Pyrex wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You are joking, right? She was a Senator,

She was a Democratic Senator for New York. A Ham Sandwich could be elected Democratic Senator in New York, provided its husband had enough pull within the party to get her on the ticket.

So much misogyny in this statement. You don't think she won on her own? She had to have a big, strong husband to win it for her? Really? I supposes that is how you think Lisa Murkowski and Kamala Harris were elected to the Senate?

seb146 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You are joking, right? She was a Senator, a lawyer, Secretary of State, wife to a president... she was more than qualified.

You see anyone laughing? You're confusing having gotten fired from a lot of things/shameless job hopping for experience.

She was never good at any of these things and has virtually nothing to show for it.


And if being "wife to a president" is actually a thing you can put on a resume, then...

seb146 wrote:

The whole reason she "couldn't kill off an obvious non-story" was because the right kept bringing it up like it was a huge scandal. And their followers believed them! In fact, the right still uses that one incident as a rallying cry!

... this should have been a no brainer. Bill had all that and worse to deal with. Hell, he was actually impeached. And not only lived through it, but made a complete and totally mockery of the witch hunt an entire party made just for him by finishing his second term with enough popularity to easily win a third.

If being his wife is worth any experience, she must have slept through that episode, since benghazi was a walk in the park next to it. ..

seb146 wrote:

Even though the leader altered documents to frame Hillary, the right still believes she did something

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/dyersbu ... s-to-frame

Meanwhile, we have four service men killed in Niger, no investigations; 58 murdered in Las Vegas, no change in any laws, a "leader" who's main focus is golf every freakin' weekend who declared bankruptcy FIVE TIMES and lost money owning casinos! How the hell is that competency?

The right believes all that because they want to anyway. Who cares?

The issue is that Hillary never even attempted to diffuse the controversy in any meaningful way. To those of us on the left (and no I'm not including those hippy extremist rioter types who are always just mad at everything anyway), this sent a very clear message that Clinton had/has no clue what she's doing. And this clearly remains the case as she has yet to take an accurate and remotely honest look at what it was that got her ass kicked out of all this in the first place.

As for the other things you're whining about, you're just going to have be ok with all that since that's what happens when you nominate a loser.

I know you think she's great and all, so let me leave you with one amazing and true fact about what kind of great politician she was...

Hillary Clinton was the only, as in at all, ever, political candidate to lose any kind of race for office, whatsoever, to Donald fucking Trump. Give that a moment to sink in before pretending she's not so bad...

When Hillary was First Lady, she spearheaded the movement to get health care to all of us. Hillary was Secretary Of State. Hillary was Senator. She knows how all these things work. She worked under a Constitutional Scholar. Someone who knows Constitutional law.

But, please, do go on about how having no experience is so much better and ruling by decree is so much better.....

Would you rather have a pilot with no experience or with 30 years experience? Would you rather have a heart surgeon with no experience or with 30 years experience?

Well for one an ATP certificate to fly a plane one of the very first requirements is to be of good moral character. Hillary would fail right there. Also I would want my heart surgeon to be of good moral character as well but guess that never applies to politicians.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You see anyone laughing? You're confusing having gotten fired from a lot of things/shameless job hopping for experience.

She was never good at any of these things and has virtually nothing to show for it.


And if being "wife to a president" is actually a thing you can put on a resume, then...




... this should have been a no brainer. Bill had all that and worse to deal with. Hell, he was actually impeached. And not only lived through it, but made a complete and totally mockery of the witch hunt an entire party made just for him by finishing his second term with enough popularity to easily win a third.

If being his wife is worth any experience, she must have slept through that episode, since benghazi was a walk in the park next to it. ..



The right believes all that because they want to anyway. Who cares?

The issue is that Hillary never even attempted to diffuse the controversy in any meaningful way. To those of us on the left (and no I'm not including those hippy extremist rioter types who are always just mad at everything anyway), this sent a very clear message that Clinton had/has no clue what she's doing. And this clearly remains the case as she has yet to take an accurate and remotely honest look at what it was that got her ass kicked out of all this in the first place.

As for the other things you're whining about, you're just going to have be ok with all that since that's what happens when you nominate a loser.

I know you think she's great and all, so let me leave you with one amazing and true fact about what kind of great politician she was...

