Tale of the bad rapist and the good rapist

Mark writes: "Well, let's see. Don is complaining, . . ."

DonDiego was reporting on Hillary's favorable view of Harvey Weinstein, not complaining.  People do things for all sorts of reasons.

And do you think Hillary still has a favorable view of Harvey Weinstein? Or do you think that was her view before the allegations surfaced?  I note Don Deigo and most Republicans still have a favorable view of Donald Trump even after 20+ credible allegations against him have surfaced.   

You do see your double standard, don't you? 

This is your logic.

Democrats with a favorable view of Weinstein before they knew about his sexually predatory behavior are bad. But Republicans that have a favorable view of Donald Trump after knowing of his sexually predatory behavior are good. 

Hillary still have favorable thoughts about Bill, so why wouldn't she have similar thoughts about Harvey?

Mark pontificates:

"This is your  [DonDiego's]  logic.

 Democrats with a favorable view of Weinstein before they knew about his sexually predatory behavior are bad. But Republicans that have a favorable view of Donald Trump after knowing of his sexually predatory behavior are good."

No.  That is not poor old DonDiego's logic. 

Then explain it. How is Hillary bad for liking Weinstein before she knew about his sexually predatory behavior but Republicans are good for liking Trump after knowing about his sexually predatory behavior?

Mark demands:

"Then explain it. How is Hillary bad for liking Weinstein before she knew about his sexually predatory behavior but Republicans are good for liking Trump after knowing about his sexually predatory behavior?"

Poor old DonDiego opines that Mark's questiion presupposes unverifiable assumptions.  For example, poor old DonDiego has more respect for the machinations of the Clinton-apparatchiks than Mark; the Hillary likely knew the nature of Mr. Weinstein, but always had a favorable view of his monetary support.

Poor old DonDiego has not commented on the "badness/goodness" of The Hillary liking Weinstein or President Trump's "sexually predatory behavior".

For the record DonDiego would prefer an upstanding, honest, idealistic, straightforward candidate like young Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Congress.  So far he has never had the opportunity to vote for one. 

Here's how poor old DonDiego views politics, or more precisely elections.

He keeps himself informed of the expressed opinions and proposed plans of the politicians-in-play.

He usually participates in the Republican Party primary elections; and he will select the candidate whom he finds closest to his own political philosophy - a mix of libertarianism and Barry-Goldwater-conservatism; i.e. less Government intrusion into people's lives and smaller Government altogether if possible.

Most candidates have not been particularly close; nonetheless more Republicans have been closer than Democrats.

Similarly in the General Election DonDiego would prefer to vote based on his appreciation of the candidates' views relative to his own "libertarian conservatism".  This inevitably results in opposing the Democrat - not because he's bad, but because he is politically disagreeable.  

Only in an extreme case would egregious personal behavior of a candidate be a deciding factor.

Notions like "Hillary is bad for liking Weinstein" or that "Republicans are good for liking Trump" are rarely the primary issue.

I wasn't demanding. I was asking you to explain your intellectual inconsistency. 

Notions like "Hillary is bad for liking Weinstein" or that "Republicans are good for liking Trump" are rarely the primary issue.

You claim Hillary probably knew about Weinstein but can provide no evidence of her knowing. The only people that knew about Weinstein were his victims. I'd say someone that isn't morally compromised would think a sex offender President was a primary issue. Republicans thought a President that got a consensual blow job was a primary issue. 

Mark declares: "The only people that knew about Weinstein were his victims."

DonDiego requests Mark supply his evidence for this statement.

Call poor, old DonDiego "old-fashioned", . . . but he still opines a President receiving a blow-job from an office underling, . . . within the Oval Office of the White House, . . . while he is conducting official business over the telephone is an issue of "fitness to hold office". 

n.b.  Nonetheless, poor old DonDiego had voted for Clinton's opponents twice before his sexual escapades in the White House were revealed.  So the inappropriate behavior had not been a factor in DonDiego's voting decisions.

I'm amazed at how our Trumpers are deploying the idiotic Trump-style false equivalence argument yet again. Weinstein raped dozens of women. Bill Clinton got a consensual blowjob. How are those two things remotely comparable--never mind that they're not in any way related???

I also call out DonDiego on his hypocrisy in being faux-outraged about said Presidential blowjob while cheering for the current serial sexual assaulter now in office. I do realize that DonDiego has an irrational white-hot hatred for the Clintons (did Hillary turn him down for a date while they were in college?), so he might consider that blowjob to be a greater crime than, say, Stalin's mass slaughter of 20 million Russians.

KevinLewis writes: "I do realize that DonDiego has an irrational white-hot hatred for the Clintons (did Hillary turn him down for a date while they were in college?), so he might consider that blowjob to be a greater crime than, say, Stalin's mass slaughter of 20 million Russians."

Oh, Goodness ! ! !    Poor old DonDiego has been "called-out" ! ! !

What shall poor old DonDiego do ! ! !

Kevin Lewis is free to approve/disapprove/be neutral on the morality of President & First Lady Clinton [they are an inseparable team], Mr. Weinstein, and President Trump.

For the record, poor old DonDiego is not "outraged" about anything.  DonDiego recognizes reality and is capable of judging the amorality, or immorality (if one so chooses), of the Clintons, . . . and he disapproves.  Kevin Lewis is free to approve it.

[That's what makes America great !  One would be hard-pressed to name another Country likely to elect-to-the-Presidency within 30 years a philandering Arkansas Governor and a hotel/casino builder/operator & TV personality.] 

Poor old DonDiego hopes not to see again a description of the President of the United States like those published during the Clinton reign: " His erect penis is about five inches long, has the circumference of a quarter (a shade less than a 2p coin) and heads off at an angle, presumedly rather like a finger bent at the joint."

But "white-hot hatred" ! ! !  Hardly.

Oh, by the way, . . .Stalin was a piker compared to Chairman Mao:

"Stalin was responsible for at least 6 million, and as many as 9 million if 'foreseeable' deaths caused by deportation, starvation, and incarceration in concentration camps are included.

If one includes the combatant deaths, and the deaths due to war-related famine and disease, the numbers shoot up astronomically. The Soviet Union suffered upward of 8 million combatant deaths and many more due to famine and disease—perhaps about 20 million."

"It is probably fair to say, then, that Mao was responsible for about 1.5 million deaths during the Cultural Revolution, another million for the other campaigns, and between 35 million and 45 million for the Great Leap Famine. Taking a middle number for the famine, 40 million, that’s about 42.5 million deaths."

Ref: New York Review of Books

Nonetheless, if somewhat surprisingly, poor old DonDiego agrees with Kevin Lewis that Stalin's mass murders are, indeed, greater "crimes" than President Clinton's trysts with Ms. Lewinsky.