Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why is the supposed sexual assaults/rapes/affairs that Bill Clinton had relevant to Hillary Clinton's candidacy?

Hillary Clinton is running for president, not Bill Clinton. Bill can't be the president ever again.


I see tons of arguments, even from Trump himself, about Bill Clinton's sexual exploits as though Bill's mistakes disqualify Hillary from being president.



Why?

There are at least 12 accusers, former models and porn stars who have accused him of innapropriate touching and groping. Some rape accusations and a clip of him bragging about "grabbing by the pussy". By saying this, Bill Clinton has admitted to being a rapist, he also said "if chelsea wasnt my daughter, id date her"

Trump's wife defended him against rape court cases and they showed up to the second debate where Trump pulled the most guilty face ive ever seen. They were pissed. He also dicked an office clerk, which is sexual harassment.

Imo, Melania is running for president, so the actions of her husband are completely irrelevant because they are different people.






This is weak bait, dadudemon. Slide thread.

Her own campaign thought so.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33933

Originally posted by Its2016
There are at least 12 accusers, former models and porn stars who have accused him of innapropriate touching and groping. Some rape accusations and a clip of him bragging about "grabbing by the pussy". By saying this, Bill Clinton has admitted to being a rapist, he also said "if chelsea wasnt my daughter, id date her"

Trump's wife defended him against rape court cases and they showed up to the second debate where Trump pulled the most guilty face ive ever seen. They were pissed. He also dicked an office clerk, which is sexual harassment.

Imo, Melania is running for president, so the actions of her husband are completely irrelevant because they are different people.






This is weak bait, dadudemon. Slide thread.


This is not bait. I still did not read a single argument for why Bill Clinton's sexual problems are Hillary's.


Does it make us at risk of electing a candidate that will assault people while in office? No.

Should Hillary be put in jail for sexually assaulting or raping someone? No.



So why is it relevant? It seems like a very weak argument against Clinton's candidacy. So weak that it comes off pathetic in my mind. It is trying too hard to character assassinate Hillary when there are PLENTY of things to hate Hillary for.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Her own campaign thought so.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/33933

DDM READ THIS..

Originally posted by Its2016
There are at least 12 accusers, former models and porn stars who have accused him of innapropriate touching and groping. Some rape accusations and a clip of him bragging about "grabbing by the pussy". By saying this, Bill Clinton has admitted to being a rapist, he also said "if chelsea wasnt my daughter, id date her"

Trump's wife defended him against rape court cases and they showed up to the second debate where Trump pulled the most guilty face ive ever seen. They were pissed. He also dicked an office clerk, which is sexual harassment.

Imo, Melania is running for president, so the actions of her husband are completely irrelevant because they are different people.

This is weak bait, dadudemon. Slide thread.


Are you drunk already? You didn't give DDM a relevant answer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is not bait. I still did not read a single argument for why Bill Clinton's sexual problems are Hillary's.


Does it make us at risk of electing a candidate that will assault people while in office? No.

Should Hillary be put in jail for sexually assaulting or raping someone? No.



So why is it relevant? It seems like a very weak argument against Clinton's candidacy. So weak that it comes off pathetic in my mind. It is trying too hard to character assassinate Hillary when there are PLENTY of things to hate Hillary for. What is a first lady?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
DDM READ THIS..

I am aware of this already. This is simply risk mitigation in a political campaign to fight against attacks against her character. This is good political campaigning because of the attacks against her character that were showing up in the news.


In that very same e-mail, it also says, "Is his conduct relevant to your campaign?"

The answer should be "no" because Bill is not running for president.


She should not apologize to any women because she did not assault them. Apologizing would at least admit partial guilt on Bill's part, too. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Its2016
What is a first lady?

Not the President.


I didn't get to vote on any of my first lady's, did you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not the President.


I didn't get to vote on any of my first lady's, did you? Well, yes you did. What is a marriage?

She is married to a admitted liar, cheat and molester. She Is STILL MARRIED to A LIAR, CHEAT ,AND MOLESTER.

That says just as much about her as it does about him.

But then Leftists have always been pretty weak when it comes to Morale Issues.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
She is married to a admitted liar, cheat and molester. She Is STILL MARRIED to A LIAR, CHEAT ,AND MOLESTER.

That says just as much about her as it does about him.

But then Leftists have always been pretty weak when it comes to Morale Issues.

Trump is a liar, a cheater and a molester, an admitted and proud one at that

Vote Trump.

Originally posted by Its2016
Well, yes you did. What is a marriage?

I never saw any of the spouses on the ballots when voting, before.

And the spouse is not the candidate, as well, as should be obvious.

Like I said, Bill Clinton is not running for president.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
She is married to a admitted liar, cheat and molester. She Is STILL MARRIED to A LIAR, CHEAT ,AND MOLESTER.

That says just as much about her as it does about him.

That she holds her wedding vows to be important and that she is a loyal and committed person?


That's a bad argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump is a liar, a cheater and a molester, an admitted and proud one at that

Vote Trump.

Yes. Yes He is. And He is also not my First Choice.
But he is still a way better choice then The ***** You are backing.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes. Yes He is. And He is also not my First Choice.
But he is still a way better choice then The ***** You are backing.

I would agree to that for the most part. Except that I just think he is a slightly better candidate.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes. Yes He is. And He is also not my First Choice.
But he is still a way better choice then The ***** You are backing.