Hillary Clinton was the only, as in at all, ever, political candidate to lose any kind of race for office, whatsoever, to Donald fucking Trump. Give that a moment to sink in before pretending she's not so bad...

When Hillary was First Lady, she spearheaded the movement to get health care to all of us. Hillary was Secretary Of State. Hillary was Senator. She knows how all these things work. She worked under a Constitutional Scholar. Someone who knows Constitutional law.

But, please, do go on about how having no experience is so much better and ruling by decree is so much better.....

Would you rather have a pilot with no experience or with 30 years experience? Would you rather have a heart surgeon with no experience or with 30 years experience?

Well for one an ATP certificate to fly a plane one of the very first requirements is to be of good moral character. Hillary would fail right there. Also I would want my heart surgeon to be of good moral character as well but guess that never applies to politicians.

Looking at all of the support for Roy Moore, I would say that "moral character" is extremely subjective. How is Hillary not of good moral character? How many husbands has she had? How many times has she taken from the poor to give to the wealthy? How do you define that Hillary is not of good moral character?

The bottom line is: The DNC needed money. Hillary had money. What does that have to do with morality?

The more you righties scream about Hillary, the more foolish you all look. You all keep going on about how she lost, but you all keep bringing her up.

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

When Hillary was First Lady, she spearheaded the movement to get health care to all of us. Hillary was Secretary Of State. Hillary was Senator. She knows how all these things work. She worked under a Constitutional Scholar. Someone who knows Constitutional law.

But, please, do go on about how having no experience is so much better and ruling by decree is so much better.....

Would you rather have a pilot with no experience or with 30 years experience? Would you rather have a heart surgeon with no experience or with 30 years experience?

Well for one an ATP certificate to fly a plane one of the very first requirements is to be of good moral character. Hillary would fail right there. Also I would want my heart surgeon to be of good moral character as well but guess that never applies to politicians.

Looking at all of the support for Roy Moore, I would say that "moral character" is extremely subjective. How is Hillary not of good moral character? How many husbands has she had? How many times has she taken from the poor to give to the wealthy? How do you define that Hillary is not of good moral character?

The bottom line is: The DNC needed money. Hillary had money. What does that have to do with morality?

The more you righties scream about Hillary, the more foolish you all look. You all keep going on about how she lost, but you all keep bringing her up.

Exactly you said it right there the DNC needed money and Hillary had it and no politician has morals they are all self serving bastards. Doesn't matter which party both parties suck.

salttee wrote:

...

If you knew me in person, you'd love the sound of my voice too. In any case...

I mean this in the most constructive possible way, but pretty much everything I've read from you reminds me of that noise Donald Duck makes when he's really mad at something. So you'll understand if I dont take anything you say personally. Or seriously.

I just hope the gateway to hell Hillary has opened with this spectacular loss of hers doesn't set your generation back that far. It's what her damn near deliberate loss has done to the youth of the western world that really angers me.

Peace.

seb146 wrote:

Looking at all of the support for Roy Moore, I would say that "moral character" is extremely subjective.

I would totally agree with you there. What the hell does that have to do with Hillary putting us in this jam with her idiocy?

seb146 wrote:

The more you righties scream about Hillary, the more foolish you all look. You all keep going on about how she lost, but you all keep bringing her up.

The more you accuse everyone who doesn't drink Hillary's kool aid of being 'righties', the crazier you make the rest of us look. It would be really great if you could roll that back some.

stratosphere wrote:

Well for one an ATP certificate to fly a plane one of the very first requirements is to be of good moral character. Hillary would fail right there. Also I would want my heart surgeon to be of good moral character as well but guess that never applies to politicians.

But in fairness, most politicians could pass that much. All that really means is that you can't have convictions involving moral turpitude.

While I would agree that morally speaking, Hillary probably shouldn't be left alone near children, that's not her biggest failing, nor is it what lost her the election. That, you can much more hang on her incredible myopia and more or less complete lack of situational awareness.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

While I would agree that morally speaking, Hillary probably shouldn't be left alone near children, that's not her biggest failing, nor is it what lost her the election. That, you can much more hang on her incredible myopia and more or less complete lack of situational awareness.

There were many factors involved in Mrs. Clinton's loss of the election.

Foremost among them was the sheer stupidity of a significant portion of the American electorate who succumbed to the siren call of "what the hell have you got to lose?".

Slowly, it is dawning on them what they have lost and are now losing.

