• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justin Fairfax accused of sexual assault

There is so much fail in your post I don't even know where to begin. So let me break it down for you.

Fail #1 - What "moral political fiber"

Try reading...

Fail #2 - What does Kavanaugh have to do with my posts? If you can find a single post from me saying that Kavanaugh has to go because of allegations of sexual assault (which is what your fellow Trump devotee apdst said needs to happen with Fairfax), then link it. Hint - you won't find one because I never said it.

I was comparing your conditional moral outrage to the Washington Post's. You have gone full nuclear on Trump for what you think he might have done, and rush to the defense of Fairfax for the same thing. Likewise, the Washington Post couldn't help but blast utterly unbelievable accusations against Kavanaugh because they saw him as a threat to their political positions, and passed on a more credible accusation against Fairfax because printing it would have been against their political positions.

Fail #3 - Your fellow Trump devotees said "whataboutism" isn't allowed. You better apologize before apdst has a meltdown.

Heh, actually, both sides scream "whataboutism!" whenever the comparison isn't in their favor. I'm not faulting you for your comparison, if your Trump hatred had an actual moral foundation you'd be attacking Fairfax rather than throwing in a Trump comparison. So I'm just here faulting you for the hypocrisy.

And no, before you try it, I haven't really stated a position on Fairfax because I don't know if the lady is credible, I just know that waiting for the evidence when it comes to Trump or Kavanaugh has me labeled a misogynist and shouts of "believe all women!" or accusations of being on Putin's payroll.
 
Try reading...



I was comparing your conditional moral outrage to the Washington Post's. You have gone full nuclear on Trump for what you think he might have done, and rush to the defense of Fairfax for the same thing. Likewise, the Washington Post couldn't help but blast utterly unbelievable accusations against Kavanaugh because they saw him as a threat to their political positions, and passed on a more credible accusation against Fairfax because printing it would have been against their political positions.



Heh, actually, both sides scream "whataboutism!" whenever the comparison isn't in their favor. I'm not faulting you for your comparison, if your Trump hatred had an actual moral foundation you'd be attacking Fairfax rather than throwing in a Trump comparison. So I'm just here faulting you for the hypocrisy.

And no, before you try it, I haven't really stated a position on Fairfax because I don't know if the lady is credible, I just know that waiting for the evidence when it comes to Trump or Kavanaugh has me labeled a misogynist and shouts of "believe all women!" or accusations of being on Putin's payroll.

Once again, link to my posts where I showed any "moral comments" about Ford's accusations about Kavanaugh, up to an including a proclamation that he should not be on the Court because of the Ford accusations. Do it now, please.

Secondly, what does Wapo have to do with me? I don't work for them. I'm not posting about them.

Third, show me where I "rushed to defense" of Fairfax.

I'll wait.

Hypocrisy? I'm not the one being hypocritical. I didn't say Trump shouldn't be President because of the sexual allegations against him, did I? The answer is no.

ow much more can you fail in one single post?
 
Once again, link to my posts where I showed any "moral comments" about Ford's accusations about Kavanaugh, up to an including a proclamation that he should not be on the Court because of the Ford accusations. Do it now, please.

I never said you said anything about Kavanaugh. Please read more carefully.

Secondly, what does Wapo have to do with me? I don't work for them. I'm not posting about them.

As I explained, I used them as a comparison.

Third, show me where I "rushed to defense" of Fairfax.

I'll wait.

LOL!! Your first post was not to speak about Fairfax, it was to speak about the person who posted the Fairfax story based on their support for Trump.

Hypocrisy? I'm not the one being hypocritical. I didn't say Trump shouldn't be President because of the sexual allegations against him, did I? The answer is no.

ow much more can you fail in one single post?

Ah, so if your objection is purely political, and you don't object to Trump morally, what is your objection to Trump policies? You were generally a mild mannered Libertarian in my view before the Trump nomination, then you went full Jennifer Rubins and are ready to support leftists if it hurts Trump.

Or, in other words, what policies are you not seeing from a Trump presidency that you want your candidate to support?
 
I never said you said anything about Kavanaugh. Please read more carefully.



As I explained, I used them as a comparison.



LOL!! Your first post was not to speak about Fairfax, it was to speak about the person who posted the Fairfax story based on their support for Trump.



Ah, so if your objection is purely political, and you don't object to Trump morally, what is your objection to Trump policies? You were generally a mild mannered Libertarian in my view before the Trump nomination, then you went full Jennifer Rubins and are ready to support leftists if it hurts Trump.