Right, right, how the rats flee a sinking ship.

Meh, I really don't care if you dislike Bernie.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump is a liar, a cheater and a molester, an admitted and proud one at that

Vote Trump. None of that is true.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I never saw any of the spouses on the ballots when voting, before.

And the spouse is not the candidate, as well, as should be obvious.

Like I said, Bill Clinton is not running for president. So a vote for Ronald Reagan didnt vote Nancy Reagan as first lady? A vote for Bill Clinton didnt get Hillary Clinton as first lady?


What is a marriage?

Originally posted by Robtard
Right, right, how the rats flee a sinking ship.

Meh, I really don't care if you dislike Bernie. You mean to admit youre drowning?

Originally posted by Its2016
None of that is true.

Trump lies. Trump has cheating on multiple wives. Trump admitted to being a sexual predator.

Originally posted by Its2016
You mean to admit youre drowning?

? Can you not read.

Originally posted by Its2016
So a vote for Ronald Reagan didnt vote Nancy Reagan as first lady? A vote for Bill Clinton didnt get Hillary Clinton as first lady?


Correct. Similarly, my GF didn't get hired for my job, I did. When you hire someone, it is not their spouse, it is them.

The number of men I know that have absurdly crazy spouses is too damn high. If I decided whether or not to like a dude based on his crazy spouse, I'd be limiting my options in friends. Also, I know for a fact that you've had some crazy "friends" in your life before but I still think you're good people. Should I be faulted for that?

Also, some of the traits that make for a great employee make a bad spouse.


Originally posted by Its2016
What is a marriage?


"...the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."



If the president dies, the First Lady does not become president. You don't have to worry, Bill Clinton won't be president WHEN Hillary gets elected.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump lies. Trump has cheating on multiple wives. Trump admitted to being a sexual predator.



? Can you not read. "grab em by the pussy, they let you do it"

And you say i cant read.

You jumped from bern to hill faster than he gave her his donations. Youre the rat.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correct. Similarly, my GF didn't get hired for my job, I did. When you hire someone, it is not their spouse, it is them.

The number of men I know that have absurdly crazy spouses is too damn high. If I decided whether or not to like a dude based on his crazy spouse, I'd be limiting my options in friends. Also, I know for a fact that you've had some crazy "friends" in your life before but I still think you're good people. Should I be faulted for that?

Also, some of the traits that make for a great employee make a bad spouse.





"...the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."



If the president dies, the First Lady does not become president. You don't have to worry, Bill Clinton won't be president WHEN Hillary gets elected. Bill gave Hill a job in the white house, so why not vice versa? He was gonna improve our obamaconomy as well. He is not your wife. Hes possibly first lady.

What is a first lady?
What is a marriage?

Are you mentally ill?

How about this, do you want a rapist as first lady incharge of important white house stuff? Because thats a vote for Hillary. Idiot.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is the supposed sexual assaults/rapes/affairs that Bill Clinton had relevant to Hillary Clinton's candidacy?

Hillary Clinton is running for president, not Bill Clinton. Bill can't be the president ever again.


I see tons of arguments, even from Trump himself, about Bill Clinton's sexual exploits as though Bill's mistakes disqualify Hillary from being president.



Why?

I will grant you that Bill isn't the one running for president. I would also hope you will grant me the fact that this is not a normal case. Bill Clinton would not be a normal presidents spouse, and it has nothing to do with the fact he'd be the first man married to a president of this country.

I would think just being the spouse of the president gives one some clout. Now keep in mind 99.9% of the time the spouses haven't been politicians with DECADES of experience. To think she won't rely on Bill more than a president would usually rely on a spouse would be wrong IMO.

So if Trumps sexual history makes him not a good fit for the presidency, I don't want someone with potentially a similar history having a lot of influence either.

Originally posted by Surtur
So if Trumps sexual history makes him not a good fit for the presidency, I don't want someone with potentially a similar history having a lot of influence either. Then you shouldn't be voting for either.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then you shouldn't be voting for either.

Granted, but I'm trying to explain why people feel it's relevant. The liberals made sexual history relevant, and that is a two way street.

I would have no problem if we never mention the sexual history of either of them.

Is that maybe perhaps because it looks far worse for Trump than it does Hillary Clinton?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is that maybe perhaps because it looks far worse for Trump than it does Hillary Clinton?

At this point a rapist and a rape enabler both would belong in that basket of deplorables.

It is funny how people Rationalize how the act in their personal lives vs how they act in their professional lives.

I mean if you are a liar and a cheat with fam and friends why by golly you wouldn't do that with in your work life.

Noooo NEVER!

Rape culture exists, but it's excused if you are a democrat.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rape culture exists

True, remember how Brock Turner got a lenient sentence and nobody said anything?

Are you actually trying to sarcasm that the Brock Turner case wasn't proof towards a "rape culture"? Cos lolz.

Rob we both know rape is accepted and hidden and discarded as much as possible if you are a liberal democrat with connections.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you actually trying to sarcasm that the Brock Turner case wasn't proof towards a "rape culture"? Cos lolz.

Do you think rape is the only kind of violent crime someone has ever gotten a lenient sentence over? Cos lolz.

You can't even get in trouble in the Leftist/Progressive/Socialist/Democrat Side of things if you send the wrong emails.

