***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[130122]

He knows how to toe the line. Block button works fine though.

I've recommended that numerous times, I ended up just ignoring the political discussion notifications.

 

[junglejim]

Y'all remember the time dwalk31 was defending Robert Kraft for getting caught on video with sex workers?

Patriots Owner Bob Kraft Charged With Soliciting Prostitution.

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, one of the most powerful men in American football, was charged today on two counts of soliciting prostitution in connection to a recent law enforcement bust on massage parlors in Florida that, according to law enforcement, were used for prostitution and...

niketalk.com

**** PEOPLE FORCED INTO SEX WORK!!!!!!! ITS HER RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!!!!!!!!

 

[sonoftony]

nah, this is not suspect at all

 

[dwalk31]

Y'all remember the time dwalk31 was defending Robert Kraft for getting caught on video with sex workers?

Patriots Owner Bob Kraft Charged With Soliciting Prostitution.

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, one of the most powerful men in American football, was charged today on two counts of soliciting prostitution in connection to a recent law enforcement bust on massage parlors in Florida that, according to law enforcement, were used for prostitution and...

niketalk.com

**** PEOPLE FORCED INTO SEX WORK!!!!!!! ITS HER RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!!!!!!!!

You are minimizing a legit discussion and Robert Krafts accusations related to sex trafficking and underage women is different.

Sex trafficking is wrong, period.

Exploitation of minors is wrong, period.

Women, or men, getting paid to sell sex is an open question. It’s not even illegal in every state. There are real discussions about the legalization of sex work.

That doesn’t encompass illegal sex trafficking or exploitation of minors.

Posting a Robert Kraft article, then posting my comments on the legalization of sex work, doesn’t somehow make me say something I didn’t.

 

[dwalk31]

hipstermike ,who is surely no defender of mine, literally posted in that same thread that prostitution should be legalized.

You are taking my words out of context. And you wouldn’t need to do that if there was actually some there, there. junglejim

 

[junglejim]

You are minimizing a legit discussion and Robert Krafts accusations related to sex trafficking and underage women is different.

Sex trafficking is wrong, period.

Exploitation of minors is wrong, period.

Women, or men, getting paid to sell sex is an open question. It’s not even illegal in every state. There are real discussions about the legalization of sex work.

That doesn’t encompass illegal sex trafficking or exploitation of minors.

Posting a Robert Kraft article, then posting my comments on the legalization of sex work, doesn’t somehow make me say something I didn’t.

You posted in a thread where Robert Kraft got caught on video using sex workers questioning whether or not he abused said sex worker because it was her right to choose (despite the fact that that's not how sex trafficking works)

Am I understanding this right?

BTW Robert Kraft got caught on ******* video using sex workers and didn't get convicted. That should tell you all you need to know about how hard it is to convict a rich white person in power who committed a sex crime.

 

[boris]

I would just point out that there’s a pretty huge ****ing disconnect between saying that someone who hasn't been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law should not be thrown in prison and saying that since that threshold has not been met that no one “has any idea whether he did it or not.”

The former I think everyone in here would agree with—but that was never the issue at hand. And the latter, which is what you’ve been staking your case on in here, is preposterous on its face.

I don’t know any sane person that would equate thinking Roy Moore or Donald Trump have credible accusers to Donald Trump calling for the execution of the Central Park 5.

I can only think of a few reasons dwalk regularly does this and they have nothing to do with defending due process.

 

[dwalk31]

You posted in a thread where Robert Kraft got caught on video using sex workers questioning whether or not he abused said sex worker because it was her right to choose (despite the fact that that's not how sex trafficking works)

Am I understanding this right?

BTW Robert Kraft got caught on ****ing video using sex workers and didn't get convicted. That should tell you all you need to know about how hard it is to convict a rich white person in power who committed a sex crime.

I’m convinced you didn’t read the thread, what was posted by others, or the issue.

My position was on legalizing prostitution. As he was arrested for soliciting a prostitute, that discussion came up.

Human trafficking is wrong. Child exploitation is wrong.

I don’t think prostitution, on its face, is wrong. Do you?

 

[junglejim]

I’m convinced you didn’t read the thread, what was posted by others, or the issue.

My position was on legalizing prostitution. As he was arrested for soliciting a prostitute, that discussion came up.

Human trafficking is wrong. Child exploitation is wrong.

I don’t think prostitution, on its face, is wrong. Do you?

Robert Kraft got caught using a prostitute that was sex trafficked against their will, so yes, I would consider it wrong.

Statistically prostitution is largely done by workers forced against their will.

 

[dwalk31]

I don’t know any sane person that would equate thinking Roy Moore or Donald Trump have credible accusers to Donald Trump calling for the execution of the Central Park 5.

I can only think of a few reasons dwalk regularly does this and they have nothing to do with defending due process.

I don’t regularly bring it up... I respond when others do.

And I defend due process in the former because the latter is affected (read incarcerated) when you don’t. I don’t have the convenience to pick and choose when due process deserves defending.

But we can go on for pages and pages about Roy Moore so that we can overlook the Iowa Caucus meltdown, the successful SOTU and the seeming bi-partisan acquittal of Trump set for later today.

 

[dwalk31]

Robert Kraft got caught using a prostitute that was sex trafficked against their will, so yes, I would consider it wrong.