BobPatterson wrote:

There were many factors involved in Mrs. Clinton's loss of the election.

Foremost among them was the sheer stupidity of a significant portion of the American electorate who succumbed to the siren call of "what the hell have you got to lose?".

Slowly, it is dawning on them what they have lost and are now losing.

I don't think you're wrong about that. I just can't help observing how well she facilitated this.

BobPatterson wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

While I would agree that morally speaking, Hillary probably shouldn't be left alone near children, that's not her biggest failing, nor is it what lost her the election. That, you can much more hang on her incredible myopia and more or less complete lack of situational awareness.

There were many factors involved in Mrs. Clinton's loss of the election.

Foremost among them was the sheer stupidity of a significant portion of the American electorate who succumbed to the siren call of "what the hell have you got to lose?".

Slowly, it is dawning on them what they have lost and are now losing.

I didn't vote for either candidate and truthfully speaking, what has happened since the election is exactly what I thought would happen with a Trump presidency which is why I didn't vote for him. Hillary gave me no reason to vote for her, and what has come out since the election has actually made me twice as happy that she did not get elected.

I don't think we have heard the end of the Hillary deal either, and I suspect that it wont be long before there are common links to Hillary as there are to the Debbie Wasserman Schulz staffer who is behind bars right now. The democrats are actually lucky that Trump is president, because a lot of the issues with the democrats are trumped (pun intended) by the divisive nature of this White House.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Looking at all of the support for Roy Moore, I would say that "moral character" is extremely subjective.

I would totally agree with you there. What the hell does that have to do with Hillary putting us in this jam with her idiocy?

What are you talking about? You all keep on about "Trump won, get over it." Hillary is not in office. If you have issues with leadership, it is not with Hillary, no matter what your "news" sources say.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Well for one an ATP certificate to fly a plane one of the very first requirements is to be of good moral character. Hillary would fail right there. Also I would want my heart surgeon to be of good moral character as well but guess that never applies to politicians.

Looking at all of the support for Roy Moore, I would say that "moral character" is extremely subjective. How is Hillary not of good moral character? How many husbands has she had? How many times has she taken from the poor to give to the wealthy? How do you define that Hillary is not of good moral character?

The bottom line is: The DNC needed money. Hillary had money. What does that have to do with morality?

The more you righties scream about Hillary, the more foolish you all look. You all keep going on about how she lost, but you all keep bringing her up.

Exactly you said it right there the DNC needed money and Hillary had it and no politician has morals they are all self serving bastards. Doesn't matter which party both parties suck.

And the fact that Republicans defend and elect rapists while Democrats take money from someone who has money somehow makes both parties horrible???

And, still both you and DarkStormyNight have yet to explain how Hillary is "without morals." You both keep on about that but have not said anything about it. Just that she is without morals. How? Because she gave her own money to her party to get elected?

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Looking at all of the support for Roy Moore, I would say that "moral character" is extremely subjective. How is Hillary not of good moral character? How many husbands has she had? How many times has she taken from the poor to give to the wealthy? How do you define that Hillary is not of good moral character?

The bottom line is: The DNC needed money. Hillary had money. What does that have to do with morality?

The more you righties scream about Hillary, the more foolish you all look. You all keep going on about how she lost, but you all keep bringing her up.

Exactly you said it right there the DNC needed money and Hillary had it and no politician has morals they are all self serving bastards. Doesn't matter which party both parties suck.

And the fact that Republicans defend and elect rapists while Democrats take money from someone who has money somehow makes both parties horrible???

And, still both you and DarkStormyNight have yet to explain how Hillary is "without morals." You both keep on about that but have not said anything about it. Just that she is without morals. How? Because she gave her own money to her party to get elected?

You really want to go there Seb? If anything the repubs are running away from Roy Moore unlike the dems did with Bill Clinton the running joke is Moore should step aside and then run as a democrat. Lets face it both parties have or had their hands down girls and boys pants and apparently Hollyweird has plenty of perverts coming to the surface now as well. Its all about people in power taking advantage.

Donna Brazille lied. The amount of inconsistencies in her stories are astounding. She recounted her experiences with a 2016 agreement that doesn't exist, and the same legal extensions were given to Bernie. The only difference here is that Bernie's broke ass chose not to contribute to the party he is now actively destroying. She is now modifying and denying her original statements that Hillary rigged the primary. So is warren and the rest of Bernie's sycophants. Brazille was here to sell a book.

