Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[Dill]

(07-17-2018, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure about Mike, but I began to learn about when sources released her attitudes/actions towards Bill's accusers years ago?

Why does the source matter if the action is true?

If the behavior described actually occurred, then we should not discount it, while keeping it in perspective--will it make a difference in competence or leadership?

But he question of sources arises because so many anti-Clinton sources have been pure fabrication.

Also, a central element of "truthiness" is the dwelling on, and circulating, personal impressions of people's character as "fact." Unlike the Hollywood access tape or a tweet claiming Miss Venezuela made a porn tape, or the public mockery of a reporter's disability, most of the so-called dirt on Hillary's personality comes from second and third-hand sources. Someone remembers her roommate told her that her cousin worked for Hillary and she could be a *****.

As far as responses to Bill's accusers, I give wounded wives a lot of leeway in such matters. If she called Monica a "bimbo," I don't hold that against her. (I was astonished at Lucy's vilification of Hillary on the ground she did not leave Bill.) The affairs should count against Bill.

And above all, I don't understand why Hillary's grousing about Bill's affairs should be put on par with Trump's history of women, including wives. Wait, did I say on par? I really wonder why his transgressions and outright damning behavior were dismissed by voters who found Hillary's character wanting.  Could some of this just be gendered judgment?  Women can't do it?