Leftists reckoning over Bill Clintons sex assault allegations

[ballsofsteel]

(11-17-2017, 12:25 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sorry man, didn't mean to hit a sore spot.  You used to be more clever than that, innovative, creative, etc. 

The only "sore spot" was on all those vajayjay's that Drumph was grabbing in those dressing rooms. He said on tape that they didn't mind so it must be ok.

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 05:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

That’s a lot of syllables to say “none.”

[Dill]

(11-17-2017, 10:34 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Sounds good.  Clinton got a pass, so let's just call Trump the right-wing's even-up call and from now on let's agree to crack down on these kinds of guys no matter which side of the political isle they pander do.  Is that a deal?  I'm serious.  Next guy who is accused of being a rapist by 20 women can't be president.  Just make like Hall & Oates and say "I can't go for that.  No can do."

Clinton did not get a pass on sexual assault. 

As far as the consensual sex, Democratic voters were willing to put the Flowers affair behind them as the Clinton's appeared reconciled. It was considered a personal matter.   It is doubtful he could have been re-elected if the stained dress had come out (no pun intended) before his second term.

This is a long ways from electing a grabber in chief, or standing behind a man accused of molesting many children from a position in power.

There may be more differences of note here. Let's watch how currently accused Republicans and Democrats handle their accusations.

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 05:43 PM)Benton Wrote: That’s a lot of syllables to say “none.”

I'll have to research whether a President is ever released from his Oath of Office. Isn't he still referred to as President? At least I used syllables provided an answer instead of trying to trouble shoot yours. What difference should it make to the taxpayer if the president is "working" or not? 

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 05:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll have to research whether a President is ever released from his Oath of Office. At least I used syllables provided an answer instead of trying to trouble shoot yours. What difference should it make to the taxpayer if the president is "working" or not? 

If you’ve got car trouble, which one is the issue: the car you drive now, or the one you drove 30 years ago?

[Dill]

(11-17-2017, 04:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: 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.

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.

Well said.   You might have added some also don't care what is in that Coke. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 05:52 PM)Benton Wrote: If you’ve got car trouble, which one is the issue: the car you drive now, or the one you drove 30 years ago?

Depends. Am I still paying for the one I drove 30 years ago?

If I am then both are an issue; as dollars spent out to it could provide me with current transportation. If I am not paying for the older vehicle then it has no role in the equation.

We're gonna try this again (I'm seeing a theme): What does it matter to the taxpayer if the are "working" or not?

[Benton]

(11-17-2017, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Depends. Am I still paying for the one I drove 30 years ago?

If I am then both are an issue; as dollars spent out to it could provide me with current transportation. If I am not paying for the older vehicle then it has no role in the equation.

We're gonna try this again (I'm seeing a theme): What does it matter to the taxpayer if the are "working" or not?

Good day.

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2017, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We're gonna try this again (I'm seeing a theme): What does it matter to the taxpayer if the are "working" or not?

(11-17-2017, 08:03 PM)Benton Wrote:

Good day.

We're gonna try this again: What does it matter to the taxpayer if the are "working" or not?

[Vlad]

(11-17-2017, 05:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Clinton did not get a pass on sexual assault. 

As far as the consensual sex, Democratic voters were willing to put the Flowers affair behind them as the Clinton's appeared reconciled. It was considered a personal matter.   It is doubtful he could have been re-elected if the stained dress had come out (no pun intended) before his second term.

This is a long ways from electing a grabber in chief, or standing behind a man accused of molesting many children from a position in power.

There may be more differences of note here. Let's watch how currently accused Republicans and Democrats handle their accusations.

Epic denial

Clinton got a pass period....from democrats, from liberals, and media who either reported the scandal with kid gloves or circled the wagons around Clinton... and especially the feminazis from which you didn't hear a peep.
An lest we forget how Kent Starr was made to look like the evil one.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2017, 10:13 AM)Vlad Wrote: Epic denial

Clinton got a pass period....from democrats, from liberals, and media who either reported the scandal with kid gloves or circled the wagons around Clinton... and especially the feminazis from which you didn't hear a peep.
An lest we forget how Kent Starr was made to look like the evil one.

Clearly.

That's why no one hardly ever mentions it anymore.  

[Vlad]

(11-17-2017, 05:52 PM)Benton Wrote: If you’ve got car trouble, which one is the issue: the car you drive now, or the one you drove 30 years ago?

Lol. Selective statute of limitations? Since when? Slavery ended more than 200 yrs. ago
No black alive has felt the sting of the lash nor is a slave owner still alive but you folks continue to play the slavery card

Clinton and Broderick are both still living.

[GMDino]

Don't know what happened to the other post but:

"Back in the day" Clinton took a LOT of crap for what he did.  From Democrats and Republicans.

Where Clinton got some "slack" was that the Starr investigation started out about one thing and the only thing he got Clinton on was lying under oath about an affair.  A consensual one at that.

Bill knew how to play it for the crowd and gathered a lot of support for his "mistake".

But to pretend that he just got a pass, and that it was based solely on political party is silly and wrong.

[Benton]

(11-20-2017, 10:38 AM)Vlad Wrote: Lol. Selective statute of limitations? Since when? Slavery ended more than 200 yrs. ago
No black alive has felt the sting of the lash nor is a slave owner still alive but you folks continue to play the slavery card

Clinton and Broderick are both still living.

Alcohol at 7 a.m. on a Monday seems like a good idea until you hit the post button...

Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about. I thought it was sexual misconduct by elected officials, and my lack of understanding why 30 year old allegations are suddenly "news" again. Quote marks because the root of news is new information. I'm still not understanding why Clinton is new again... unless he's not, and it's more about circling the wagons around Trump and Moore.

I'm pretty sure Clinton didn't own slaves, but I'm sure you can find an op-ed on that somewhere on the net.

[Bengalholic]

(11-20-2017, 10:38 AM)Vlad Wrote: Lol. Selective statute of limitations? Since when? Slavery ended more than 200 yrs. ago
No black alive has felt the sting of the lash nor is a slave owner still alive but you folks continue to play the slavery card

Clinton and Broderick are both still living.

Curious as to why you didn't post the follow up Tweet?

I’m sorry I’m just seeing this, @atensnut. You are right and I apologize to you for not knowing your story. Democrats along with Republicans and the rest of the worlds’s political parties all need to do better and respect the firsthand accounts of victims. I believe you. https://t.co/VDIFmCvg7g

— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) November 16, 2017

[Bengalholic]

(11-20-2017, 11:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Don't know what happened to the other post but:

"Back in the day" Clinton took a LOT of crap for what he did.  From Democrats and Republicans.

Where Clinton got some "slack" was that the Starr investigation started out about one thing and the only thing he got Clinton on was lying under oath about an affair.  A consensual one at that.

Bill knew how to play it for the crowd and gathered a lot of support for his "mistake".

But to pretend that he just got a pass, and that it was based solely on political party is silly and wrong.

I don't necessarily think it's unfair for people to bring up Clinton and his actions/conduct, especially if it's a part of a bigger conversation about sexual harassment issues resulting from men in positions of power.

Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people just want to bring it up for purely partisan reasons...like pretty much everything else nowadays.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2017, 03:37 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I don't necessarily think it's unfair for people to bring up Clinton and his actions/conduct, especially if it's a part of a bigger conversation about sexual harassment issues resulting from men in positions of power.

Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people just want to bring it up for purely partisan reasons...like pretty much everything else nowadays.

I think that's the only reason.  Or they would talk about any of the other numerous philanderers through the years.

Are his accusations worse or better than anyone else? Of course not.  But the intent of bringing him up is clear when the argument accompanying it is "he got off easy".

[Benton]

(11-20-2017, 03:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think that's the only reason.  Or they would talk about any of the other numerous philanderers through the years.

Are his accusations worse or better than anyone else? Of course not.  But the intent of bringing him up is clear when the argument accompanying it is "he got off easy".

Sure they are, they're way worse than Franken's. Clinton was accused of lecherous behavior in the least and multiple sexual assaults. It was worth a discussion, and the impact of those accusations is worth reflection. It's nearly irrelevant in today's political discussions unless you're comparing the disinterested response many have over the Trump allegations to the disinterested response many had over Clinton's. Even Moore's allegations aren't the same as Clinton's (not better or worse, but sexual relations with teens is different than forcing yourself on adults). 

If Franken's accusations had been worse, or at least numerous, nobody would've dusted off Bill's. But creepy Al isn't enough of a distraction from super creepy Trump or Moore.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2017, 05:01 PM)Benton Wrote: Sure they are, they're way worse than Franken's. Clinton was accused of lecherous behavior in the least and multiple sexual assaults. It was worth a discussion, and the impact of those accusations is worth reflection. It's nearly irrelevant in today's political discussions unless you're comparing the disinterested response many have over the Trump allegations to the disinterested response many had over Clinton's. Even Moore's allegations aren't the same as Clinton's (not better or worse, but sexual relations with teens is different than forcing yourself on adults). 

If Franken's accusations had been worse, or at least numerous, nobody would've dusted off Bill's. But creepy Al isn't enough of a distraction from super creepy Trump or Moore.

Fair point.

I was looking at them being just that "accusations" and carrying no more or less weight until looked into.

[Dill]

(11-20-2017, 10:13 AM)Vlad Wrote: Epic denial

Clinton got a pass period....from democrats, from liberals, and media who either reported the scandal with kid gloves or circled the wagons around Clinton... and especially the feminazis from which you didn't hear a peep.
An lest we forget how Kent Starr was made to look like the evil one.

How is an impeachment vote by the House a "pass"--much less "period"?

"Feminazis" generally don't publicly criticize consensual sex.  Come to think of it, I don't either.

Ken Starr wasted 40 million in taxpayer money following a phony scandal. He made himself look evil. And your kid glove "liberal media" reported the breaking news daily, just as they do now regarding Roy Moore or Al Franken. That's how they "circled the wagons."

Let's remember whom we did hear a peep from,  when the high honor in which "family values" were held by Republicans was said to distinguish them from those lousy DemocRATs, who set aside principles to gain and hold power. Lol

Dennis Hastert’s stunningly hypocritical 1998 speech about impeaching Bill Clinton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/dennis-hasterts-stunningly-hypocritical-1998-speech-about-impeaching-bill-clinton/?utm_term=.b79d9bdc69dc

Gingrich Admits to Affair During Clinton Impeachment
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633

Livingston bows out of the speakership
http://web.archive.org/web/20070313140054/http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/livingston.quits/

That's why even current attempts to deflect attention from Roy Moore and a Commander in chief who was elected AFTER bragging of sexual assault don't resonate much among those who remember the right-wing harassment of the Clintons in the '90s.

Might work with Millenials who neverheard of "Troopergate."