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you think rape is the only kind of violent crime someone has ever gotten a lenient sentence over? Cos lolz.

How is that relevant with the Turner case and rape culture?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rob we both know rape is accepted and hidden and discarded as much as possible if you are a liberal democrat with connections.

We do?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
You can't even get in trouble in the Leftist/Progressive/Socialist/Democrat Side of things if you send the wrong emails.

Case in point. How do you even prosecute Hillary ar this point?

Originally posted by Robtard
How is that relevant?

I suppose it's not as long as you think we also live in a "any kind of violent crime" culture.

Let me put this another way: women have gotten either no punishment or very lenient punishments for lying about rape. Even when their lies resulted in the men spending time in prison.

Do we live in a "lie about rape" culture too?

It is true that you cannot run for president as a republican without being accused of rape, racism, or being a nazi.

Originally posted by Surtur
I suppose it's not as long as you think we also live in a "any kind of violent crime" culture.

Let me put this another way: women have gotten either no punishment or very lenient punishments for lying about rape. Even when their lies resulted in the men spending time in prison.

Do we live in a "lie about rape" culture too?

One wrong does not excuse another.

I for one think that's crap and I do think people who falsely accuse another of rape should be punished, but also, lying about being raped is less serious than actually committing a rape if we're leaving emotions out of it.

But yeah, back to the Turner case, that was classic "rape culture", college guy rapes an unconcious college girl and gets little more than a slap-on-the-wrist because some people were worried it would ruin his college experience and life.

I'm starting to think this is a side show to distract from the Wikileaks and up coming release of hillarys actual emails she "deleted"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It is true that you cannot run for president as a republican without being accused of rape, racism, or being a nazi.

Oh shit I'm glad you mentioned nazi's. We live in a nazi culture too then. Operation Paperclip and all that jazz. This is fun, America really IS a boiling pot of diversity.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm starting to think this is a side show to distract from the Wikileaks and up coming release of hillarys actual emails she "deleted"

DDM made the thread and if you want to go back to the topic, sure.

Huh?

Originally posted by Robtard
One wrong does not excuse another.

I for one thinks that's crap and I do think people who falsely accuse another of rape should be punished, but also, lying about being raped is less serious than actually committing a rape if we're leaving emotions out of it.

I disagree really. We can leave emotions out of it, spending years in prison..for one. Having a reputation that is forever ruined, for another. I guarantee you even some of these men who have been cleared STILL have that stigma.

I'm also not trying to excuse anything. I'm saying if the logic being used is "this person more or less got away with a crime so it proves a rape culture" we apply that to everything. So our culture is a rape culture, murder culture, pedophilia culture, drunk driving culture, etc.



Okay so the "some people" worried about his college experience seemed to be his dad lol. The judge who gave him that sentence went to the same school, did he not? So is this an example of rape culture or an example of elitist douches doing whatever the f*ck they want culture?

A guy got a lenient sentence for rape and a majority of the country was in an up roar about it. I didn't notice the same uproar for the men whose lives were ruined over false accusations, did you? I didn't see the same uproar for the kid who got away with killing people while drunk. I don't see the same uproar over the fact women tend to get far more lenient sentences for violent crimes than men do.

So if the Brock thing is proof towards a rape culture, well what does everything I said say about our culture then? What is that proof towards? Besides the hypocrisy of the country.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Huh? It seemed you said I was trying to distract away from the wikileaks. I pointed out that I didn't make this thread, if so.

I mean the FBI

Originally posted by Surtur
I disagree really. We can leave emotions out of it, spending years in prison..for one. Having a reputation that is forever ruined, for another. I guarantee you even some of these men who have been cleared STILL have that stigma.

I'm also not trying to excuse anything. I'm saying if the logic being used is "this person more or less got away with a crime so it proves a rape culture" we apply that to everything. So our culture is a rape culture, murder culture, pedophilia culture, drunk driving culture, etc.



Okay so the "some people" worried about his college experience seemed to be his dad lol. The judge who gave him that sentence went to the same school, did he not? So is this an example of rape culture or an example of elitist douches doing whatever the f*ck they want culture?

A guy got a lenient sentence for rape and a majority of the country was in an up roar about it. I didn't notice the same uproar for the men whose lives were ruined over false accusations, did you? I didn't see the same uproar for the kid who got away with killing people. I don't see the same uproar over the fact women tend to get far more lenient sentences for violent crimes than men do.

So if the Brock thing is proof towards a rape culture, well what does everything I said say about our culture then? What is that proof towards?

Seems like you're saying words are worse than actions now?

Well no, don't think we try to excuse away and/or victim blame when it comes to murder, child molestation, drunk driving etc like we do with women being raped. At least not in the same degree.

Why do they have to be exclusive or each other? Couldn't it be a combo or all?

You're going to have to give specific examples. As far as "blowing up" though, that's the social media society we live in today. End of the day, Turner still got a wrist-slap cos "boo-hoo, poor guy, think about his life", despite all the FB and Twitter rage.

You know what, never mind. Reading that, this is a futile argument.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I mean the FBI

The FBI is working with Clinton now?

Ok we are talking two different languages now. Nvm

You're being vague, instead of having me guess what you're saying, just say it?

I was posing in the wrong thread rob

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I was posing in the wrong thread rob

There you go, simple and clear explanation. No worries.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like you're saying words are worse than actions now?

