Leftists reckoning over Bill Clintons sex assault allegations

[Benton]

(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.

(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.

I guess I just don't really understand why Clinton is suddenly a subject again. It's like "hey, did ya hear, JFK cheated on his wife?"

This was news a couple decades ago, but is there any reason it's rehashed now?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2017, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure where anyone suggested one should ignore what Trump did.

I have a friend (I see her rarely, she works in the music touring industry so I usually se her during Coachella) who told me about Trump groping her at a party.  She told me this years ago, and added that after he did it he joined a group of guys who leered and her and laughed.  I believe women who say they've been groped by him.  See, GM, it's not that hard to answer.

Quote: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:

For all the inane attempts at insults he and he twin attempt they can't credibly claim that the questions they posed aren't addressed.  OF course, they can condescend to the answers, and almost always do, but they always get an answer.  It's highly revealing when someone flat out refuses to answer a simple question.  He knows the bind any answer would put him in and watching him squirm in this thread has been very entertaining.

Quote: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.   

I would add that for a person, any person, but especially a woman accusing a powerful man, to stick with their story for years, despite near constant persecution and attacks on their character shows their claim has considerable merit.  She could have faded away into the woodwork and has refused to do so, despite the consequences.  That should tell anyone something about the likely truth of her story.

[*Nately120*]

(11-17-2017, 04:20 PM)Benton Wrote: I guess I just don't really understand why Clinton is suddenly a subject again. It's like "hey, did ya hear, JFK cheated on his wife?"

This was news a couple decades ago, but is there any reason it's rehashed now?

Because his wife ran for president?  It's not like they've kept a low profile.

(11-17-2017, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would add that for a person, any person, but especially a woman accusing a powerful man, to stick with their story for years, despite near constant persecution and attacks on their character shows their claim has considerable merit.  She could have faded away into the woodwork and has refused to do so, despite the consequences.  That should tell anyone something about the likely truth of her story.

And this is why powerful predators can get away with this sort of stuff and run-of-the-mill predators choose targets that are of lower status or otherwise compromised.  As long as you have some buffer of "power" over the accuser you can cast doubt on their story.

[*bfine32*]

(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/

(11-17-2017, 04:20 PM)Benton Wrote: I guess I just don't really understand why Clinton is suddenly a subject again. It's like "hey, did ya hear, JFK cheated on his wife?"

This was news a couple decades ago, but is there any reason it's rehashed now?

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

Quote:Enough time has passed that outing Clinton for his alleged sex crimes now has the same retro “Oh grow up” feeling as revealing that John F. Kennedy had lovers—nobody’s perfect. But let’s not fool ourselves. “I believe Juanita” doesn’t just mean that you’re generally in favor of believing women when they report sex crimes. It means you believe that for eight years our country was in the hands of a violent rapist

Told ya it was a good read and she really knows the mentality of the liberal mind.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 04:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

(11-17-2017, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.   

(11-17-2017, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a friend (I see her rarely, she works in the music touring industry so I usually se her during Coachella) who told me about Trump groping her at a party.  She told me this years ago, and added that after he did it he joined a group of guys who leered and her and laughed.  I believe women who say they've been groped by him.  See, GM, it's not that hard to answer.




For all the inane attempts at insults he and he twin attempt they can't credibly claim that the questions they posed aren't addressed.  OF course, they can condescend to the answers, and almost always do, but they always get an answer.  It's highly revealing when someone flat out refuses to answer a simple question.  He knows the bind any answer would put him in and watching him squirm in this thread has been very entertaining.



I would add that for a person, any person, but especially a woman accusing a powerful man, to stick with their story for years, despite near constant persecution and attacks on their character shows their claim has considerable merit.  She could have faded away into the woodwork and has refused to do so, despite the consequences.  That should tell anyone something about the likely truth of her story.

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 04:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/what-hillary-knew/546170/


Told ya it was a good read and she really knows the mentality of the liberal mind.

So... the answer is nothing? There's nothing new, it's just more partisan "that side is worse"?

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 04:41 PM)Benton Wrote: So... the answer is nothing? There's nothing new, it's just more partisan "that side is worse"?

Well, I think the "new" is the recent rash of sexual predators being exposed and as Nately mentioned; it's not as if the Clintons has strived to fade into anonymity. I don't think it's a case of "worse"; I think it's more of a case of their hands aren't clean either.

But it was cool how she nailed the Kennedy reference wasn't it?   

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 04:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/what-hillary-knew/546170/


Told ya it was a good read and she really knows the mentality of the liberal mind.

(11-17-2017, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.   

