answer is that of all maniacal pretensions, this fellow has chosen one that is actually rather easily attainable. Filipinos are xenophilic and will accept anyone who wants to identify as one of them. Especially if they are white. Its a very easy place to "go native".

Bay Area Guy said...

It's Too Late by Carole King (1971)

Stayed in bed all mornin' just to pass the time
There's something wrong here there can be no denyin'
One of us is changin' or maybe we've just stopped tryin'
And it's too late baby now it's too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can't hide it and I just can't fake it
Oh, no-no-no-no
(no-no-no-no)

Humperdink said...

wildswan asked "Is it possible that Roy Moore has changed over the last thirty years even if everything alleged were true?"

I thought of that also. What if Roy Moore has repented for his behavior? Would that have saved his political career? That might have worked (prolly not) at the beginning of his ordeal, but not now. He has denied most of it.

When Gloria MostlyRed surfaces, that's pretty much the kiss of death (ha).

buwaya said...

Gennifer Flowers seems like the most innocent case.

She was his mistress, that's it. There were other women who have been his mistresses - its quite a list really. Most have been reasonably discreet, until lately.

If the fellow had only had the good sense to stick to these mistresses, uncomplicated adultery, all would have been well. he would have had "a reputation", but it would have done him some good if anything.

Its that rape, mistreatment, assault, use of State employees as procurers, messing with junior employees, propositioning employees, that sort of thing.

Amazing Quotes said...

Enjoy your time

wwww said...

But many of today's voters were around in 1992.


If you're over the age of 50, be careful here. There's a lot of commenters on this blog that see life from an older perspective. It's easy to forget how fast generational chance occurs. A lot of adults are too young to remember life without the internet. They don't remember pay phones. They don't know how to dial a rotary phone.

How much were 18-25 year olds paying attention to politics? How many voters in 2020 weren't born or politically conscious in 1992? At what age does the ordinary kid start paying close attention to politics? How politically relevant is Bill Clinton going to feel to these voters?

Unknown said...

BTW, The 75th Anniversary edition of "Casablanca" will be in theaters tomorrow. Check here for your local screen.

After all, aren't we all just "Shocked, shocked!" these days?

Jupiter said...

"Flanagan believes the time has come to admit they were wrong to politicize bad behavior, because among other things it gave predatory men a free pass as long as they espoused left-wing causes."

Flanagan also believes that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill. So what this really means is that the feminazis have decided that the goal of making all men presumptive criminals is more important than hanging on to Old Creepy Bill. Pretty much a no-brainer, right? What has Old Creepy kept legal lately? No more Presidential knee-pads for him.

Humperdink said...

Just wanted "African Queen" last night. Love that movie.

Ralph L said...

It's odd that in nearly all of these cases, very minor functionaries (new, young, and female) are meeting with the head honcho (older male). Did that happen for the males? I'll bet not.

buwaya said...

Too much assuming that Flanagan et al mean well, or are being honest.

Most of these people live a life of lies. Its their profession.
What they really believe is behind their eyes, and that's where it stays.

buwaya said...

"How much were 18-25 year olds paying attention to politics?"

I was reading Time magazine at age 6. Strangely, so did some of my contemporaries. This was much more common long ago.

wwww said...

I was reading Time magazine at age 6. Strangely, so did some of my contemporaries. This was much more common long ago.


Most parents don't get paper versions of Time. In any case, the people who comment on this blog are not the "average" voter. Most are political hobbyists or partisans. Many children are barely aware of politics at age 6, and the average child of 6 was not aware of Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Wiley.

News consumption has changed. Kids aren't watching the 6:00 news after dinner like they did in the 1960s and 70s. Kids are either not watching TV -- because screen time is not recommended for kids -- or they're watching a show for kids. This has been true for years.

Right now I'm seeing political hobbyists saying "what about the Clintons?"

It's an interesting cultural question. But remember for the "average" voter it's not present in their mind they way it may be in blog commenters who are the average age of 55. Why does that matter? It's not going to inform their view of the world in the same way. They are not similarly situated in regards to the relevance of Bill Clinton.