Well no, don't think we try to excuse away and/or victim blame when it comes to murder, child molestation, drunk driving etc like we do with women being raped. At least not in the same degree.

Why do they have to be exclusive or each other? Couldn't it be a combo or all?

You're going to have to give specific examples. As far as "blowing up" though, that's the social media society we live in today. End of the day, Turner still got a wrist-slap cos "boo-hoo, poor guy, think about his life", despite all the FB and Twitter rage.

You know what, never mind. Reading that, this is a futile argument.

You're shifting the argument. You said a rapist getting a lenient sentence was proof of rape culture. You did not say "people blaming victims means rape culture".

Thus it's simple: we live in a lie about rape culture, a drunk driving culture, a murder culture, and a molestation culture.

Also let's not be naive: words CAN be damaging when they f*ck your life up, when they land you years in prison for no reason. We aren't talking about mere hurt feelings.

You also can't just shrug off the outrage shown because part of the shit the rape culture people spout is how people are indifferent.

So in reality this decision came down to a single man, the judge, who went to the same school as Brock did. The people saying "don't let this ruin his life" were mostly his own family.

Originally posted by Its2016
Bill gave Hill a job in the white house, so why not vice versa? He was gonna improve our obamaconomy as well. He is not your wife. Hes possibly first lady.

So your point is what? That he will be the first Gentleman? Someone who we won't vote for? Someone who won't be president and won't have prsidental power? Is that your point?

Originally posted by Its2016
What is a first lady?

Female spouse of the PotUS.


Originally posted by Its2016
What is a marriage?


"...the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."



Originally posted by Its2016
Are you mentally ill?

No. Pretty fine upstairs. You're still not making an argument for why Bill Clinton's supposed sexual bad things has any relevance to Hillary's candidacy. How does it bring Hillary down? And if Hillary tries to appoint him to a cabinet position, he still has to be approved by congress. If or when that happens, THEN you can start using Bill against Hillary like that, right? But could not any democratic president be "risky" in doing that? Why didn't Obama appoint Bill to a cabinet position?

Simple: Bill doesn't want that stuff anymore. He could easily have it...it wouldn't take much effort at all.

Originally posted by Its2016
How about this, do you want a rapist as first lady incharge of important white house stuff? Because thats a vote for Hillary. Idiot.

So you're getting angry because I'm pointing out how retarded it is to try and use attacks against Bill Clinton as attacks against Hillary Clinton? Why does this make you so mad? Is it because my point is rather obvious and you have not actually thought about it until reading my point?

I just don't understand why me pointing this out is causing you to spew so much caustic vitriol.

Originally posted by Robtard
The FBI is working with Clinton now?

The Head of the FBI is in her pocket, same as the heads of the IRS and EPA.

Its a nice little Clinton Cabal.

Originally posted by Surtur
I would think just being the spouse of the president gives one some clout. Now keep in mind 99.9% of the time the spouses haven't been politicians with DECADES of experience. To think she won't rely on Bill more than a president would usually rely on a spouse would be wrong IMO.

But so what? Why does it matter that she will seek his advice? Another question would be, why does Clinton's sexual proclivities have anything to do with Hillary possibly seeking his advice?

Are you imagining a scenario like this:

Hillary: How should I handle Angela Merkel's (Germa Prime Minister) opposition to our trade deal with the EU?

Bill: Grab her by the pussssaaaay! Smack dat mound with gusto! Then motorboat dem floppers! Now that I think about it, I bet she has dinner-plate nipples. hmm Honey, are you gonna do anything about this chub?


And if Bill gave advice like that, do you honestly think she'd listen or if ANYONE in Hillary's camp would allow her to listen to advice like that?

Originally posted by Surtur
So if Trumps sexual history makes him not a good fit for the presidency, I don't want someone with potentially a similar history having a lot of influence either.

So...about that influence...makes little sense why you would bar Hillary because of Bill's wiener adventures.

I need another reason. Something that actually makes sense.

Originally posted by Surtur
At this point a rapist and a rape enabler both would belong in that basket of deplorables.

See.....this is the argument I think is much better.

"Hillary enables sexual predatory behavior. She turns a blind eye to deplorable sexual behaviors and potentially enables it. That's the type of character we don't need in a PotUS. We need a PotUS that is tough on crime, especially our state enemies such as ISIS."


Look, I'm a better speaker/debater than Trump. Look how amazing my argument was against Hillary, vis-a-vis sexual-Bill, while still not getting nasty about it?


Holy fuuuuu**, Trump is so damn shitty at using his talking points. That's probably what frustrates me the most while watching Trump speak. He's just so damn childish and shitty at debating.

You ask why does it matter if she will seek Bill's advice, I would ask why Trump saying vulgar things about females means he shouldn't be president?

Not that you specifically said that, but it's been a major focus of the MSM.

If it was up to me I'd rather no discussion of sexual history at all, but they won't do that. As long as they feel the need to bring it up for Trump I feel it's only fair to point out the shit the opposition is doing.

Because when people on the Right act like people on the Left its a BAD THING....

Originally posted by Robtard
...but also, lying about being raped is less serious than actually committing a rape if we're leaving emotions out of it.

That depends on who you talk to. Carrying the stigma of being a rapist when you aren't a rapist is far worse than being raped if that stigma sticks. It is even worse if you get convicted and go to prison and get raped multiple times while in prison.

