State Senator, 7 Other Women Accuse Trump-Backed Nebraska Gov. Candidate Charles Herbster Of Groping

[pknopp]

The Accusations appear to be credible. However given the recent atmosphere for the production of wild and unsubstantiated stories like the dodgy dossier for instance I would like to wait a little while before I pass final judgment on this situation to make sure it's not being funded by one of his opponents. Having said that the guy just looks like a creep. And it's even one of these things is true they should throw him out on his ass and move on.

I have no problem with that. I have a problem with those who argue it's OK (if true) because they believe others argue that also.

I've said many times that the Democrats did a ton of damage on this issue by support Clinton (and they still do), but that has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. It's wrong, period.

 

[justoffal]

Hebster is a born again Christian. Try this. Take your hands off of me or you won't believe what happens next. It's not political.

I find the most virulent offenders usually embrace an antithetical philosophy as a cover. Ergo a Born again Christian makes the most perverted and aggressive deviant.. Not because that's what Christianity does but because they find it to be a great disguise to cover up what they really are.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No he doesn't think that he thinks you're a silly ass moron for having such a very obvious double standard. I mean it just doesn't get any more obvious.

Which double standards are those? Can you find an example of me dismissing an action like this because it was done by a Dem or a Libertarian?

 

[Correll]

So, because of "people like me" you think it is ok for men to grope women.

Talk about some weak ass excuses.

I explained my position. YOu shortening and spinning it, is just you DODGING my point(s).

Because you are afraid of them.


And you are too much of a shit talker to take them on seriously or honestly.

 

[Correll]

I've argued this over and over. If a party wants to win, they need to pick better candidates. I've not supported politicians of EITHER party with valid claims against them.

Teh bit where you pretended it was minor matter? That was you LYING.

What was you motive there? It does not serve your pretend purpose of standing up for morals.


If we republicans were to listen to you, it would serve your side winning...


You see why I call you people shit talkers?

 

[Correll]

How very sad for you that politics matter more to you than morals.

But again, it is good you can openly admit to such

Not my world. It's yours. I just live in it and am forced to play by your rules.


I refuse to play be rigged rules. You want a better set of rules? Take it up with those who make the rules, ie your side.

 

[pknopp]

Teh bit where you pretended it was minor matter?

That never happened. But you know it didn't.

 

[Correll]

How many would? I'm sure they can be posted.

'Hillsong: A Megachurch Exposed' Lays Out Ungodly Act After Ungodly Act

Considering both sides consist of scores of millions, it would take a lot.


Really, throwing isolated examples back and forth, might not be a possible route to truth.


My point was based on how the group as a whole acted in an incident and how the nation as a whole judged.


I think that is a better way of comparing massive groups. Looking at their behavior AS GROUPS.

 

[Correll]

That never happened. But you know it didn't.

Sure it did. You tossed it off in a single sentence with no mention of the fact that it would make it far harder for the republicans to win.


That is you revealing a partisan motive.

 

[pknopp]

Considering both sides consist of scores of millions, it would take a lot.


Really, throwing isolated examples back and forth, might not be a possible route to truth.


My point was based on how the group as a whole acted in an incident and how the nation as a whole judged.


I think that is a better way of comparing massive groups. Looking at their behavior AS GROUPS.

As a group, Democrats defended Clinton's undefendable actions and Republicans defended Trump's.

 

[pknopp]

Sure it did. You tossed it off in a single sentence with no mention of the fact that it would make it far harder for the republicans to win.


That is you revealing a partisan motive.

Winning has NOTHING to do with my position. It's wrong what he did, that has nothing to do with winning or losing. Actions like this should not be dismissed because you have an election to win.

 

[struth]

This might just surprise you, but most people are outraged by men that grope women.

Most of us know that it is wrong.

Why do you not know that?

hahahha but you voted forJoey Xiden and the Clintons...so stop with your faux outrage.

Nobody is suggesting groping women isn't wrong. What I am suggesting is, you really don't think it is, and your outrage here is faux, because it happens to be someone running as Republican that being excused in some state election.

Meanwhile, you gave people that have been accused, one settled a lawsuit for it, and the other had an open criminal complaint....the highest office in the ,land

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I explained my position. YOu shortening and spinning it, is just you DODGING my point(s).