KittyM said...

@The Cracker Emcee Activist "When every Democrat who excused his behavior has committed seppuku, then we can possibly discuss similar misbehavior by conservative figures. But not a minute before."

Why? What possible reasoning could lead you to this conclusion?

Surely issues of character are above and beyond partisan party politics? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans (nor the Communists, if they still exist, nor the Neo-Nazis if they are around) have any monopoly on misbehaviour. Some people are shitty, some people are weak, some people take advantage of others...and we find these people in all walks of life and on all points of the political spectrum.

Refusing to engage in these issues because the guy is on your side is unhelpful and deeply immaturel. And how does it help us to find good people?

buwaya said...

"And how does it help us to find good people?"

The system is incapable of "finding good people".

It doesn't work that way. The cursus honorum is entirely compromised.
Everyone who rises within the system is necessarily tainted, as this is a requirement to be a player, as any honest man will learn too much to remain honest, if only because he will have to remain quiet.
The only "good" people that can obtain power are by definition going to be outsiders, who may well be ignorant of the system.

Imagine an honest man rising in the Soviet state.

buwaya said...

If you have no experience in such a system, Vaclav Havel is a good teacher.

Try "The Garden Party"

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Why? What possible reasoning could lead you to this conclusion?"

Decades of grotesque Leftist hypocrisy. But thanks for asking!

traditionalguy said...

Did anyone see WaPo's article on Paula White in the White House? She has helped Trump. I suspect they both come from Norge/Viking ancestry by way of Scotland.

Michael K said...

"Imagine an honest man rising in the Soviet state."

Our government resembles the late stage Soviet system more and more.

Even to the oligarchs owning newspapers.

Michael K said...

"Kids aren't watching the 6:00 news after dinner like they did in the 1960s and 70s."

When I was 9 or 10, I read the newspaper accounts of the Susan Degnan murder every night.

Kids today are addicted to TV. I read The Iliad and Oddyssey in English translation by the time I was ten.

Howard said...

Blogger Bay Area Guy said... I used the famous Althouse Amazon Portal to buy, Nixon's Gamble by Ray Locker. So far, absolutely outstanding book.
Thesis: Nixon's idea - to open up China and drive a wedge between it and the Soviet Union -- took a lot of planning and secrecy. In fact, Nixon delayed ending the Vietnam War in hopes of making the deal in China. In fact, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were so concerned about what Nixon and Kissinger were doing in secret, that they started spying on Nixon.
The book doesn't focus on Watergate (at least yet), but connecting the dots, shows that Watergate may have had a strong element of the Right joining with the Left to get rid of Nixon. Right-winger Alexander Haig plays a prominent role.

Thanks BA Guy. Nixon is one of my favorite presidents of all time. Very interesting guy, focused, driven, intelligent, paranoid (and for good reason), a truly big thinker who, for better or worse, got a lot done while in office.

This theory of the military/intellegence takedown of Nixon has been around quite a while. Part of the theory involves former ONI (once ONI, always ONI) officer Bob Woodward playing an inside outsider role in the downfall. Who knows, but it is a fact that Nixon and Kissinger formed a partnership that excluded foggy bottom, Langley and the pentagon that resulted in SALT negotiations with the Ruskies, the opening of China and direct talks with Hanoi. Nixon ended the war in Vietnam and should be credited with the ending of the Cold War.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KittyM said...

@The Cracker Emcee Activist "Decades of grotesque Leftist hypocrisy."

Let me get this straight: because politicians of the party you don't support have behaved badly and were not t (in your opinion) sufficiently criticised, you genuinely believe that there should be an ethical "free-for-all" for politicians of the party you support?

Essentially, all ethical questions or questions of character should be suspended until such time as you deem fair. Which you have deliberately set in an unattainable future ("When every Democrat who excused Clinton's behavior has committed seppuku").

In this way, you have openly turned off your moral compass - at least for politics - and convinced yourself that this is in some way itself a moral action.