The reason you hold an opinion that you do is you are not exposed to these shitty situations nor have you ever talked to a man who was falsely accused of rape and what it did to him.

Falsely accusing someone of rape is a horrible thing to do and (and this can be shocking to you so please don't have a negative reaction to it) it can actually be far far worse than actually being raped. Just depends on the situation. More often than not, a false accusation in rape results in a very horribly shitty situation for the accused and it the toll takes to get over these accusations while dealing with the damage these false accusations cost. Loss of friends, relationships, family, employment, and education? Yup, all of those happen.

As far as how steep a penalty should be for a false accusation of rape? I don't know...I haven't been convinced yet of a good argument. But there should definitely be a penalty of some sort of false accusations.

Originally posted by Surtur
You ask why does it matter if she will seek Bill's advice, I would ask why Trump saying vulgar things about females means he shouldn't be president?

This is an amazing question. A question I hoped so hard someone would ask.


Because Trump is a presidential candidate. And he would represent the US. And diplomacy are one of the most important attributes of a president. Being "presidential", as it were. No one wants a sexual scumbag in their negotiations. No one wants that reputation going into a deal. That damages the US's reputation when undertaking diplomatic relations.

But, you see...that's the president, not the spouse. The spouse isn't the president. Just the same as my job: I shouldn't be penalized for my promotions or hirings at employers because my spouse did shitty things.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not that you specifically said that, but it's been a major focus of the MSM.

If it was up to me I'd rather no discussion of sexual history at all, but they won't do that. As long as they feel the need to bring it up for Trump I feel it's only fair to point out the shit the opposition is doing.

But see, I don't view that as fair at all. Hillary didn't do those things. It is a red herring, at best, and just plain shitty debating/campaigning at worst. It is lame and yawn worthy to try to pin stuff on Hillary that she didn't do. Since there is a huge list of things that we COULD pin on her that are bad, why use lame and stupid tactics against her?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is an amazing question. A question I hoped so hard someone would ask.


Because Trump is a presidential candidate. And he would represent the US. And diplomacy are one of the most important attributes of a president. Being "presidential", as it were. No one wants a sexual scumbag in their negotiations. No one wants that reputation going into a deal. That damages the US's reputation when undertaking diplomatic relations.

But, you see...that's the president, not the spouse. The spouse isn't the president. Just the same as my job: I shouldn't be penalized for my promotions or hirings at employers because my spouse did shitty things.



But see, I don't view that as fair at all. Hillary didn't do those things. It is a red herring, at best, and just plain shitty debating/campaigning at worst. It is lame and yawn worthy to try to pin stuff on Hillary that she didn't do. Since there is a huge list of things that we COULD pin on her that are bad, why use lame and stupid tactics against her?

Trumps a presidential candidate and Bill Clinton is a former president who will once again be in a position of significant power.

It's either a big deal for anyone in power or it's not. There should be no "it's not as bad for one politician as it is for another".

If Bill is a rapist, Hilary helped cover it up. That's not even debatable, if Bill is a legit rapist she helped cover it up and attacked the victims and tried to silence them. This is the same woman who tells us women have the right to be believed.

So that is why this matters, there is no way in hell this chick could be 100% oblivious to all this.

Originally posted by Surtur
Trumps a presidential candidate and Bill Clinton is a former president who will once again be in a position of significant power.

You mean insignificant power?

And as to your claim about significant power, I've already posted about that:


"And if Hillary tries to appoint him to a cabinet position, he still has to be approved by congress. If or when that happens, THEN you can start using Bill against Hillary like that, right? But could not any democratic president be "risky" in doing that? Why didn't Obama appoint Bill to a cabinet position?

Simple: Bill doesn't want that stuff anymore. He could easily have it...it wouldn't take much effort at all."

Originally posted by Surtur
It's either a big deal for anyone in power or it's not. There should be no "it's not as bad for one politician as it is for another".

Incorrect: it's bad for actual candidates who will be at the actual polls and who will be in the actual political positions.

Originally posted by Surtur
If Bill is a rapist, Hilary helped cover it up. That's not even debatable, if Bill is a legit rapist she helped cover it up and attacked the victims and tried to silence them. This is the same woman who tells us women have the right to be believed.

If. That's the problem. And then the burden of proof is on the haters to prove that Hillary covered it up or was at least aware of it.

Well yes if, but for this discussion we're assuming both Trump and Bill Clinton are guilty.

So under that guise, how is H-Dog not just as bad? For enabling her rapist husband? For staying with him while trying to act like she supporters females?

Hell if her husband was a rapist, but a political nobody it would still be messed up, but he's far from that, so it makes it worse.

Which is really hard to do when the legal system won't even allow investigations because ...POLITICS TRUMPS ALL !!!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Which is really hard to do when the legal system won't even allow investigations because ...POLITICS TRUMPS ALL !!!

Did you hear that Michelle Obama was shaken to the core by Trumps words about women?

Such a classy lady, and someone who would never invite rappers to the White House either. They are always calling women b*tches and hoes and all that stuff, so she'd never do that or hold a rapper up as a role model.

Originally posted by Surtur
Did you hear that Michelle Obama was shaken to the core by Trumps words about women?

