Leftists reckoning over Bill Clintons sex assault allegations

[*jason*]

(11-17-2017, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I found this to be a pretty good read on the matter:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/what-hillary-knew/546170/

I doubt it would have worked. After two years of seeing nothing bring Trump down (talking shit about POWs, insulting Latinos, being a dotard, grabbing vags...), I'm thoroughly convinced he could in fact shoot someone on 52nd St. and not lose votes.

In other words, the people who are all about Trump don't care about those sorts of things... Unless someone else does it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2017, 02:06 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Do you believe the Clinton accusers?

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 03:04 PM)jason Wrote: I doubt it would have worked. After two years of seeing nothing bring Trump down (talking shit about POWs, insulting Latinos, being a dotard, grabbing vags...), I'm thoroughly convinced he could in fact shoot someone on 52nd St. and not lose votes.

In other words, the people who are all about Trump don't care about those sorts of things... Unless someone else does it.

No doubt there is a population out there that were going to vote for Trump because they consider life to be an episode of the Springer Show, but there was also a population out there wanting to be sold by someone else with more moral fiber and Hillary was the worst Candidate the DNC could have trotted out there.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 03:04 PM)jason Wrote: I doubt it would have worked. After two years of seeing nothing bring Trump down (talking shit about POWs, insulting Latinos, being a dotard, grabbing vags...), I'm thoroughly convinced he could in fact shoot someone on 52nd St. and not lose votes.

In other words, the people who are all about Trump don't care about those sorts of things... Unless someone else does it.

Heck Clinton just mentioned a former beauty contestant that Trump called fat and he went on about it for weeks.  Imagine if she had brought in all of Trump's accusers to a debate.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt there is a population out there that were going to vote for Trump because they consider life to be an episode of the Springer Show, but there was also a population out there wanting to be sold by someone else with more moral fiber and Hillary was the worst Candidate the DNC could have trotted out there.

So they voted for Trump.  Kinda dumb.

Clinton is who she is...but Trump is far worse "morally" no matter what Christian Conservatives force themselves to believe.

If it was a "lesser of two evils" thing they even failed at that.

[*jason*]

(11-17-2017, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt there is a population out there that were going to vote for Trump because they consider life to be an episode of the Springer Show, but there was also a population out there wanting to be sold by someone else with more moral fiber and Hillary was the worst Candidate the DNC could have trotted out there.

Agreed.

[*jason*]

(11-17-2017, 03:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: So they voted for Trump.  Kinda dumb.

Clinton is who she is...but Trump is far worse "morally" no matter what Christian Conservatives force themselves to believe.

Hillary Clinton had a built in pack of haters from the get go. That's why she was such a poor choice of a candidate. I personally don't think much of her, but some HATE her.

Before 2015 I didn't have much of an opinion on Donald Trump. I though his TV show sucked, and knew he was tabloid fodder in my youth. I kinda took his candidacy as joke... Joke's on me I guess.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 03:34 PM)jason Wrote: Hillary Clinton had a built in pack of haters from the get go. That's why she was such a poor choice of a candidate. I personally don't think much of her, but some HATE her.

Before 2015 I didn't have much of an opinion on Donald Trump. I though his TV show sucked, and knew he was tabloid fodder in my youth. I kinda took his candidacy as joke... Joke's on me I guess.

I understand that part of it.  So many people "know" her.  I certainly didn't think she was the best candidate.  But head and shoulders better than Trump.  Professionally, ethically and morally.

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 03:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: So they voted for Trump.  Kinda dumb.

Clinton is who she is...but Trump is far worse "morally" no matter what Christian Conservatives force themselves to believe.  

If it was a "lesser of two evils" thing they even failed at that.

Your opinion of who is morally superior is nothing more than that and your diagnosis of Christian Conservatives is one based on ignorance.

Clinton can match Trump scandal for scandal and the bigger issue is that Hills occurred while a public servant; Trump's happened as a private citizen.

I merely stated those looking for a candidate of strong moral fiber could consider Hills v. Trump a wash; then vote the politics which better suited their own.



Speaking of strong moral fiber; Did you ever answer SSF?

[Vas Deferens]

(11-17-2017, 02:59 PM)jason Wrote: Yeah... Maybe he should have a drink, and lighten up.

I personally see it as a sign of weakness when people tout the fact they've never had a drink, smoked a joint, yada yada.  Do whatever you want, its up to you.  But parading it around like its some sign of a higher being is more telling than the act of abstaining itself.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 03:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your opinion of who is morally superior is nothing more than that and your diagnosis of Christian Conservatives is one based on ignorance.

Clinton can match Trump scandal for scandal and the bigger issue is that Hills occurred while a public servant; Trump's happened as a private citizen.

I merely stated those looking for a candidate of strong moral fiber could consider Hills v. Trump a wash; then vote the politics which better suited their own.



Speaking of strong moral fiber; Did you ever answer SSF?

I suppose if one wants to ignore everything Trump says or did while a private citizen and then compares it to what Clinton did while her husband was POTUS that would make sense.

My "diagnosis" of Christian Conservatives comes from observing them online, in videos, on the news and in person.  So maybe it's ignorant and I just just choose a party and stick with it.

Did Joe ask me something?  I must have missed it. 

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 03:45 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I personally see it as a sign of weakness when people tout the fact they've never had a drink, smoked a joint, yada yada.  Do whatever you want, its up to you.  But parading it around like its some sign of a higher being is more telling than the act of abstaining itself.

