@RandalRauser
I am so angered by Trump supporters who simply cannot be bothered to look at the credible accounts of his 25 accusers. Do they have any clue about the trauma of experiencing sexual assault or sexual harassment? @DrMichaelLBrown you cannot keep ignoring this.
There's no doubt that Rauser has an anger-management problem. He's like a pampered only-child who's used to getting his way from doting parents. So it's aggravating when he finds out that he has so little influence. He conducts ineffectual tirades against his favorite targets, but nothing changes. He's not a player. It's humiliating for someone that judgmental and egoistical to discover how impotent he is. The world doesn't share his overweening sense of self-importance. He's not the cosmic moral arbiter.
Speaking for myself, one reason I haven't investigated the allegations is that I've heard Trump admit, in a roundabout way, that he's guilty of sexual harassment. But here's the thing:
Even if ail the allegations are true, Trump isn't dangerous to women in general. Basically, he's boorish.
Far and away the greatest danger to women is coming from secular progressives. That includes all the baby girls who die from abortion and after-birth abortion. Euthanizing elderly women. Hormone blockers and mutilation for adolescent girls who experience temporary gender dysphoria. "Trangender girls/women" decimating women's sports. "Transgender women" invading shelters for battered women, or lockerrooms, or prisons. As well as a nihilistic worldview which fosters depression, substance abuse, and suicide.
It's not Trump but the Democrat party, abetted by Silicon Valley, that poses the overwhelming threat to the life and well-being of women and girls.
But because Rauser is a social and theological progressive, he doesn't perceive a threat from the left. He's largely on board with the social progressive agenda. So he suffers from a myopic outlook, as if the real threat is emanating from the Trump administration. That's why he's so blindly and fanatically one-sided. That's why his indignation is so glaringly selective.
Bill Clinton credibly had many sexual dalliances with women. Some or many of them may well have been sexual harassment if not sexual assault, certainly by progressive standards today. The same or similar could be said about LBJ and JFK. Does this mean Clinton, LBJ, and JFK were a danger to women in general? Does this mean they were unfit to be president?
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the complaint has much more credibility if it comes from people who can demonstrate their track record of saying the same thing about Clinton during his time in office.
DeleteRauser needs to explain why he insists on treating "supporting this candidate is, all things considered, a much better choice than that candidate, and so I will do so" as a straightforward cipher for moral approval. When clever people pretend to be stupid like that, it's because they have an agenda. The strange thing about Rauser's outrage is that he thinks nobody is able to detect his.
Bbbb...uuut.... Orangeman bad.
DeleteRauser: Steve you don’t understand.... Orangeman bad.
ReplyDelete