Such a classy lady, and someone who would never invite rappers to the White House either. They are always calling women b*tches and hoes and all that stuff, so she'd never do that or hold a rapper up as a role model.

That goes back to the "Its Ok for US but not for YOU" syndrom.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is the supposed sexual assaults/rapes/affairs that Bill Clinton had relevant to Hillary Clinton's candidacy?

Hillary Clinton is running for president, not Bill Clinton. Bill can't be the president ever again.


I see tons of arguments, even from Trump himself, about Bill Clinton's sexual exploits as though Bill's mistakes disqualify Hillary from being president.



Why? Supposedly Hillary had a heavy hand in silencing Bill's "victims". It's all about who you believe now. I don't know of a smoking gun but these victims have been coming out for nearly 2 decades.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well yes if, but for this discussion we're assuming both Trump and Bill Clinton are guilty.

What? No we are not assuming that. We are assuming reality and reality is it is just accusations and Bill has not been convicted of anything. It's just a reputation.

Originally posted by Surtur
So under that guise, how is H-Dog not just as bad?

Since I'm not playing that game, it doesn't matter. I prefer to stick with reality, not hypotheticals. I'm buttmad over the lame red herring arguments being thrown at Hillary for stuff that Bill supposedly did. Let's stick with that (which is the OP and reality).

Originally posted by Surtur
For enabling her rapist husband? For staying with him while trying to act like she supporters females?

Again, as I've argued to XYZ, Hillary sticking to her wedding vows is hardly a bad character trait. It is an argument for why we should support Hillary, not against her. It is just an argument we should all avoid.

The argument boils down to, "Hillary sucks because she took her wedding vows seriously and will not abandon her husband no matter how bad the "or worse" part of the relationship gets. That stupid loyal b*tch. How dare she!

Originally posted by Surtur
Hell if her husband was a rapist, but a political nobody it would still be messed up, but he's far from that, so it makes it worse.

But how? You and others keep saying how horrible it is but it really isn't. It's just not bad at all. It is a red herring and desperate character assassination. It is resoundingly pathetic. There are far better things to get mad at Hillary over other than shit she never did.

Originally posted by Surtur
Did you hear that Michelle Obama was shaken to the core by Trumps words about women?

Such a classy lady, and someone who would never invite rappers to the White House either. They are always calling women b*tches and hoes and all that stuff, so she'd never do that or hold a rapper up as a role model.

Oh man, this. Ugh...it's painful how ridiculously hypocritical that is.

Mrs. Obama: "Oh my gosh. That Trump fella hurt my feelings and I am so so hurt by his words towards women."

Mrs. Obama: "But you know what? That rapper Rick Ross is such a standup guy that we should recruit for a youth empowerment program. Nevermind his indictment for assaulting and kidnapping people and bragging about date raping women in his music. He's just such a good guy. haha...I can't even fathom my own double standards. WEEEEE!

http://time.com/4296265/dj-khaled-obama-white-house-criminal-justice-reform/

Originally posted by Badabing
Supposedly Hillary had a heavy hand in silencing Bill's "victims". It's all about who you believe now. I don't know of a smoking gun but these victims have been coming out for nearly 2 decades.

See, this is the line of arguments that people should be using. Not, "Hillary is bad because Bill is bad."


To Surtur's credit, he's been the only one to make decent arguments for this on the internet (reddit is a cesspool of idiocy).

Originally posted by dadudemon
What? No we are not assuming that. We are assuming reality and reality is it is just accusations and Bill has not been convicted of anything. It's just a reputation.

I was assuming that. Not that I truly assume they are both rapists. I figured this was a hypothetical about which was worse if both Bill and Donny were guilty.



But the OP asks why it's relevant. I'm telling you it's because they make Trumps shit relevant, who has never been convicted of shit either.

IF we were to assume both are guilty, I'm saying they are just as bad. Maybe that's not the narrative you were taking, but that is the narrative I have been.



No dude, it's totally bad if she stayed with a guy she knew was a rapist. Since you weren't aware I was talking about a hypothetical "they are both guilty" scenario I understand why you'd say this.



I admit it is silly if we were saying she didn't know if he was guilty and stuck by him. But again, I was coming at this from a POV of "which would be worse if both were guilty".



But again: under the assumption they both are guilty(I am not saying they are, but that is what I was discussing) then this chick did do shit. She forgave a rapist and tried to discredit his victims.

Wouldn't it be disturbing though if any woman stayed married to a rapist using the excuse of "well my wedding vows.." ? Since wait wouldn't he have shattered those vows by raping women and cheating?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh man, this. Ugh...it's painful how ridiculously hypocritical that is.

Mrs. Obama: "Oh my gosh. That Trump fella hurt my feelings and I am so so hurt by his words towards women."

Mrs. Obama: "But you know what? That rapper Rick Ross is such a standup guy that we should recruit for a youth empowerment program. Nevermind his indictment for assaulting and kidnapping people and bragging about date raping women in his music. He's just such a good guy. haha...I can't even fathom my own double standards. WEEEEE!

http://time.com/4296265/dj-khaled-obama-white-house-criminal-justice-reform/

LOL! The funny thing is..I was actually referring to Jay-Z, I didn't know they'd invited other rappers too. That makes it even more hilarious.

There is only one candidate to ever been running for office that is currently under an FBI Investigstion

Clinton is doomed after the Weiner sext scandal. More emails will be exposed.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Clinton is doomed after the Weiner sext scandal. More emails will be exposed.

