Somewhat on topic:
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:
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 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 POTUSWas 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.
Re: How is Bill Clinton's Sexual History Relevant to Hillary Clinton's Candidacy?
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.
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.
Re: Re: How is Bill Clinton's Sexual History Relevant to Hillary Clinton's Candidacy?
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. 👆