President Announces Moving Embassy to Jerusalem

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

(CNN)When Nancy Pelosi sat down for an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd on Sunday, she had to know that he was going to ask her about embattled Michigan Rep. John Conyers. After all, allegations from a number of former female staffers that the veteran Democrat had sexually harassed them were all over the news.

All of which makes Pelosi's trainwreck of an answer on Conyers that much worse.

Here's her exchange with Chuck:

TODD: So, define zero tolerance. You said there's now a zero tolerance.

PELOSI: Yes.

TODD: John Conyers. What does that mean for him? Right now. In or out?

PELOSI: We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused -- and was it one accusation? Is it two? I think there has to be -- John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women -- Violence Against Women Act, which the left -- right-wing -- is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that, and he did great work on that. But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don't, I believe he will do the right thing.

Later in the same interview, Pelosi returns to the idea that the details of Conyers' accusers are vague.

"Do you believe John Conyers' accusers?" Todd asked.

"I don't know who they are," Pelosi replied. "Do you? They have not really come forward."

Well then.

 

Pelosi's answer overlooks a series of facts that we do know. We know:

• In 2015, Conyers' office settled a wrongful dismissal claim with a former employee who said she was let go because she rebuffed the congressman's sexual advances. (Conyers has said he admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement and agreed to it solely to avoid a nasty fight.)
• Four other former female Conyers' staffers signed affidavits in that case alleging that they, too, had been the victims of sexual harassment by the congressman.
• Melanie Sloan, a former Conyers staffer, said that he verbally abused and harassed her. Although Sloan herself said she did not feel as though Conyers sexually harassed her, she did remember an episode in which the Michigan Democrat called her into his office while wearing only underwear.

So, not only do we know the number of Conyers' accusers -- at least five -- we also know one of their names. Pelosi is dead wrong on both fronts.

And, Pelosi's other defense of Conyers -- "We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused..." -- feels like situational ethics at its absolute worst. Pelosi wasn't defending President Donald Trump or Roy Moore against their accusers even though they, like Conyers, totally denied the accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct made against them.

In fact, in the same interview in which Pelosi defended Conyers, she referred to Moore, the Alabama Republican Senate candidate who stands accused of pursuing relationships with girls as young as 14 when he was in his mid 30s, as a "child molester."

Sensing that she had made a major mistake in her "Meet the Press" interview, Pelosi spent Sunday trying to remedy the situation. Conyers stepped down as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee Sunday afternoon -- not a coincidence! -- and Pelosi issued a clean-up statement in which she said: "No matter how great an individual's legacy, it is not a license for harassment."

The problem for Pelosi is that her initial response was so so tone-deaf -- and telling. Because she knows Conyers and because he is a Democrat, Pelosi was more than willing to not only give Conyers the benefit of the doubt but defend him as a "icon in our country." Her apparent unfamiliarity with the details of the allegations against Conyers is either poor preparation for a major national interview or willful blindness.

Neither is a good excuse.

 

Of course it's politics. It's politics for the same reasons that people will defend Moore and Trump but condemn Conyers and Franken. 

 

Your original off topic post was about whether she was "still defending sexual abusers". My statement was just to show that she doesn't defend all sexual abusers. Just like it seems like many people here, and in politics, don't defend or condemn all sexual abusers. For some reason sexual abuse seems to be something that people can still take "sides" about. That is messed up, if you ask me.

 

We are way off topic at this point but I say they all need to go down. Conyers, Franken, Moore, Trump, and anyone else. 

 

I believe you (or B&K, I get you two confused sometimes) have said previously that we can't expect principals from politicians. It's all politics. If that is the case, then why even act surprised that she defends a sexual abuser? Why point it out? That is business as usual from almost everyone in Congress.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Boiler 45,956]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Of course it's politics. It's politics for the same reasons that people will defend Moore and Trump but condemn Conyers and Franken. 