Its time to remove the cancer that is Bernie Sanders from the democratic party.

stratosphere wrote:

Lets face it both parties have or had their hands down girls and boys pants and apparently Hollyweird has plenty of perverts coming to the surface now as well. Its all about people in power taking advantage.

The Clinton rant as always is misplaced. Monica Lewinsky was an adult, not a "girl", and she was a consenting adult.

Its all about people in power taking advantage.

I agree, but it does go beyond to me. If one has children, or not, one learns that it takes perversion to betray a child's trust. To me a girl of 14 or 141/2 is a child. I would have beat the shit out of him or anyone else of that age going near my daughter. A Southern Gentlemen is just a bit different than this man.

apodino wrote:

I didn't vote for either candidate and truthfully speaking, what has happened since the election is exactly what I thought would happen with a Trump presidency which is why I didn't vote for him. Hillary gave me no reason to vote for her, and what has come out since the election has actually made me twice as happy that she did not get elected.

I don't think we have heard the end of the Hillary deal either, and I suspect that it wont be long before there are common links to Hillary as there are to the Debbie Wasserman Schulz staffer who is behind bars right now. The democrats are actually lucky that Trump is president, because a lot of the issues with the democrats are trumped (pun intended) by the divisive nature of this White House.

Fair assessment. I made a very compromised vote myself, and after having to stomach that and know that it still resulted in a humiliating loss, I can say I won't be doing that again. There won't be any more "lesser of two evils" in my future. I'll either like a candidate or they can go fuck themselves.

I also agree that Trump makes an excellent smokescreen for our problems. But I disagree that it's a good thing, per se. If anything, the fact that we still tolerate losers like Clinton is possible only because so many of our own low information types can point to Trump and say "but, but, but at least she's not that..." As long as that's a thing, we're going to have problems and the rats will continue to drive the ship.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Exactly you said it right there the DNC needed money and Hillary had it and no politician has morals they are all self serving bastards. Doesn't matter which party both parties suck.

And the fact that Republicans defend and elect rapists while Democrats take money from someone who has money somehow makes both parties horrible???

And, still both you and DarkStormyNight have yet to explain how Hillary is "without morals." You both keep on about that but have not said anything about it. Just that she is without morals. How? Because she gave her own money to her party to get elected?

You really want to go there Seb? If anything the repubs are running away from Roy Moore unlike the dems did with Bill Clinton the running joke is Moore should step aside and then run as a democrat. Lets face it both parties have or had their hands down girls and boys pants and apparently Hollyweird has plenty of perverts coming to the surface now as well. Its all about people in power taking advantage.

Many Republicans are saying "well, IF he did this, but this happened so long ago, so who cares?" Yet, when Bill Clinton had accusers, the first thing you righties said was "Throw the bum out!" no questions asked. So, which is it? Condemn ALL sexual predators (like YOUR minority president and the Republicans Senate candidate as well as Bill and Harvey) or tell the accusers to shut up. Which is it?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

I also agree that Trump makes an excellent smokescreen for our problems. But I disagree that it's a good thing, per se. If anything, the fact that we still tolerate losers like Clinton is possible only because so many of our own low information types can point to Trump and say "but, but, but at least she's not that..." As long as that's a thing, we're going to have problems and the rats will continue to drive the ship.

Mr. dark and snowy person, if you were to look back at your posts as I have (and using this one as a good example) all you have to offer any reader is a very loud uninformed view. Your real talent, the thing that makes your posts stand out is that you have an outlandish ability to write degrading demeaning text. You turn your charms on anyone with whom you disagree.

Years ago I used to post in another forum where rude was often the byword, if not rude then snide would do. There was a guy who posted in that forum, his handle was probably bart or new york george or something like that. NYG was the most demeaning human being I have ever encountered anywhere. He has never had a parallel, until now. You and he have the same talent, if you want to call it that.

I don't look at it that way.



Oh what a wonderful world it would be if we could see ourselves as others see us.

salttee wrote:

Mr. dark and snowy person, if you were to look back at your posts as I have (and using this one as a good example) all you have to offer any reader is a very loud uninformed view. Your real talent, the thing that makes your posts stand out is that you have an outlandish ability to write degrading demeaning text. You turn your charms on anyone with whom you disagree.