But that's not what the article says about the "liberal mind"

Quote:Enough time has passed that outing Clinton for his alleged sex crimes now has the same retro “Oh grow up” feeling as revealing that John F. Kennedy had lovers—nobody’s perfect. But let’s not fool ourselves. “I believe Juanita” doesn’t just mean that you’re generally in favor of believing women when they report sex crimes. It means you believe that for eight years our country was in the hands of a violent rapist

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2017, 04:39 PM)GMDino Wrote:

(11-17-2017, 04:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: But that's not what the article says about the "liberal mind"

Do you believe the women accusing Bill Clinton of rape/sexual battery/harassment?

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a friend (I see her rarely, she works in the music touring industry so I usually se her during Coachella) who told me about Trump groping her at a party.  She told me this years ago, and added that after he did it he joined a group of guys who leered and her and laughed.  I believe women who say they've been groped by him.  See, GM, it's not that hard to answer.

Oh I have no doubt Trump has taken liberties; however, has he continued to press once he has been told to desist? For instance did your friend tell him she didn't appreciate his actions

Quote:For all the inane attempts at insults he and he twin attempt they can't credibly claim that the questions they posed aren't addressed.  OF course, they can condescend to the answers, and almost always do, but they always get an answer.  It's highly revealing when someone flat out refuses to answer a simple question.  He knows the bind any answer would put him in and watching him squirm in this thread has been very entertaining.

Some people in this forum are forthright and some people in this forum are nothing more than a persona. For instance Lucie is most likely a persona; however, he is consistent in his words; regardless how repugnant they may be.

Quote:I would add that for a person, any person, but especially a woman accusing a powerful man, to stick with their story for years, despite near constant persecution and attacks on their character shows their claim has considerable merit.  She could have faded away into the woodwork and has refused to do so, despite the consequences.  That should tell anyone something about the likely truth of her story.

As I said anything of merit should be investigated

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, I think the "new" is the recent rash of sexual predators being exposed and as Nately mentioned; it's not as if the Clintons has strived to fade into anonymity. I don't think it's a case of "worse"; I think it's more of a case of their hands aren't clean either.

But it was cool how she nailed the Kennedy reference wasn't it?   

Why because the first thing that comes to mind regarding decades old allegations that have already been allegated is another case of decades old allegations that have already been allegated?

Yeah. Cool.



But, anyway, you're saying there's "new" allegations against Clinton?

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 04:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Why because the first thing that comes to mind regarding decades old allegations that have already been allegated is another case of decades old allegations that have already been allegated?

Yeah. Cool.



But, anyway, you're saying there's "new" allegations against Clinton?

I suppose you didn't read what I typed.

I would say alledged actions by Clinton and Trump are both things of history' however, that didn't stop a lot of folks from bringing them up yesterday when Franken was shown to be a creep.

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 04:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose you didn't read what I typed.

I would say alledged actions by Clinton and Trump are both things of history' however, that didn't stop a lot of folks from bringing them up yesterday when Franken was shown to be a creep.

Clinton — like JFK — is history. Franken and Trump are currently working for taxpayers. 

In the context of how accusers are treated, I can understand Clinton (or JFK for that matter) as part of a conversation.  But I don't see this as a conversation about accusers, it just comes off as a weak deflection of alleged sex offenses. As far as Franken and Trump I don't see the relevance, largely because of how Clinton and JFK's indiscretions were treated by opponents. All we heard during Clinton's impeachment, and in the accusations that came later, was how horrible and unable to lead he was because of alleged assaults/affairs... now all we hear is that those accusations don't matter because they're 14 or equally as unproven. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 05:07 PM)Benton Wrote: Clinton — like JFK — is history. Franken and Trump are currently working for taxpayers. 

Is Clinton receiving taxpayer dollars?

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is Clinton receiving taxpayer dollars?

Of course, as all retired presidents are. Is he currently working for them?

[CageTheBengal]

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

Could you imagine what drunk Trump would sound like?

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 05:11 PM)Benton Wrote: Of course, as all retired presidents are. Is he currently working for them?

Yes, all retired Presidents are

[GMDino]

(11-17-2017, 04:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Why because the first thing that comes to mind regarding decades old allegations that have already been allegated is another case of decades old allegations that have already been allegated?

Yeah. Cool.



But, anyway, you're saying there's "new" allegations against Clinton?

FDR was well known for his affairs too.  What about Thomas Jefferson?!?!

How were they handled?!?!

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 05:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, all retired Presidents are

Ok, I'll bite. What're the employment requirements of ex-presidents?

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 05:23 PM)Benton Wrote: Ok, I'll bite. What're the employment requirements of ex-presidents?

To represent the United States and her interests. Regardless, I do not see the relevance of "working for". Each is getting paid by the taxpayer and their actions are of taxpayer interest.