Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't know where you went to college, but you may want to look at it's donor list. Around here, at least, it's pretty tough to find a school whose base fortunes aren't derived in part from some combination of the slave trade, oil money, and various other rape and pillage schemes. Hospitals are not much different.

I hope you will hold every charity you deal with to the same level of purity.

I would like a Democratic Party that aspires to social change more profound than persuading the very rich to burnish their reputations by bestowing their largesse, ill-gotten or otherwise, on the less fortunate. And so should you.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm highly suspicious of the Franken story. This woman worked in media and has herself admitted she sees no reason to punish him severely. Okay. Then why the sudden disclosure?

Does it matter? The photo alone is something for him to apologize for, and he has. I don't care whether she was politically motivated as long as she's not lying and she doesn't seem to be.

The follow on ass-grabbing accusation I'm more skeptical of.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Does it matter? The photo alone is something for him to apologize for, and he has. I don't care whether she was politically motivated as long as she's not lying and she doesn't seem to be.

The follow on ass-grabbing accusation I'm more skeptical of.

It matters in regard to the issue of whether the parties are going to use sexual harassment allegations against each other.

I believe Ty and I disagree on whether that will happen.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would like a Democratic Party that aspires to social change more profound than persuading the very rich to burnish their reputations by bestowing their largesse, ill-gotten or otherwise, on the less fortunate. And so should you.

You just put your finger on the central gripes of the Trumpkins.

They want a chance to climb the ladder.

The problem is, they don't have the skills to manage the first three rungs.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It matters in regard to the issue of whether the parties are going to use sexual harassment allegations against each other.

I believe Ty and I disagree on whether that will happen.

One party will use them strategically, because that's what it does. The other will only "use them" in an effort to change behavior.

On that point, a young Minnesota legislator has been willing to talk on the record about behavior that everyone has seemed to know about for awhile. She first went on the record about a fellow Dem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think that's exactly where this is going.

Notice how when people on the Right started getting hit with this stuff, suddenly stories started emerging about people on the Left?

You think these things are all organic?

The sad fact is, a lot of legitimate voices seeking to stanch harassment are going to be mixed in with a bunch of people playing political games and looking to cash in on some info.

I'm highly suspicious of the Franken story. This woman worked in media and has herself admitted she sees no reason to punish him severely. Okay. Then why the sudden disclosure? I'd like to see the miscellaneous 1099 income section of her tax return for this year, her voter registration, and her financial situation in general. And no -- this is not victim shaming.

We're in a moment when lots of stuff is coming out about all sorts of men -- left, right and apolitical. There isn't much political valence to it, except that it feels a little like a delayed backlash to the election of Trump after the ET tape. I do feel like it's organic.

And so far, I believe Franken's accusers and all of the others (that I can think of). One has to listen carefully to what they're saying because they say different things about different people. For example, I think Franken exercised poor judgment, but of a very different kind than what Charlie Rose did. Matti Taibbi may have been a misogynist jackass, but he's no Roy Moore. And so on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

To my question of how many men are pigs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

One party will use them strategically, because that's what it does. The other will only "use them" in an effort to change behavior.

On that point, a young Minnesota legislator has been willing to talk on the record about behavior that everyone has seemed to know about for awhile. She first went on the record about a fellow Dem.

We all hate Moore, but do you seriously think the initial disclosure, and its timing, doesn't have political fingers all over it? The only evidence I see for that being entirely organic is she appeared a bit early. Parties usually don't want to pull those out of the hat until it's too late for the target to develop a defense/response that acquires some traction. Hence, "October Surprise."

The people behind the Moore disclosure want to hobble a candidate. Good on them. The guy's a Jesus shucking pedophile. But if you think the Dems will only use this stuff out of sense of benign service, you're being a little more than naive.

This is Bannon's playground. And the Dems needs to play in the dirt. taking the high road hasn't worked very well. Expect a lot more of this stuff.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would like a Democratic Party that aspires to social change more profound than persuading the very rich to burnish their reputations by bestowing their largesse, ill-gotten or otherwise, on the less fortunate. And so should you.

Name an out of office politician who has done more for more people.

Then explain why what she's done while out of office limits what she might do as an elected official?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We all hate Moore, but do you seriously think the initial disclosure, and its timing, doesn't have political fingers all over it?

I think the Washington Post didn't have a reason to investigate until Moore had won the primary, and I think Alabama doesn't have local media to put the story together. So I don't think the timing is entirely a coincidence, but I also don't see any reason to infer from the timing that Moore's opponents were behind the story.

This is Bannon's playground. And the Dems needs to play in the dirt. taking the high road hasn't worked very well. Expect a lot more of this stuff.

The same Bannon who is backing Moore. Right.

A friend of mine points out that that GOP is weaponing sexual harassment, e.g., the story about Franken in today's NY Post and stuff that Mike Cernovich just dumped with Gawker. So I was maybe too quick to dismiss the idea that there will be a political valence to it. But I'm not seeing any sign that Democrats are doing it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Name an out of office politician who has done more for more people.

Not sure what that has to do with what I was saying.

Then explain why what she's done while out of office limits what she might do as an elected official?

For someone who was getting all huffy about lumping the Clintons, you keep trying to bring up Hillary when I've been talking about Bill.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We all hate Moore, but do you seriously think the initial disclosure, and its timing, doesn't have political fingers all over it? The only evidence I see for that being entirely organic is she appeared a bit early. Parties usually don't want to pull those out of the hat until it's too late for the target to develop a defense/response that acquires some traction. Hence, "October Surprise."

The people behind the Moore disclosure want to hobble a candidate. Good on them. The guy's a Jesus shucking pedophile. But if you think the Dems will only use this stuff out of sense of benign service, you're being a little more than naive.

This is Bannon's playground. And the Dems needs to play in the dirt. taking the high road hasn't worked very well. Expect a lot more of this stuff.

These allegations appear widespread and well-substantiated. It also doesn't seem like it was too difficult to find them. I think Moore has probably either coddled or bullied everyone within the Republican party so they didn't dare. A benefit of a two party system is the other party dares.

My view is if there is good substantiation it's not so much throwing dirt as a public service, regardless of party.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They named it the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, not me.

As for the foundation's work, well, you seem content with the idea that it did good work, and it's best not to think to much about why the likes of Nursultan A. Nazarbayev might have funded it. Dwelling on those sorts of unpleasantries only gives comfort to Hillary's critics. There's some truth in that, but if that's all the social change we can ask for, that's pretty sad. And that was my point.

Where were you talking about Bill here?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If this guy is in the hot seat, I can only imagine how much dirt the right and left tribes of DC are dusting off (or amassing) to throw at each other. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0bfa88c1ca584

Yep. There will be dozens of these before the midterms, I suspect. PIs must be really busy right now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Where were you talking about Bill here?

When wasn't I?

The whole conversation started with TM asking whether Bill got criticized in the way Obama did. I said, if I had the money that the Clintons and Obamas have, I could be a lot more selective about who I work for. The Foundation was really more Bill's thing until later, no? Yes, I said both Clintons plural and Obamas plural, but I wasn't really criticizing Michelle either. Later, the anecdote I used to criticize the Foundation was from 2008, long before Hillary got involved. This post clearly about Bill, not Hillary. The reference to Hillary's critics was to your leaping to her defense.