Years ago I used to post in another forum where rude was often the byword, if not rude then snide would do. There was a guy who posted in that forum, his handle was probably bart or new york george or something like that. NYG was the most demeaning human being I have ever encountered anywhere. He has never had a parallel, until now. You and he have the same talent, if you want to call it that.

I don't look at it...

Ah... Thanks?

In any case, you're making some fairly imaginative, if not precisely impressive, leaps to get that out of what I've said. You should probably read back over this thread's source material if you have an issue with the facts involved. We need to stop pretending we didn't back the wrong horse. We're not making any progress until that happens. Full stop.

As for the rest of your... thoughts there, champ. Just a word to the wise. I only point out failure when folks have really earned it. And even then, it's not a personal thing. That would be more of a interpretive defect on your end. I'll just say this about that... It's a free country and you can feel how ever you want to about things. But one day you're going to grow up and get out into the world and you're going to find things that actually do hurt your feelings. And you'll probably realize then that an internet forum doesn't even show up on that scale. Good luck there, kiddo.

My advice to you: Look in a mirror someday.

The right is so desparate for any little shred of scandal against Hillary that they will alter documents and pay people to make stuff up

http://talesofthenorth.online/hillary-c ... ynn-video/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... /74323940/

And, for the record:

https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton- ... ium=social
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... and-urani/

Take your pick.

And the fact that Republicans defend and elect rapists while Democrats take money from someone who has money somehow makes both parties horrible???

So do Democrats. I suppose you've never heard of the MANY allegations of rape against one William Jefferson Clinton? How he got the Arkansas State Troopers to troll for babes for him, and then cover it up? How Hillary allegedly aided in these and other coverups? Here's one, google "Lolita Express." It's actually aviation related, involving a pedophile, his 727, underage girls, and a guy named Bill dropping his Secret Service protection so that he can take trips on said 727 all alone, with no one but said underage girls. And yes, the flight records are available for all to see. Google is your friend on this.

For the record, I'm not a Trumpy. I voted third party because I couldn't stand Trump, nor could I stand Hillary. Both were and remain arrogant, self-serving trolls. I'm just barely able to hold down my lunch listening to either of them. I just can't stand it when people conveniently forget or forgive Bill for his many, many sexual sins while condemning them from others.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Here's one, google "Lolita Express." It's actually aviation related, involving a pedophile, his 727, underage girls,.

Oh, the same guy that threw the party where Trump raped a 13 year girl tied to a bed......

best regards
Thomas

You mean the lawsuit that was dropped?

https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donal ... e-lawsuit/

In Epstein's case, we have clear corroborated proof of sexual assault. In Bill's case, there are allegations, smear campaigns, payoffs, and coverups going back decades. In this case, we have one plaintiff who has filed and dropped suits against Trump twice now. I don't know if he did it or not, only that in this specific case there appears to be no evidence. Even the detectives assigned to the case didn't really believe it because it didn't fit the mold of the usual Epstein sex party: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... allegation . Epstein liked partying with gals, not guys and gals, apparently.

Now, to get back to Bill and the liberal left pot calling the kettle black... Let's face it, there are sins on both sides of the aisle. Neither party possesses a claim on morality and virtue. Let's just be fair and acknowledge that. If proof comes out that Trump assaulted the then-13 year old girl, then I'll condemn him as loudly as I condemn Slick Willie, who is a true sexual predator. I was essentially raised by two women and I have zero tolerance for sexual assault. That's why I cannot abide the free pass that the liberal left has given Bill for literally decades.

Aptivaboy wrote:

You mean the lawsuit that was dropped?

yup, the one where the victim, despite corroborating eye-witnesses, felt her life is in danger. Sensible decision considering that Trump fans are rape fans and blame murder on the vitims ......

Trump also didn´t sue her, or anyone, for libel, as he has promised on the campaign. He knows why.

best regards
Thomas

Wow, that's a generalization. While I didn't vote for him, several of my friends did, not that their votes mattered in California. I can assure you that these are upstanding people who were simply tired of the then-current regime and wanted a change. You know, hope and change. It works for both sides. Calling everyone a rape supporter who voted for Trump is not only wrong, it demonstrates a basic intolerance of anyone with an opposing view. How very totalitarian of you.

Aptivaboy wrote:

How very totalitarian of you.

yup, i am completely intolerant towards rapists.

