AOCs mother moved from NY to FL for taxes

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

I don’t know where you get your information from, but it’s gotta be from somewhere
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My post, to which you were responding, was not "information" nor was it based on information "fed" to me. It was commentary on your expressed opinion that Trump is a horrible person because of something he said in the past with the implication that Trump's personal past makes him more of a problem than AOC's present stupidity while she's in a position of public power.

I said and asked in response to your categorization of Trump's and AOC's words "What is the category of things people say that refers to past actions of someone as a representation of who he is now where there is no evidence that he does those things anymore? And for what he has apologized? And for characterizing something that is allowed as being an assault? Is there no redemption for past sins?

"If capitalism is irredeemable, are humans also not capable of redemption? If we did something "horrible" in the past are we then forever horrible?

"If there is a category for implying someone being what he once was but no longer is, it seems to me that category could charitably be referred to as misrepresentation.

"AOC is doing her stupidity NOW while in a position of political power that can influence the entire nation. Trump did what you phrase as 'horrible' (really, in its context?) in the private past. Which, of the two, is meaningful to the people of this country today?"

That commentary was not fed to me by any source. And you did not answer my question.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My post, to which you were responding, was not "information" nor was it based on information "fed" to me. It was commentary on your expressed opinion that Trump is a horrible person because of something he said in the past with the implication that Trump's personal past makes him more of a problem than AOC's present stupidity while she's in a position of public power.

I said and asked in response to your categorization of Trump's and AOC's words "What is the category of things people say that refers to past actions of someone as a representation of who he is now where there is no evidence that he does those things anymore? And for what he has apologized? And for characterizing something that is allowed as being an assault? Is there no redemption for past sins?

"If capitalism is irredeemable, are humans also not capable of redemption? If we did something "horrible" in the past are we then forever horrible?

"If there is a category for implying someone being what he once was but no longer is, it seems to me that category could charitably be referred to as misrepresentation.

"AOC is doing her stupidity NOW while in a position of political power that can influence the entire nation. Trump did what you phrase as 'horrible' (really, in its context?) in the private past. Which, of the two, is meaningful to the people of this country today?"

That commentary was not fed to me by any source. And you did not answer my question.

The reference was to you equivocating sexually predatory behavior and being a stupid politician in your statement. One is much more forgivable after an apology than the other.

Walking up to women and grabbing them in between the legs because they’ll “let you when you’re famous” is not a permitted action... that’s assault brotha. I’ll start redeeming him when he’s held accountable for the actions he has admitted to.

That being said, I passed the hose to you because you felt compelled to create an equivalency between the congresswoman’s stupidity and the president’s past transgressions to create some kind of “he did”/“she did” cancellation which I believe to be a far too frequent move by both sides of this political mess when one side or the other makes a mistake. He assaulted many women, or at least has claimed to have. Congresswoman Cortez is quickly making herself out to be a politician who doesn’t really know how the world works. They can both be wrong, but one is much worse than the other, plain and simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

The reference was to you equivocating sexually predatory behavior and being a stupid politician in your statement. One is much more forgivable after an apology than the other.

I didn't equivocate. I wasn't evasive or ambiguous. I didn't even compare the quality of behavior. I pointed out that one was past and the other is present.

Further, Trump's behavior had no potential effect on the nation. Were you damaged by it? I didn't feel any repercussions. My income didn't go up or down. No financial depression was caused. No wars were started. No legislation to restrict personal freedom was passed. No stupid, wasteful, government plans were created. No destruction of the Constitution was caused. Trump was in no political position to cause any of those things.

Cortez is in a position to initiate or influence any of those things. Her actions are potentially far more consequential now and in the future than Trump's sexual behavior of the past can be.


Walking up to women and grabbing them in between the legs because they’ll “let you when you’re famous” is not a permitted action... that’s assault brotha. I’ll start redeeming him when he’s held accountable for the actions he has admitted to.

It's not up to you to, nor can you, redeem him. You can only redeem yourself. You do that by forswearing and forsaking your past discretions and henceforth leading a good life. He has apologized and seems to be "clean" of the "grabbing." And whether he's "held accountable" or not, what concerns me and is most meaningful to me is what he does NOW and in the future as President. As well, it is far more meaningful to me what Cortez does NOW and in the future as a member of Congress than whatever sexual behavior she had in the past. And I assume, maybe wrongly, that she has had sexual behavior, some of which many folks would disapprove of. But it didn't affect the course of human history very much, if at all.


That being said, I passed the hose to you because you felt compelled to create an equivalency between the congresswoman’s stupidity and the president’s past transgressions to create some kind of “he did”/“she did” cancellation which I believe to be a far too frequent move by both sides of this political mess when one side or the other makes a mistake. He assaulted many women, or at least has claimed to have. Congresswoman Cortez is quickly making herself out to be a politician who doesn’t really know how the world works. They can both be wrong, but one is much worse than the other, plain and simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not create an equivalency. Quite the contrary, Cortez's actions as Congresswoman are potentially far more destructive to the nation than what you refer to as Trump's "assaults."

Trump didn't assume that he was "assaulting." From what he's said he presumed that the "grabbing" was welcomed and allowed. And if it was rebuffed, that was the end of it. As far as I know, there was no parade of casting couch "assaults" required for advancement in Trump's business.

The bar was set with Bill Clinton, and a host of Presidents before him. That cleansed me of caring anymore about what a President did sexually. Clinton was far worse than Trump, and he did it before and while being POTUS. We were told it was not our business. And that he was a really good President. And he was not to be removed from office, but to quit harassing him about it, and it was important to the country to let him do his job. Holding Trump to a higher standard holds no interest for me.

Apparently, for you, his past private personal sex is far more important than what Cortez can do in a powerful national political office. I asked you to clarify your position, and I guess you have.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I did not create an equivalency. Quite the contrary, Cortez's actions as Congresswoman are potentially far more destructive to the nation than what you refer to as Trump's "assaults."

Trump didn't assume that he was "assaulting." From what he's said he presumed that the "grabbing" was welcomed and allowed. And if it was rebuffed, that was the end of it. As far as I know, there was no parade of casting couch "assaults" required for advancement in Trump's business.

The bar was set with Bill Clinton, and a host of Presidents before him. That cleansed me of caring anymore about what a President did sexually. Clinton was far worse than Trump, and he did it before and while being POTUS. We were told it was not our business. And that he was a really good President. And he was not to be removed from office, but to quit harassing him about it and it was important to the country to let him do his job. Holding Trump to a higher standard holds no interest for me.

Apparently, for you, his past private personal sex is far more important than what Cortez can do in a powerful national political office. I asked you to clarify your position, and I guess you have.

Yes, I have.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device