Or, in other words, what policies are you not seeing from a Trump presidency that you want your candidate to support?

Why are you lying? Here was my first post.

Why wouldn't he be governor?

I know you obsess about Trump constantly, but you show me in that first post where I mentioned Trump, or where I spoke "about the person who posted the story based on their support for Trump".

Hint - again - I didn't do that.

Stop lying.

As far as Kavanaugh, I asked you why you brought him up. You tinkled your panties as you typed this post, which was your first post to me:

Heh, see? You throw away your espoused moral political filter when it inconveniences you.

Lt. Gov. Fairfax slams ?defamatory and false? sexual assault allegation

Compare that to Kavanaugh... you apparently share the same moral hypocrisy with the Washington Post.

You still have not shown this "espoused moral political filter" you claim I have but throw away when it "inconveniences" me.
 

~"... The Washington Post said Monday that it was approached by the woman in 2017, carefully investigated, but never published the accusation.The Post said the woman had not told anyone about it, the account could not be corroborated, Fairfax denied it and the Post was unable to find other allegations against him."~



Apparently the LEFT MEDIA is not applying the KAVANUGH STANDARD to the left. Amazing that, huh? :roll:
 
Why are you lying? Here was my first post.

Not lying.

I know you obsess about Trump constantly, but you show me in that first post where I mentioned Trump, or where I spoke "about the person who posted the story based on their support for Trump".

Hint - again - I didn't do that.

I'm sorry... who brought Trump into this thread, again? :lamo

Stop lying.

Not lying.

As far as Kavanaugh, I asked you why you brought him up. You tinkled your panties as you typed this post, which was your first post to me:

Again, I am comparing you here to the Washington Post with Kavanaugh. I never made a direct comparison using your opinion of Kavanaugh.

What is your opinion of Kavanaugh, by the way?

You still have not shown this "espoused moral political filter" you claim I have but throw away when it "inconveniences" me.

Then you should be able to answer my question. Why can't you?
 
Not lying.



I'm sorry... who brought Trump into this thread, again? :lamo



Not lying.



Again, I am comparing you here to the Washington Post with Kavanaugh. I never made a direct comparison using your opinion of Kavanaugh.

What is your opinion of Kavanaugh, by the way?



Then you should be able to answer my question. Why can't you?

I just proved to you that you lied. My first post asked the OP why he said that Fairfax needs to go. So yes, you lied.

Why are you comparing me to the Washington Post? I don't work for them and didn't say anything about them in my posts. Or did they also ask apdst why Fairfax can't be governor?

My opinion on Kavanaugh has never changed. I found him to be a partisan, and an angry one to boot. Why do you ask? He has nothing to do with Fairfax either.

Still waiting for the "espoused moral political filter" I have that relates to this story. Where is it?
 
The allegations against Fairfax are less credible. Deal with it.

How is it "less credible"?

The person making the allegation came forward sooner.

The person making the allegation could name the exact time and place of the incident.

The person making the allegation hasn't changed details about her age at time, the location, the number of people present, as has yet to purposely withhold evidence.

Fairfax himself agrees to being with the accuser at the specified time and place, and that there was a sexual encounter which he describes as "100% consensual," so that something happened between the accuser and Fairfax isn't even in question. It's only a question of what.

So tell me . . . how is this allegation "less credible"?

(Which isn't to say that the allegation is true. It's simply to say that the idea that the allegation is "less credible" is simply naked partisan whackadoodle.)
 
How is it "less credible"?

The person making the allegation came forward sooner.

The person making the allegation could name the exact time and place of the incident.

The person making the allegation hasn't changed details about her age at time, the location, the number of people present, as has yet to purposely withhold evidence.

Fairfax himself agrees to being with the accuser at the specified time and place, and that there was a sexual encounter which he describes as "100% consensual," so that something happened between the accuser and Fairfax isn't even in question. It's only a question of what.

So tell me . . . how is this allegation "less credible"?

(Which isn't to say that the allegation is true. It's simply to say that the idea that the allegation is "less credible" is simply naked partisan whackadoodle.)

It's less credible because of that (D) next to his name.

You gotta wonder how Mark Herring is feeling about now.
 
So was Donald Trump. I must have missed all your posts saying he has to go.

When you produce WHO PAID FAIRFAX's ACCUSER, as TRUMP'S ACCUSERS WERE EXPOSED, as PAID DNC OPERATIVES let's talk about then...
 
Back
Top Bottom