I can assure you that these are upstanding people who were simply tired of the then-current regime and wanted a change

That only makes them more despicable. Voting for Trump because you are stupid is one thing, choosing a self admitted sexual predator to get change doesn´t have an excuse, it is simply saying "sexual abuse is fine, as long as i get what i want".

best regards
Thomas

That only makes them more despicable. Voting for Trump because you are stupid is one thing, choosing a self admitted sexual predator to get change doesn´t have an excuse, it is simply saying "sexual abuse is fine, as long as i get what i want".

Again, generalizing and stereotyping. Sigh... Has openmindedness completely left the building? We don't know that Trump committed a crime. Yet. He may have. He may not have. Time will tell, as it usually does in most things. It most certainly has for Bill.

Tell me, was voting for Bill acceptable given what we know about his sordid past? He remains an accused rapist, and the other stories about his proclivities with the younger set are... Disturbing. By your own logic, was voting for Bill alright or wrong? It's a serious question. If you're going to condemn Trump (who again, I'm not a supporter of) then you surely must be alright condemning Bill Clinton, and by extension Hillary whom numerous reports and eyewitness statements have taking a hand in covering up her husbands misdeeds. If you have such zero tolerance for rapists, then you must also have zero tolerance for those who aid and abet them. You know, like Hillary.

So, I'll break it down.

1. Was voting for Bill alright given his record on the subject?
2. Was voting for Hillary alright given the numerous reports and statements that she helped cover them up?

You can't be pro women, in my book, if the answer to either of the above is, "yes."

Bill Clinton hasn't stood for election since 1996; numerous reports and statements = innuendo.

You're really going to have to do better than "what about Clinton" to justify your support for Trump, and we "just wanted change" is really no excuse for supporting a greedy narcissist like Trump.

Aptivaboy wrote:

1. Was voting for Bill alright given his record on the subject?

That he had consensual relations with adult women?

2. Was voting for Hillary alright given the numerous reports and statements that she helped cover them up?

Because having consensual relations with adult women has nothing to do with anything?

The biggest difference between Bill and tRump is that tRump represents the party of family values, one-man-one-woman "traditional" marriage and saying over and over again how much he respects women.
We all know he walked in on teen aged girls naked. We all know he grabs women because he believes he can. We all know he made sexual statements about his own daughter. I will say that if tRump had been honest about being a misogynist d-bag (that we all know he is) at least he would have some respect. Still have heavy opposition on the issues, but at least a little more respect for being honest.

Consensual relations? Bill was accused of rape on multiple occasions?

Again, Google is your friend, and some of these sources are from fairly liberal publications, like the NY Times...

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/b ... broaddrick

http://www.newsweek.com/who-juanita-broaddrick-713259

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opin ... inton.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... llegations

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-ar ... on-2017-11

I could go on. My original question stands. Given Bill's past, given the many allegations of sexual misconduct my multiple nonconsensual women over many years, was it alright for someone to vote for him?

Siren wrote:

Okay, Republicans have been twisting themselves into pretzels for years looking for nonexistent scandals, see Benghazi and the whole Uranium One thing - utterly fictitious allegations with no wrongdoing on Hillary's part. Well, guess what? The reality-based community that I'm a part of is proud to tell you that there's a real scandal now! It involves the fact that Hillary secretly took over the DNC a year before she was officially nominated as the candidate, and months before she officially announced her candidacy.

This is a big deal. This is why Bernie stood no real chance.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 016-215774

No scandal here! Hillary was the chosen one to lead the Party. The choice was made by the big corporate donors and "consultants" working part-time with the Clinton Family foundation. The DNC just found a roundabout way to make the anointment look democratic. Hardly anything scandalous!

Siren wrote:

So, people typically divorced from reality, rejoice! You have an actual Hillary scandal to talk about now! Lock her up!

Unclench!

I dont think Hillary needs to be "locked up". The karmic payback she is receiving now is punishment enough.

Bernie would have made a great president. Unfortunately he didn't quite get the chance he deserved because of Hillary Camps shenanigans. But he may be too old age-wise to lead the liberal movement in 2020. We need to find a new young leader just like him - someone unconnected with the Washington power broker network & with a clear focus on left-liberal politics. A 40-50 year old bernie 2.0.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Consensual relations? Bill was accused of rape on multiple occasions?