Because you are afraid of them.


And you are too much of a shit talker to take them on seriously or honestly.

Your only point has been that you let society dictate your morals and standards.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not my world. It's yours. I just live in it and am forced to play by your rules.


I refuse to play be rigged rules. You want a better set of rules? Take it up with those who make the rules, ie your side.

So one more time, you allow others to dictate your actions and your morals and your standards.

And you seem proud of that.

Just odd

 

[Correll]

As a group, Democrats defended Clinton's undefendable actions and Republicans defended Trump's.

As a group, republcians for decades before Clinton, and after, regularly took such accusations seriously, often turning on good candidates based on often weak accusations.

Consider Senator Bill Packwood.

Bob Packwood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Packwood's political career began to unravel in November 1992, when a Washington Post story detailed claims of sexual abuse and assault from ten women, chiefly former staffers and lobbyists.[30] Publication of the story was delayed until after the 1992 election, as Packwood had denied the allegations and the Post had not gathered enough information about the story at the time.[31][32] Packwood defeated the Democratic nominee, Representative Les AuCoin, 52.1% to 46.5%–easily his closest race since his initial run for the seat a quarter-century earlier. Eventually 19 women came forward"


He was driven from office by his own party, because republicans, at that time, were very sensitive to accusations of sexual harassment.



As time went on, more and more republicans noticed a trend. That we would destroy strong candidates or politicians, often losing seats or elections, while dems just...didn't.



To this day, many republicans still insist on playing by the rigged rules.


Also, the accusations against Trump were not credible.

 

[Correll]

Winning has NOTHING to do with my position. It's wrong what he did, that has nothing to do with winning or losing. Actions like this should not be dismissed because you have an election to win.

If that was true, you would not have downplayed what it means to lose your frontrunner.

 

[Correll]

Your only point has been that you let society dictate your morals and standards.

I see you are also a lover of spin. That is another tactic used by liberals to avoid addressing points, and to talk shit.

 

[pknopp]

As a group, republcians for decades before Clinton, and after, regularly took such accusations seriously, often turning on good candidates based on often weak accusations.

Consider Senator Bill Packwood.

Bob Packwood - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Packwood's political career began to unravel in November 1992, when a Washington Post story detailed claims of sexual abuse and assault from ten women, chiefly former staffers and lobbyists.[30] Publication of the story was delayed until after the 1992 election, as Packwood had denied the allegations and the Post had not gathered enough information about the story at the time.[31][32] Packwood defeated the Democratic nominee, Representative Les AuCoin, 52.1% to 46.5%–easily his closest race since his initial run for the seat a quarter-century earlier. Eventually 19 women came forward"


He was driven from office by his own party, because republicans, at that time, were very sensitive to accusations of sexual harassment.



As time went on, more and more republicans noticed a trend. That we would destroy strong candidates or politicians, often losing seats or elections, while dems just...didn't.



To this day, many republicans still insist on playing by the rigged rules.


Also, the accusations against Trump were not credible.

I don't consider what Trump did to the mothers of his children any better.

 

[j-mac]

Winning has NOTHING to do with my position. It's wrong what he did, that has nothing to do with winning or losing. Actions like this should not be dismissed because you have an election to win.

Ah if that were only the standard...Unfortunately you have kind of a strange dynamic in politics today...Something you might "cheer on" if you really are what you claim to be...Democrats are divided by their radical factions, and looking like those factions are running the show in their party. Republican's are also split between America first nationalism, and Establishment factions, ie "Never Trumpers" or what we used to call Country club Republicans...

This should be a momentous time for people like you in here that say they support a more indy viewpoint, in getting into seats of power true independents...Instead, you and others waste your time backing kooks that don't even know where Afghanistan is on a map...

 

[Correll]

So one more time, you allow others to dictate your actions and your morals and your standards.

And you seem proud of that.

Just odd

I am not in a position to set the rules of the game. If I was, they would be different. They would also be fair and apply the same to both sides.


Why are you lying about what my position is? That does not serve your supposed point of morality.


Indeed, it undermines it, because it makes it appear that you have a partisan motive.


Mmmm. Or, to quote a wise man, it makes it appear that you are a "shit talker".