But the whole point of morality is that your code should be fundamental and constant. This is what we mean when we talk about values.

A man sexually harasses a 14-year old girl. That man is behaving immorally, whatever job he does, whatever party he represents, whatever he does with his spare time, however witty or clever or fun-to-be-with he is in the rest of his life.

Politics is about people. People behave badly, people (lots of them) are opportunist shits. And American politics has been going on a long time now. So whichever side of the political spectrum you inhabit, you will be able to a) find examples of bad people on the "opposing" sideband b) find examples of how those bad people were never punished, got away with it, were later celebrated, continued to enjoy a good life etc etc etc.

And there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't continue to discuss the past, either. In other words, your discussion of Bill Clinton and how the Democratic establishment treated him is completely legitimate and potentially interesting, especially relevant these days as we uncover the pervasiveness of sexual harassment by powerful men.

BUT: to use the fact of Clinton to indemnify all misconduct on "your" side of the political fence and to refuse all discussion of it is deeply amoral and disturbing.

tim in vermont said...

"BUT: to use the fact of Clinton to indemnify all misconduct on "your" side of the political fence and to refuse all discussion of it is deeply amoral and disturbing"

Who's doing that? O'Reilly and Ailes gone, your party didn't offer a real choice against Trump. Who is doing that? But put yourself in the shoes of being lectured over Access Hollywood tape by people who have been enabling a forcible rapist for decades.

tim in vermont said...

Kitty still can't get to the forcible rape part. You know, the testimony of the witness who found her in the hotel room bleeding, with torn clothes, crying. The witness who could have faced prison if proven a liar?

tim in vermont said...

" How politically relevant is Bill Clinton going to feel to these voters? "

Given that they were expected to vote to put the creep and his enabler back in the West Wing, just a few months ago, it is well that they learn a little history.

tim in vermont said...

A lesson in how the media covers for Democrats is always good too. Democrats prefer young voters for their ignorance of history, but this should have been dealt with in the nineties.

How does it feel to support the party that held back women's rights for so long? This moment for feminism could have come decades ago. The truth hurts, that's why you guys are angry. You have been on "the wrong side of history."

KittyM said...

@tim in vermont

Your comments are not uninteresting and I feel and share your anger at the many occasions when men got away with terrible (sometimes criminal) behaviour from positions of power. Sexual misconduct is - as I said - a societal problem that affects every branch and every sector and is completely non-partisan.

But that was not my point, as you well know. I am addressing very, very specifically The Cracker Emcee's comments, which take "What about-ism" to its logical but absurd and frighteningly amoral outcome.

The answer to a double standard is not to have no standards at all. A bad guy is a bad guy and should be condemned and it should be irrelevant whether we vote for the same political party at the end of the day.

How is this even controversial? How is this even a discussion between us? What happened to our values? How can anyone on this site seriously want to support and defend a child molester on the grounds that someone somewhere else did something bad to another victim? It boggles the mind.

If you care about the victims of Bill Clinton, then you surely care about Roy Moore's victims. They are all women who were victimised by a sexual predator. Why should Moore be rewarded just because some other dude got away with it? That doesn't seem at all fair on the victims.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...


"Let me get this straight: because politicians of the party you don't support have behaved badly and were not t (in your opinion) sufficiently criticised,"

Let me get this straight. Democrats didn't "sufficiently criticize" a rapist? Oh dear.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

The rapist's chief enabler was so sufficiently criticized that the Democrats ran her for the Presidency in 2016. Harsh!

Nobody's buying their disingenuous moral vacuity anymore. Democrats have been pulling this bullshit since at least JFK, and it's a tired and spent game.

KittyM said...

@The Cracker Emcee Activist

You don't address my points.

Bad Lieutenant said...

If you care about the victims of Bill Clinton, then you surely care about Roy Moore's victims. They are all women who were victimised by a sexual predator. Why should Moore be rewarded just because some other dude got away with it? That doesn't seem at all fair on the victims.
11/15/17, 8:09 AM

Think of it as Game Theory. This punishes you for ignoring your party's defects.