I hope so, but I'm not going to hold my breath for this. Even if it did show something that was a big deal, would people even care? Notice nobody really seems to care that much about their shady dealings when it came to starting riots at rallies. Nor do they care that a convicted felon visited the White House on over 100 occasions.

Compare that to how people reacted when they thought Trump hadn't rejected David Duke.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh man, this. Ugh...it's painful how ridiculously hypocritical that is.

Mrs. Obama: "Oh my gosh. That Trump fella hurt my feelings and I am so so hurt by his words towards women."

Mrs. Obama: "But you know what? That rapper Rick Ross is such a standup guy that we should recruit for a youth empowerment program. Nevermind his indictment for assaulting and kidnapping people and bragging about date raping women in his music. He's just such a good guy. haha...I can't even fathom my own double standards. WEEEEE!

http://time.com/4296265/dj-khaled-obama-white-house-criminal-justice-reform/
Spot on impression.

Also HILARIOUS that his ankle bracelet went off while at the White House. Stay classy White House, stay classy.

Somewhat on topic:

apqd548zN1E

Saying Bill has nothing to do with this election is naive at best. Now, in a non shady non corrupt world, that would be true.

Also saying "Love Trumps Hate" sounds f*cking moronic and like it's saying we should embrace the "hateful" things he says.

But I agree, if we're going to make this shit about the treatment of women, we look at how everyone treats them, not just Trump. The excuse of "Bill isn't running" doesn't fly. It would fly if Hilary never once opened her mouth about Trumps treatment of women, but she has, so it doesn't.

Originally posted by Surtur
I was assuming that. Not that I truly assume they are both rapists. I figured this was a hypothetical about which was worse if both Bill and Donny were guilty.



But the OP asks why it's relevant. I'm telling you it's because they make Trumps shit relevant, who has never been convicted of shit either.

IF we were to assume both are guilty, I'm saying they are just as bad. Maybe that's not the narrative you were taking, but that is the narrative I have been.

No no, you're right. Please forgive me for not give exact credit where it is due. IF Trump was running for president against Bill Clinton, then it would be relevant and your points would make it a case closed. But he's not...and that's exactly what the thread is about (including the OP where it says so).

Also, I think you've kept a level head but before we descend into a shitfest, please note that I said I'm buttmad which is me basically admitting I'm being a shithead about something that doesn't really need to be (but it makes me buttmad...I can't help it).

Originally posted by Surtur
No dude, it's totally bad if she stayed with a guy she knew was a rapist. Since you weren't aware I was talking about a hypothetical "they are both guilty" scenario I understand why you'd say this.

I admit it is silly if we were saying she didn't know if he was guilty and stuck by him. But again, I was coming at this from a POV of "which would be worse if both were guilty".

But again: under the assumption they both are guilty(I am not saying they are, but that is what I was discussing) then this chick did do shit. She forgave a rapist and tried to discredit his victims.


Well...uhh....okay, then I can't argue against this point because you presented my counter argument already. He wasn't convicted and they are accusations, currently.




But please note that all of your points require a foundation of "Bill actually did it." Regardless of whether or not Bill did it, Bill is not running for president.



Originally posted by Surtur
Wouldn't it be disturbing though if any woman stayed married to a rapist using the excuse of "well my wedding vows.." ? Since wait wouldn't he have shattered those vows by raping women and cheating?

No, no...Catholic leadership, especially, praises the person that can stay in a marriage even after adultery. It is "counted unto them as righteousness." Thought Christians usually do not demand you stay in an adulterious marriage, it is considered better if you can "forgive and move on."

But let's put the breaks on with that type of justification.

We all know she stuck with Bill for political reasons, not because she's some sort of forgiving, righteous, lodestar that should be lauded for being Christlike.

Originally posted by Surtur
The excuse of "Bill isn't running" doesn't fly. It would fly if Hilary never once opened her mouth about Trumps treatment of women, but she has, so it doesn't.


But it does fly. Bill isn't running. Character assassinate Bill all you'd like: Hillary still isn't guilty. And Bill hasn't been convicted or even indicted for rape or sexual assault.

Originally posted by Stigma
Somewhat on topic:

apqd548zN1E


What he does wrong is he yells at the guy, cuts him off, and acts quite childish at times.

Other than that, I laughed pretty hard. But he got annoying very fast.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But it does fly. Bill isn't running. Character assassinate Bill all you'd like: Hillary still isn't guilty. And Bill hasn't been convicted or even indicted for rape or sexual assault.

It doesn't fly if you're going to criticize someones treatment of women though.

Originally posted by Surtur
It doesn't fly if you're going to criticize someones treatment of women though.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Bill isn't running. Character assassinate Bill all you'd like: Hillary still isn't guilty. And Bill hasn't been convicted or even indicted for rape or sexual assault.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But it does fly. Bill isn't running. Character assassinate Bill all you'd like: Hillary still isn't guilty. And Bill hasn't been convicted or even indicted for rape or sexual assault.

It does matter, if Hillary wins then she is dragging along a man that has had significant issues with his relationships with other women. It's as simple as guilt by association.

Originally posted by snowdragon
It does matter, if Hillary wins then she is dragging along a man that has had significant issues with his relationships with other women. It's as simple as guilt by association.