 

Your original off topic post was about whether she was "still defending sexual abusers". My statement was just to show that she doesn't defend all sexual abusers. Just like it seems like many people here, and in politics, don't defend or condemn all sexual abusers. For some reason sexual abuse seems to be something that people can still take "sides" about. That is messed up, if you ask me.

 

We are way off topic at this point but I say they all need to go down. Conyers, Franken, Moore, Trump, and anyone else. 

 

I believe you (or B&K, I get you two confused sometimes) have said previously that we can't expect principals from politicians. It's all politics. If that is the case, then why even act surprised that she defends a sexual abuser? Why point it out? That is business as usual from almost everyone in Congress.

I expected nothing more from Pelosi, she has a loooong track record.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Boiler said:

I expected nothing more from Pelosi, she has a loooong track record.

We can expect nothing more from the vast majority of Republicans in Congress.

 

We can also expect nothing more from our President.

 

Point being?

[Boiler 45,956]

28 minutes ago, bcking said:

We can expect nothing more from the vast majority of Republicans in Congress.

 

We can also expect nothing more from our President.

 

Point being?

We had 8 years of Obama, you will get no objection from me.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Odd no one hailed the women that reported Clinton as hero's

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

the best thing about trump's announcement..

 

Late-night hosts poke fun at Trump's slurred speech

Quote

“As disturbing as it was today to watch Donald Trump add fuel to the Middle East conflict, it was even more disturbing to watch the conflict between Donald Trump's teeth and his tongue,” Noah said. 

“It seemed like someone hit him with a blow dart just before he went out to make the speech."

Noah added: “He's slurring and stumbling over the words. He sounds like he just had a drink with Bill Cosby. What's going on there, man?”

Noah speculated Trump was wearing dentures. He said there's no shame in having dentures, but "there is shame in Donald Trump having dentures."

"Because he's vain as hell," Noah said. "Can you imagine how he would feel if people started tweeting 'Denture Donald'?"

Noah also called for a "molar investigation."

"I know that this is just a theory right now but we need to get to the truth. So I say forget the Mueller investigation, bring on the molar investigation," Noah joked, referring to special counsel Robert Mueller.

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

the best thing about trump's announcement..

 

Late-night hosts poke fun at Trump's slurred speech

 

Trump is so amazingly rich and successful. He would have implants

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

Trump is so amazingly rich and successful. He would have implants

you would think. but something wassh definitely amissh. dry mouth, i don't think sho.

[X Factor 1,112]

Incidentally the UN is also against moving the embassy

[smilesammich 10,727]

*ahem*

The disturbing reason why evangelical Christians want Jerusalem to be Israel's capital

[X Factor 1,112]

It's sickening to see religious harlotry and involvement with politics.

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, X Factor said:

It's sickening to see religious harlotry and involvement with politics.

i don't actually think that trump holds these evangelical beliefs at all, but i think he desperately wants the evangelical vote - and this is one way to get it, that's for sure..

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't actually think that trump holds these evangelical beliefs at all, but i think he desperately wants the evangelical vote - and this is one way to get it, that's for sure..

I was just having the same discussion with someone at work today. I aint buying his evangelical christian bit. 

[Boiler 45,956]

43 minutes ago, X Factor said:

Incidentally the UN is also against moving the embassy

Sounds a good reason to do it.

 

Makes you wonder should we dictate to other Countries where they can have their Capital City?

 

Sounds a bit Gunboatish.

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Sounds a good reason to do it.

 

Makes you wonder should we dictate to other Countries where they can have their Capital City?

 

Sounds a bit Gunboatish.

There aren't many examples of two states claiming the same city as their capitol.

 

The state of Israel was pretty arbitrarily designated post-WW2. They basically dictated what they wanted and we went along with it.

 

Hence the last decades of conflict.

 

Whatever individual opinions are on the topic -

 

Does anyone really think this will contribute to peace in the region?