HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Funtatlaguy » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

Funtatlaguy

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Nov 25, 2015, 10:17 AM
Number of posts: 7,287

Journal Archives

We must define acceptable and nonacceptable touching

If not we will eat our own while the GOP snickers at us.

First, is there any statute of limitations ? How long is too long to report something?

Say, Iím 60 now and running for office and a woman from my college days comes forward and and says that I inappropriately touched her.
When pressed for details, she is vague other than to say I put my hands on her when she didnít want me to.

Ok, so that could have been anything from a plutonic hug to a reach around where he grabbed her breast.
Clearly, for most people, the first is acceptable in polite society where the second is not.
But, thereís all types of things in between.
Some people are just touchy feely kind of people that hug everyone of both genders.
Some people are not and hate that.

Iím just saying that before we go after any public figure on this issue, that we define what occurred and when it occurred to be forgivable and what we do not. It shouldnít matter who the person is but what the alleged behavior is.
The person alleging must be expected to give the most specific details possible and any corroboration they have. If they are deemed credible, then and only then should the allegations go public. Once they do, the person alleged must give a specific response to the specific allegations. No vague or general statements.

As for Biden specifically, he knows if he has taken advantage of his position over the years to grope or give unwanted kisses to women. If so, he owes it to the party and the country to tell us so. If he hasnt, we need to accept it and move on barring a series of other women coming forward with other similar or worse accusations .

Weren't these guys going to decide before April?

Still waiting for an in or out decision from:
Biden
Bullock
Bennet
McAuliffe
Swalwell

Come on in, or not, guys. The water is as murky as ever.

Your second term Trump voting relatives

This question is for people with Trump voting family members only.

For those of you that havenít cut off or distanced yourselves from them already, might you think about doing so if they vote for Trump a second time?

I havenít spoken politics with many family members since November 2016.
Itís just not brought up by anyone either in person or on the phone, thankfully.
But, I fear that it will be before 11/3/2020.
I know that I am growing more resentful of them for supporting him and Iím sure they have grown more fond of Trump and are buoyed by the Barr letter.

Argh. How can our relationships, this country, and the world take four more years of this.

Is there one true patriot in the FBI or the DOJ?

To get the full unredacted Mueller report, we will need a hero.
Either Mueller himself, or someone at the FBI or the DOJ with access to it is going to have to leak it to the Congress or the media.
I just donít think Barr will ever give it up willingly and the Courts will never order it.

Did anybody see Sen Bennet on Morning Joe today?

Pretty impressive I thought.
At the end of the interview, Bennet said he is currently feeling ďinclinedĒ to run.
Didnít say when a decision will come.

Joe loves him which concerns me a little.
Hereís his op ed pushing Bennet from February.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/12/michael-bennet-donald-trump-presidential-election/

Consider Senate seats when choosing Pres ticket.

I think itís very important that our new President will have a Democratic Senate to work with.
Our ticket needs to be strong enuf to have coattails in the most competitive Repub held Senate seat states like Colorado, Arizona, and N.C.

https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/

My somewhat tin foil hat look at Russian collusion.

This is what I think Mueller found and may have or may not have put in his report.

Trump was, if nothing else, a willing dupe in all things Russia.
He may or may not have helped orchestrate Russian interference.
However, even if Mueller could prove collusion/conspiracy, he (and others like Barr and Rosenstein) didnít think the country could handle that information.
Also, these same people did not want other nations such as China and North Korea to know that our country was so easily compromised as to elect a Russian asset/Manchurian candidate.
Instead, let everyone believe that Trump just wittingly or unwittingly accepted Russian help.
So, itís better to let Trump be known as stupid and/or naive rather than treasonous.
Let people think that Trump was just greedy in his dealings with Russia.
Let people think that Trump just has man crushes on strong dictators like Putin as a character flaw but not as any kind of alliance.
Let people think that all of the people in and around Trumps campaign were just rogue actors in their dealings with Russia with merely greedy personal motives but no coordinated campaign goals.

There are so many things that they need to explain away to dispel any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, oligarchs, private citizens.
So, instead of doing so, they just go in a different direction.
Trump and his campaign did a lot of bad things, wrong things, unethical things, inappropriate things, errors and lies of omission, but they didnít do enough illegal things that led directly back to Trump to qualify as collusion or conspiracy or coordination of the Russians efforts.

Thatís the way I see them playing this.


So, are we still waiting on these 5 to decide?

Gov Bullock
Sen Bennet
Gov McAuliffe
Rep Swalwell
VP Biden

What happened to the "tip of the iceberg" scenario.

For months, weíve heard media members and pundits say that whatever the media and public knows pales in comparison to what Mueller knows.
People like Malcolm Nance and David Corn told us just to be patient that Mueller had at least obstruction and probably much more on Trump.
So, either they were wrong or Mueller buried it or Barr buried it.

I think Mayor Pete answers an age old question.

His very positive reception by many Dems and media members may answer a question that Ive debated before with other Dems and progressives.

Which will America elect first, someone who is openly gay or someone straight and openly atheist?
I think that a gay person like Mayor Pete, who has talked about his faith and being an Episcopalian, is ďless scaryĒ to the general public than an Atheist would be?

Your thoughts, DU Nation?

Go to Page: 1 2 Next »