I'll be fair to Trump:  I don't remember him making a big deal out of it like it made him a better person.  He might have and I missed it, but I always took it more as a reaction to seeing an alcoholic in his family and what it did to him.

[Vas Deferens]

(11-17-2017, 03:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll be fair to Trump:  I don't remember him making a big deal out of it like it made him a better person.  He might have and I missed it, but I always took it more as a reaction to seeing an alcoholic in his family and what it did to him.

Sure.  I wasn't calling out trump on this.  Speaking generally.  

That being said.  I hope they put Trumps name on the Bud can next summer.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 03:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Sure.  I wasn't calling out trump on this.  Speaking generally.  

That being said.  I hope they put Trumps name on the Bud can next summer.

Got it.

He did have Trump Vodka...which would be weird given his stance on it.

Trump beer?  Could it be worse than Billy Beer?

[*Nately120*]

(11-17-2017, 02:31 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Eh........ I dunno. Truth is we don't "know" as much as we like to believe we know. Everyone thinks they "know" politicians like they're their blood brother or sister. But truth is, most people don't even "know" what their brothers and sisters are even doing themselves in their day to day life.

Not attacking you here. Just kind of making the point that people like to paint the picture of who someone is based on what we "know" about them. But really.... what do we know about anyone In their personal life whom we've never had a personal relationship? I guess what I'm also saying is people sort of play "Saint" politics which I think is the wrong way to go about things.

Yes, but that's a moot point because I like to think (and I may be full o' crap here) the moment 20 women say that Gary Johnson sexually assaulted them and then Gary Johnson sweetens the pot by telling people how much he loves to sexually assault women, he loses my vote.  Maybe not though.  

And we can't "know" politicians anyways.  We don't know anything that is produced and marketed for mass-consumption.  Think of someone who swears Coke is the best stuff on earth and drinks it every day but has no idea what is in it.  Yes, politicians are like soda pop...over-marketed and misrepresented junk that people gladly guzzle as if it were nectar from the gods.

(11-17-2017, 03:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll be fair to Trump:  I don't remember him making a big deal out of it like it made him a better person.  He might have and I missed it, but I always took it more as a reaction to seeing an alcoholic in his family and what it did to him.

So Trump sexually assaults women, watches teen girls undress, and mocks the disabled when he's stone-cold sober.  Hey great, how many of us have done worse things than that while drinking?  I know I haven't.  Gold star for me.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

OP submits topic
First post deflects from topic
Rest of thread is deflection and others trying to get the train back on track.

The thread is about Bill Clinton
A question was posed to find out if another poster believed the women who accused Bill Clinton, which is the actual topic.
Then someone posted that Trump actually raped someone.

[*Nately120*]

(11-17-2017, 04:04 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: OP submits topic
First post deflects from topic
Rest of thread is deflection and others trying to get the train back on track.

The thread is about Bill Clinton
A question was posed to find out if another poster believed the women who accused Bill Clinton, which is the actual topic.
Then someone posted that Trump actually raped someone.

Meh, we've had decades to talk about Bill Clinton's sexual deviancy...get with the now! And I pointed out before, it's Trump's own damn fault that you can't innocently talk about serial-rapist politicians without him becoming aptly relevant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2017, 04:04 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: OP submits topic
First post deflects from topic
Rest of thread is deflection and others trying to get the train back on track.

The thread is about Bill Clinton
A question was posed to find out if another poster believed the women who accused Bill Clinton, which is the actual topic.
Then someone posted that Trump actually raped someone.

And, of course, he still won't answer a simple direct question.  The reason being is that answering it will expose his utter hypocrisy no matter how he answers.  He answers yes then he admits to supporting a candidate who devoted considerable energy to destroying the reputation of Bill's accusers.  He says no he admits to not taking women who claim they've been assaulted seriously.  There's a very obvious reason for his moral cowardice and his attempts at glib deflection aren't fooling anyone.

The only positive of this is that he'll never be able to claim the moral high ground on any future issue.  His sanctimony will be more laughable than nauseating. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 03:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I suppose if one wants to ignore everything Trump says or did while a private citizen and then compares it to what Clinton did while her husband was POTUS that would make sense.

My "diagnosis" of Christian Conservatives comes from observing them online, in videos, on the news and in person.  So maybe it's ignorant and I just just choose a party and stick with it.

Did Joe ask me something?  I must have missed it. 

I'm not sure where anyone suggested one should ignore what Trump did.

Of course SSF asked you a question; however, you cannot answer it without looking more foolish than you do by not answering it. But I will answer the question posed:

I believe the Clinton accusers in exactly the same way I do the Trump accusers. An accusation shown to have any merit should be further investigated; however, a simple accusation is not proof of guilt.   

[Vas Deferens]

(11-17-2017, 04:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, we've had decades to talk about Bill Clinton's sexual deviancy...get with the now!  And I pointed out before, it's Trump's own damn fault that you can't innocently talk about serial-rapist politicians without him becoming aptly relevant.

How can we make america great AGAIN without rehashing the past?  It makes the destruction of our country and livelihoods of future generations for CURRENT quick gains much easier to ignore.  Who cares about the toxic sludge raining down on us when a CLINTON was once in office!!!

While were at it.  Why not rewrite the history books to tell the real story of our founding fathers?  TOO FAR!