looks like this guy took the opportunity to do some serious reflecting during his temp ban

Her post definitely included a connection between Assange's dislike of Hillary and her gender. Is your objection purely semantic?
"auto-caping up for Assange" is only in your imagination.

Gizmo, Dids, or anyone else do you think Assange is more likely to be a rapist than Bill Clinton?

How credible are the Assange rape allegations? I confess I haven't been following that story at all.

Is bill more or less likely to be a rapist than trump, someone whose wife swore under oath that he raped her?

More given she was in the middle of a divorce and recanted.

Who said I think it's some super strong point? I'm more curious of the intellectual honesty of the people I'm talking with. If they can't see any shades of gray, what's the point of talking to them?

All questions are okay, but asking questions that make someone looked bad, that's wrong? No one could ask Rubio about his alleged affairs, because their intent is to make him look bad after all, right?

This is politics and there's a whole lot of kiddie pearl clutching in here. Political operatives are pretty smart, if not poor at tech. They know the grass-fed public gets nervous over buzzwords & insinuations. There is no sacred cow to them afaik.

Yes, it's dirty, but that's pretty much politics. You find out whatever you can about your opponent and try to use that against them. I'm sorry the way the sausages are made bugs you, but it doesn't change anything now that you know about it.

You dont seem to understand my issue with this or want to so. yeah...

'recanted' is a strong word for what she did

hence why i asked about the rubio example, for clarification

You need more clarification then that.

Yeah, also why I asked for a list of off-limit questions

Right, thats part of the problem. It misses my point.


Think i might of asked some questions too...

Homie, Bernie Sanders isn't an "opponent" of the DNC.

You asked if the gay/muslim thing was okay to question.

Say Corey Booker runs next year. He's not married yet. He somehow gets the nom from Hilldawg. He will 100% get questions about if he's gay.

Is that bad? To me, probably worse than the religion question, but some people care about that stuff so it's not really up to me to make that decision for them, is it? I think it's immoral to care about such things, but if you're a god-fearing patriot who wants a straight man in the white house who rolls back the rights of the gays, who am I to tell him he can't have his terribly misguided beliefs?

Nope, i asked if it was ok for someone in the DNC to out them if they were in the closet and though them to the bigots.


So you would be ok with someone in the DNC outing a homosexual for political gain. ok

No, you didn't:

huh? "and thought them to be bigots"? "and throw them to the bigots"?

are we talking about a situation like Bernie's where he is running for the same party? I've already said I don't think the DNC should be biased against its own candidates.

Sigh...

FYP

Anyways, the rape case against Assange is laughably weak, and obviously manufactured given his history. I am looking forward to the next wikileaks release though. Assange seemed pretty confident and comfortable in his recent public appearances...

Jesus Christ. So if it's Lindsay Graham running against Hillary next time around, you're ok with Hillary/her team asking questions insinuating that he's gay? Listen to yourself. You're putting on an ikes-caliber performance right now.

Actually, an analogous situation would be one person in the dnc writing an email to someone saying "graham hasn't been married, what if we brought up him being gay to discredit him" and then no one actually bringing it up in public.

REMINDER:

Seattlelou is 100% voting for Trump and people should not humor his lies otherwise

you have said the same thing about me numerous times and it couldn't be further from the truth.

The question was whether LK would be ok with the DNC outing a closeted gay person. His response, instead of the obvious answer of "no of course not I'm not a monster" was "well if it's another dem I've already said the DNC shouldn't attack them"

But also, to be clear, writing an email considering whether to out him also means that you're 100% a piece of human garbage

Um, that would be pretty ****ty on its face, but also the analogy is terrible since Graham isn't a Democrat.

Like, you guys don't seem to get it: the DNC isn't supposed to be partial to Hillary. It's totally out of line for them to be covertly workshopping ways for Hil to discredit her primary opponent, to say nothing of how slimy and un-American it is to take these kinds of shots at his religion.