I agree that it isn't unheard of, but it just seems unlikely in her case. I think the detriment to her career and the plausible deniability was enough for her to take his side. My money would be on she didn't believe him.
Bill was accused and we believe he's a sexual predator (at least I do and you do), not sure why people would make a special rule for Trump when he's been both accused and then caught on candid microphone bragging about his sexual predations.
You have it backwards. You're using a strawman to compare Bill to Don and then whitewashing Hillary's enabling. Because you clearly have a bias.
What you did in your previous two segments was try and use a red herring to change what we were talking about. You're trying to strawman my point to make it seem like I'm calling you out for not acknowledging Bill's problems and then pointing out that I'm using a strawman (I'm clearly not), as if your feelings were hurt that I would dare mischaracterize your position.
Sorry, I'm not Surtur: your bait and switch games won't work on me.
Anyone can clearly see that what you claim I said is no where in what you quoted. Neither did I ever say you were defending bill being a sexual predator:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
So I corrected it to:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
Key words there are "enabled" and "lied about it."
You're using "strawman" but you're not using that word correctly.
Granted, should probably not have said the last line and is what set things off in a downward spiral. You then asked/implied if I thought Hillary was just unaware. I then made it clear about separating the consensual cheating and the rape on Bill's part, meaning while Clinton knew Bill was a cheater, she probably (imo) believed his side of the rape allegations, cos she's his wife.
You did accuse me of defending Bill as not being a sexual predator, when I clearly made a point that he was in the first post, I pointed that out and here we are.
No, sorry, this is not up for debate. You're calling his accuser a liar when you readily admit to Bill's problem. And then you're saying Hillary is a liar because his accuser said the following:
That is not the picture you painted. That is not a poor innocent wife defending her husband. They are Frank and Claire Underwood.
Now, things are different. Unlike Moore, both Hillary and Bill are not running for office. The sexual issues with Bill has been going on for decades. And he was impeached because of his lies. There's nothing honest about this couple. Like I said, you're choosing to ignore his victims and pretending like Hillary did not enable Bill and cover up for him. The truly scary issue with Hillary is the vitriolic threats she made to his victims. She sounds like a sociopathic murderer.
Now you'll spin it and pretend it is innocent. But too many things like this add up after a while. You have to stop believing in your bias and just discard Hilary has a very shitty person. You voted for her and you don't want to acknowledge that you voted for a truly vile person: I get it. Who cares? What do you earn from keeping that hollow pride?
It doesn't matter in the context of the discussion whether it's true. Robtard's point is that he thinks that's what Hillary believed. He's making no statement of fact about Bill's behavior or even really giving his opinioin on it, merely saying that he thinks Hillary probably believed her husband rather than the women.
Which is par the course. I'm sure Moore's wife believes her husband instead of the accusers, I don't begrudge her for that. That goes with the territory of being married. People are generally going to err on the side of their spouse unless some very explicit anthony weiner type evidence comes out to prove something.
I said people are in a tizzy, not that you defended him. Though you did pull a "well he said sorry". Ignoring that he pretty much has to do that if he wants any chance to have a career. Also ignoring the tricky situation that would unfold if he, a leftist, said a woman was lying.
__________________ But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.
That wasn't a defense and you're twisting the context; that was noting that he at least isn't denying everything and accusing his victim(s) of lying like other people have done. I in fact said 'if Franken's guilty, let him go down with the rest'.
Speaking of tricky situations: you Trumpers are in a pickle. You condemn Bill for being a sexual predator because people have accused him of such and then spin it onto Hillary, while at the same time ignoring that Trump's been accused of the same and then bragged about it. The conundrum you're in.