Again, Google is your friend, and some of these sources are from fairly liberal publications, like the NY Times...

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/b ... broaddrick

http://www.newsweek.com/who-juanita-broaddrick-713259

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opin ... inton.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... llegations

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-ar ... on-2017-11

I could go on. My original question stands. Given Bill's past, given the many allegations of sexual misconduct my multiple nonconsensual women over many years, was it alright for someone to vote for him?

The women either changed their stories under oath or changed their stories in the media or said one thing to their friends and families but said something completely different to the media. This is very different from Moore and Trump and Weinstein, where the stories are consistent. So, yes, given that the women Clinton encountered could not get their stories straight. Besides, if that is the only requirement for a good candidate, Trump needs to resign yesterday.

Still, zero of this has to do with any alleged Hillary "scandal" the right keeps chasing.

BawliBooch wrote:

Bernie ..... may be too old age-wise to lead the liberal movement in 2020. We need to find a new young leader just like him - someone unconnected with the Washington power broker network & with a clear focus on left-liberal politics. A 40-50 year old bernie 2.0.

Bernie cannot be elected, nor can anyone else who is as extreme or as shrill. The country can and will move leftward by modest steps, not by conquer and take-no-prisoners assault. A moderate tongue can be a wonderful thing.

Senator Kamala Harris would be an attractive vote-winner in 2020.

BobPatterson wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

Bernie ..... may be too old age-wise to lead the liberal movement in 2020. We need to find a new young leader just like him - someone unconnected with the Washington power broker network & with a clear focus on left-liberal politics. A 40-50 year old bernie 2.0.

Bernie cannot be elected, nor can anyone else who is as extreme or as shrill.

Except tRump.

The reason millennials like Bernie is that he says what they are thinking. There are plenty of young and charismatic politicians who can do that. Bernie set the stage. Now millennials need to carry that forward. Once the economy crashes, they will ride the wave.

Seb146, they hardly kept changing their stories. In fact, several of Bill's accusers recently did a brief "occupy" of Sen. Franken's office to publicize the issue of sexual harassment and their own treatment at the hands of Bill, Hillary and the DNC. To the contrary, Bill's accusers have given interview after interview, account after account, on the subject of Bill's sins. If you want to bury your head in the sand, then that's your prerogative. If you wish to be ignorant, then go ahead. But please, don't distort facts. Your rampant Trump hatred is clear. Heck, I'm no fan of the guy myself. The thing is, the Democrats have a serious problem on their hands, one which you clearly WILL NOT ADDRESS.

Here it comes... Bill is guilty of the same sins that you accuse Trump of. And, Hillary clearly helped cover it up. If you are going to roast Trump over the coals, which he may indeed deserve, then will you also roast Bill and Hillary? Will you actually show some spine and hold the Clintons to the same standard that you are holding Trump to? It's a simple question. The real issue is whether you have the stones to actually answer it.

Please, actually show us some spine. Answer the question.

Aptivaboy wrote:

That only makes them more despicable. Voting for Trump because you are stupid is one thing, choosing a self admitted sexual predator to get change doesn´t have an excuse, it is simply saying "sexual abuse is fine, as long as i get what i want".

Again, generalizing and stereotyping. Sigh... Has openmindedness completely left the building?

no, openmindetness towards rape and pedophilia has not left the building, where i life there never was room for those. Interessting that your "good" friends seem to be open minded towards them.

We don't know that Trump committed a crime. Yet. He may have. He may not have. Time will tell, as it usually does in most things. It most certainly has for Bill.

Donald Trump is a self admitted criminal. The only question is if he will ever be convicted of one, not if he committed them. We know he committed crimes because he is on record admitting them. Interesting that you seem to agree with your good and morally upstanding friends grabbing women`s pussy or forcing kisses on them ain´t a crime.
We also know he raped and abused his first wife, it is only the faulty legal US system that allowed him to buy her silence and stay out of prison. We know he did it, because she was never charged with lying under oath.... at least here courts freak out over those and if US courts don´t, your legal system is even more broken than i though.