Statistically prostitution is largely done by workers forced against their will.

You didn’t answer the question.

 

[junglejim]

You didn’t answer the question.

I literally answered the question

 

[dwalk31]

I literally answered the question

My question was whether prostitution, on its face, is wrong in your opinion.

You didn’t answer that question. You gave a statistic about prostitution and summary conclusions about Robert Kraft’s allegations.

 

[spiceman80]

Why is this news?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Why is this news?

Because he is running for reelection this year in Alabama as a Democrat. He often votes with Republicans on some things, to appear as a moderate. So there was a risk he might not vote to convict.

And voting for impeachment will probably negatively affect his reelection chances

But he is doing the right anyway.

 

[junglejim]

My question was whether prostitution, on its face, is wrong in your opinion.

You didn’t answer that question. You gave a statistic about prostitution and summary conclusions about Robert Kraft’s allegations.

One, your question is ******* stupid because it implies that prostitution is largely done at the will of one individual when it is largely involuntary. Is someone voluntarily selling their body wrong? I don't really know nor care, but thats not 90% of prostitution or what you were replying to. Saying prostitution on its face is fine but not acknowledging that the majority of prostitutes are sex workers which you have agreed is wrong is dumb as ****.

You questioned whether or no Kraft had abused someones rights by using a sex trafficked worker. You werent replying to whether prostitution was correct or not, you were replying to whether or not using a sex trafficked worker (as Robert Kraft got caught on video dooing) is abuse. Then you said some stupid ******* trope about how its their right to choose when a vast majority of prostitutes out there don't choose to do it. You think there is a difference between prostitution and sex trafficking. In most cases there is not.

Either way I'm done responding to your ignorant *** views.

 

[spiceman80]

Gotcha

 

[getback]

Dwalk excused the treatment of migrant children at border because "it happens here every day."

Don't know why folks go back and forth.

 

[-Red-]

I think that you are innocent until proven guilty. And I don’t think you can presume to know what happened if you weren’t there and you haven’t seen all of the evidence (absent some clear video/recording of the event). Do you disagree with what I just said?

This is a complete evasion of my point. You are still trying to use the standard of proof required for a conviction in a criminal trial as some universal standard that applies to situations outside of that setting. Part of how you're doing this is by using terms that have one specific meaning in a criminal court and another in daily life and conflating their meaning and application in the former with the latter as a means of muddying the waters.

But if we focus on the basic truth evident in the bolded sentence above, it is abundantly evident that, simply put, that is not how the world works—it is not how human beings operate as they navigate and make determinations and decisions in their daily lives. The utter stupidity and/or dishonesty necessarily embedded in any assertion to the contrary is so obvious it really requires no further explanation.

 

[dwalk31]

Dwalk excused the treatment of migrant children at border because "it happens here every day."

Don't know why folks go back and forth.

I did not excuse that.

 

[junglejim]

This is a complete evasion of my point. You are still trying to use the standard of proof required for a conviction in a criminal trial as some universal standard that applies to situations outside of that setting. Part of how you're doing this is by using terms that have one specific meaning in a criminal court and another in daily life and conflating their meaning and application in the former with the latter as a means of muddying the waters.

But if we focus on the basic truth evident in the bolded sentence above, it is abundantly evident that, simply put, that is not how the world works—it is not how human beings operate as they navigate and make determinations and decisions in their daily lives. The utter stupidity and/or dishonesty necessarily embedded in any assertion to the contrary is so obvious it really requires no further explanation.

Its funny because he thinks Al Franken is guilty because there is a picture but in the case of republicans there needs to be an actual conviction.

(Al Franken is also a **** bag)

 

[deleted]

I've recommended that numerous times, I ended up just ignoring the political discussion notifications.

I've had him blocked for months and it doesn't really have much of an effect on the way his trolling drags the thread down

 

[dwalk31]

This is a complete evasion of my point. You are still trying to use the standard of proof required for a conviction in a criminal trial as some universal standard that applies to situations outside of that setting. Part of how you're doing this is by using terms that have one specific meaning in a criminal court and another in daily life and conflating their meaning and application in the former with the latter as a means of muddying the waters.

But if we focus on the basic truth evident in the bolded sentence above, it is abundantly evident that, simply put, that is not how the world works—it is not how human beings operate as they navigate and make determinations and decisions in their daily lives. The utter stupidity and/or dishonesty necessarily embedded in any assertion to the contrary is so obvious it really requires no further explanation.

Just because it is not how you operate doesn’t mean that it’s not how I operate.

Tons of people still feel OJ did it. I don’t share the sentiment. Neither did the jury.

I think that it is irresponsible to assign guilt based on your “how human beings operate” standard.

But we can agree to disagree on these points.

 

[Christian Pulisic]

BIG YIKES

 

[dwalk31]

Its funny because he thinks Al Franken is guilty because there is a picture but in the case of republicans there needs to be an actual conviction.

(Al Franken is also a **** bag)

It doesn’t have anything to do with politics. I think Kobe was innocent as well. Michael Jackson too. Russell Simmons too. Do you?

To make it about politics, I also think Justin Fairfax is innocent unless he is proven guilty. And he is certainly not a Republican.