No, what I said. Bill isn't running for president. Hillary didn't rape those women: they never claimed she did.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, what I said. Bill isn't running for president. Hillary didn't rape those women: they never claimed she did.

Right, however she is familiar with Bills history. If she wants to tackle womens issues and her husband is constantly under assault for his poor behavior twards women yet she "supports" him or stays with him it diminishes her platform to say the least.

So she supports womens rights and values unless they happen to fall victim to her husband in which case she turns the blind eye or attacks said women for making false claims?

Also Bill will have a significant amount of influence if put back in the WH, its not like the first man/woman is a housekeeper/cook they influence and are political.

So we still can't risk having a guy who has had questionable sexual dealings with women into the White House as the spouse to the POTUS, but we can do so as the POTUS

Was going to say "conservative logic ftw", but that would be unfair to the sensible conservatives who are not applying a double standard to Bill and Donald

Originally posted by snowdragon
Right, however she is familiar with Bills history.

She is familiar with and will only admit that she is familiar with the accusations against Bill. And that's what this is really about, isn't it? These are all pretty much baseless so it really doesn't apply to Hillary. She has plenty of wiggle room to just dismiss all of them: "None of the accusations are true. Moving on."

Until you have a conviction or even an indictment, this is simply a pathetic character assassination attempt.


Originally posted by snowdragon
If she wants to tackle womens issues and her husband is constantly under assault for his poor behavior twards women yet she "supports" him or stays with him it diminishes her platform to say the least.

Or you could take the other side and say that these are false accusations and these are attempts from the opposition to diminish women's issues which is what some of the libtards are whining about.
Originally posted by snowdragon

So she supports womens rights and values unless they happen to fall victim to her husband in which case she turns the blind eye or attacks said women for making false claims?

Also Bill will have a significant amount of influence if put back in the WH, its not like the first man/woman is a housekeeper/cook they influence and are political.

You're making the false assumption that the accusations are 100% proven fact. They are not. You can't do that. At least not yet.

Originally posted by Robtard
So we still can't risk having a guy who has had questionable sexual dealings with women into the White House as the spouse to the POTUS, but we can do so as the POTUS

Was going to say "conservative logic ftw", but that would be unfair to the sensible conservatives who are not applying a double standard to Bill and Donald


Lyndon B. Johnson comes to mind...

He was a democrat that liked is peeeenis. Technically, any time he whipped his dick out in front of people, that was criminal.

I still don't see where the concrete evidence of Trumps allegations come in. It's like 12 cases have come out where "he touched me waah" but innocent rich people have been accused of worse. Trump has appeared in home alone 2. Should e bring that up too?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is the supposed sexual assaults/rapes/affairs that Bill Clinton had relevant to Hillary Clinton's candidacy?

Hillary Clinton is running for president, not Bill Clinton. Bill can't be the president ever again.


I see tons of arguments, even from Trump himself, about Bill Clinton's sexual exploits as though Bill's mistakes disqualify Hillary from being president.



Why?

The fact that she didn't divorce him implies that she approves of his perversions or she partakes in his debauchery.

Either way, if she didn't approve of him whoring himself out and forcing himself on woman that means she stayed married to him, solely for his status which is just as bad.


Personally, i don't give a shit because voting is as useless as throwing pennies in a wishing well. Neither of these candidates should be allowed to run given their reputations and relevant criminal accusations.

.

Originally posted by dadudemon
She is familiar with and will only admit that she is familiar with the accusations against Bill. And that's what this is really about, isn't it?



Maybe, apparently you believe so.

I never said he was guilty he was not charged.

Imagine if Michelle Obama or Laura Bush were seen as rapists who were known for cigaring White House staff. Imagine what would have happened had that been the case. Or if Hillary Clinton had the reputation, ran in 92, only to perform sexual assault with a White House clerk in 98.

Please understand, the Trump allegations have no substance whatsoever and are used to distract attention from Bill and Hillary.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
The fact that she didn't divorce him implies that she approves of his perversions or she partakes in his debauchery.

This can't be a good argument because they are just accusations. Anyone can make an accusation about anything. He was never convicted or indicted. This is America: innocence, guilt, proven, etc.








Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Personally, i don't give a shit because voting is as useless as throwing pennies in a wishing well. Neither of these candidates should be allowed to run given their reputations and relevant criminal accusations.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Andytalks
Imagine if Michelle Obama or Laura Bush were seen as rapists who were known for cigaring White House staff. Imagine what would have happened had that been the case. Or if Hillary Clinton had the reputation, ran in 92, only to perform sexual assault with a White House clerk in 98.

Please understand, the Trump allegations have no substance whatsoever and are used to distract attention from Bill and Hillary.

Okay, I imagined it. Nothing has changed. Other than some probably nasty images in my mind.

They still didn't run for president.

How nasty were the images?

5/7 nasty

Good question, op.
It's not the multiple sexual assaults bill has committed over the years, it's Hilarys reaction to those sexual assaults.
Hilary ran a campaign of character assassination against the victims. Instead of the normal reaction of a wife who found out her hubby is a rapist, she chose to intimidate the victims and to cover up the misdeeds.

Basically, it shows her character...or lack thereof. She's power hungry to the point of attacking rape victims. She's a bully, she used her status to intimidate Bills victims. She's willing to ignore horrible things to protect her power.