Tell me, was voting for Bill acceptable given what we know about his sordid past? He remains an accused rapist, and the other stories about his proclivities with the younger set are... Disturbing. By your own logic, was voting for Bill alright or wrong? It's a serious question. If you're going to condemn Trump (who again, I'm not a supporter of) then you surely must be alright condemning Bill Clinton, and by extension Hillary whom numerous reports and eyewitness statements have taking a hand in covering up her husbands misdeeds. If you have such zero tolerance for rapists, then you must also have zero tolerance for those who aid and abet them. You know, like Hillary.

So, I'll break it down.

1. Was voting for Bill alright given his record on the subject?
2. Was voting for Hillary alright given the numerous reports and statements that she helped cover them up?

The same Hilary that ran a child prostitution ring out of a pizza joint, right? The Guardian had a good piece on that especially vile version of whataboutism: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... broaddrick

And btw, if you fail to see the difference between a woman believing her husband and supporting him no matter what is anywhere near the same lever as actually committing sexual abuse, you are beyond selvage anyways.

How much of what we know about Bill Clinton was known a) before he stood elections and b) how many crimes did he admit to as Trump did? If we knew that before the vote, yes, people should not have voted for him. Now that we agree that pigs don´t belong in the White House, can be please go on and Impeach that criminal currently occupying the White House?

You can't be pro women, in my book, if the answer to either of the above is, "yes."

Says the guy that thinks sexual abuse isn´t a crime.

best regards
Thomas

no, openmindetness towards rape and pedophilia has not left the building, where i life there never was room for those. Interessting that your "good" friends seem to be open minded towards them.

I didn't say that and you know it. People voted for Trump for many reasons, like his stance on taxes, the economy, illegal immigration, etc. One voted for Trump specifically due to his pledge to reduce corporate taxes as his business supply firm was essentially put under by a combination of state and federal taxes. So come on, don't stereotype and try to tar and feather people like that. Basically half of the electorate voted for Trump. You can't generalize and claim they're all lunatics or rape supporters, because that isn't true and you know that. As an old speech and debate coach, I find it interesting how the folks in these threads are unable to remain right on point and debate and discuss the actual issues without veering into ad hominems and off onto tangents in efforts to insult others instead of sticking to the points raised.

Aptivaboy wrote:

no, openmindetness towards rape and pedophilia has not left the building, where i life there never was room for those. Interessting that your "good" friends seem to be open minded towards them.

I didn't say that and you know it.

well, they obviously are, doesn´t matter if you say it. If you vote for a rapist, you are ok with rape, period. If you vote for a murderer, you are ok with murder as well.

People voted for Trump for many reasons, like his stance on taxes, the economy, illegal immigration, etc. One voted for Trump specifically due to his pledge to reduce corporate taxes as his business supply firm was essentially put under by a combination of state and federal taxes.

It doesn´t matter how many good reasons you have to vote for someone, if there is any reason not to vote for someone, you don´t. It is not that difficult.

Your reasoning is something that may be somewhat new to the US, but here the easiest way to spot forever yesterday people/Neonazis is when they start "But not everything about Hitler was bad, he build Autobahn and created jobs......... "
People back then could have known better and they should have known better when they voted for that POS. They hab about the chance of a snowball in hell to know as well as the Trumpistas did.

But then again, its the same lot of people that drink beer our of made in China glasses, from their made in China table, out of their made in China fridge, talking to friends on their made in China cellphone, to then cheer on the rapist in chief when he blames China.....
I don´t like China either, so i just don´t buy from them ......... just like i don´t vote for rapists, because only people ok with rape do that.

So come on, don't stereotype and try to tar and feather people like that.

It ain´t a Stereotype if it is true. They knew they voted for a sex predator and they obviously have been ok with elevating a rapist to the highest office. Obviously they don´t have any problem whatsover with sexual assault.

Basically half of the electorate voted for Trump. You can't generalize and claim they're all lunatics or rape supporters, because that isn't true and you know that.

only about 25% of the US electorate voted for Trump. And i didn´t generalize they are all lunatics or rape supporters. Some may just have been stupid and got honestly dooped.

As an old speech and debate coach, I find it interesting how the folks in these threads are unable to remain right on point and debate and discuss the actual issues without veering into ad hominems and off onto tangents in efforts to insult others instead of sticking to the points raised.

I agree, it is highly frustrating that people even discuss a point as simple as "If you vote for a rapist, you are ok with rape, if you think there is a reason more important than that, you don´t care about victims".

Would you give your child to a pedophile kindergartner, because he has such nice plans how to support your kids development?

best regards
Thomas