I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

So college students should be able to defend themselves from rape accusations but Presidents should not. Got it.

I think that rape is hard enough to prove. Some people make false allegations. Let the accusers be heard and the accused defend themselves. But there isn't a need to threaten and silence other women if you are in fact innocent. If as she says, every accuser should be heard, then EVERY accuser should be heard.

And Clinton admitted Lewinski and Gennifer Flowers, but what did they say about them before he was under oath? Yes, I am sure all of the other allegations were lies, though. BS every one.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I think that rape is hard enough to prove. Some people make false allegations. Let the accusers be heard and the accused defend themselves. But there isn't a need to threaten and silence other women if you are in fact innocent. If as she says, every accuser should be heard, then EVERY accuser should be heard.

And Clinton admitted Lewinski and Gennifer Flowers, but what did they say about them before he was under oath? Yes, I am sure all of the other allegations were lies, though. BS every one.

Aren't you conflating Bill's acts of consensual infidelity - like Monica and Ginnifer - with accusations of rape? I may be misremembering, but the only rape accusation against Bill that I can think of is Juanita Broaddrick. (Yes, one rape is too many, but that wasn't your argument, wasn't?)

[SEC_Chick]

Well, Juanita Broaddrick was the allegation of rape, which Sidd seems to think gives Hillary the right to say and do whatever in defending her husband. I brought up the additional incidents to demonstrate that with respect to less serious allegations, Hillary pulled out all the stops in discrediting those accusers, even the ones who were later proved to have made truthful allegations that were admitted by Bill under oath.

To me, if my husband had already been a proved liar and serial philanderer, and settled a sexual harassment charge for a large sum of money, I don't think I would be as certain as Sidd seems to be that all of the allegations made, including that of sexual assault or rape, are categorically false. Bill should have the right and procedural protections to defend himself, but the accuser deserves her day in court as well. Discrediting honest women as sluts and floozies and stalkers certainly can cause one to question the veracity of all of the other denials.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I wouldn't stay with a husband who cheated on me that many times.

They were a stage couple at the time. They'd been a stage couple for many years, as Bill had been sleeping with loads of other women for years.

I wouldn't then use my status to threaten his many many other women, just to advance myself politically.

Then you'd be irrational. The only move you can make in that situation is the one she made. And it worked. She'll be the next President.

If I did threaten and intimidate a rape accuser into silence, I wouldn't be a hypocrite and then go out of my way to make statements about how all accusers of sexual assault should be heard, because I would understand the consequences of a false accusation. Nor would I support measures on campus that lower the procedural protections for those accused on college campuses.

You would if you were a career politician whose aim has been to reach the Presidency, and your ex-President husband couldn't keep his dick in his pants for more than three hours at a time. These ugly choices are why 99% of people do not go into national politics, and the 1% that do tend to be a sort we'd never leave alone in the dining room with the good silverware.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I was really struck by the historical significance of the first woman presumptive nominee for president. It really sends the message to girls everywhere that if they work really hard, they too can attack their president husband's alleged rape victims, and then become president.

You're taking the wrong message from this. She proves you can have zero charisma, be unliked by fifty percent of your own party, squeak by a challenge from a 74 year old Larry David impersonator, and still ascend the throne, simply for marrying well.

If not for Bubba, she'd have been knocking around a law firm in Little Rock for the past three decades.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're taking the wrong message from this. She proves you can have zero charisma, be unliked by fifty percent of your own party, squeak by a challenge from a 74 year old Larry David impersonator, and still ascend the throne, simply for marrying well.

If not for Bubba, she'd have been knocking around a law firm in Little Rock for the past three decades.

There is probably a better argument that but for marrying Hillary Rodham, who had already been featured in Time Magazine and outshone a pretty dynamic US Senator, and convincing her to come back to Arkansas with him, Bill might be a professor at some law school trying to figure out how to retire on his measly salary today.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Aren't you conflating Bill's acts of consensual infidelity - like Monica and Ginnifer - with accusations of rape? I may be misremembering, but the only rape accusation against Bill that I can think of is Juanita Broaddrick. (Yes, one rape is too many, but that wasn't your argument, wasn't?)

Are you noting the distinction between consensual and non-consensual? How insensitive can you be, Not Bob? Bill Clinton is part of rape culture. We speak of these things in broadest generalities. To approach it so technically steals the power of the narratives of the accusers... That level of factual rigor victimizes them twice. (Nevermind, in this instance, they happen to be GOP operatives on K Street.)

If you don't understand the borders of rape culture, and why Bill Clinton's sexism and adulterous nature clearly proves he's engaged in non-consensual sex acts, Not Bob, well -- I can't even...

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

To me, if my husband had already been a proved liar and serial philanderer, and settled a sexual harassment charge for a large sum of money, I don't think I would be as certain as Sidd seems to be that all of the allegations made, including that of sexual assault or rape, are categorically false.

Walk me through how consensual philandering correlates with rape.

I guess it might, but it's not obvious to me that it does.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is probably a better argument that but for marrying Hillary Rodham, who had already been featured in Time Magazine and outshone a pretty dynamic US Senator, and convincing her to come back to Arkansas with him, Bill might be a professor at some law school trying to figure out how to retire on his measly salary today.

Nobody cared or recalled any of that. She and Bill lucked into the mother of all black swans (politically speaking) with the Perot candidacy that gifted them the White House. And her husband turned out to be one of the most talented politicians to have ever lived.

She's superbly qualified and brilliant. But her life trajectory is a decently hit five iron in comparison to the drive she hit hitching with Bill.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody cared or recalled any of that. She and Bill lucked into the mother of all black swans (politically speaking) with the Perot candidacy that gifted them the White House. And her husband turned out to be one of the most talented politicians to have ever lived.

She's superbly qualified and brilliant. But her life trajectory is a decently hit five iron in comparison to the drive she hit hitching with Bill.

I have no idea what being a five-iron means, but when you take out the white-male-speak in your post I read "She's superbly qualified and brilliant." Why put a "but..." on that?

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

Walk me through how consensual philandering correlates with rape.

I guess it might, but it's not obvious to me that it does.

I am focusing on Hillary's behavior, not Bill's, but to answer your question, groping Kathleen Willey was not consensual, nor was the sexual harassment alleged by Paula Jones. Not all of the allegations relate to consensual sexual contact.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am focusing on Hillary's behavior, not Bill's, but to answer your question, groping Kathleen Willey was not consensual, nor was the sexual harassment alleged by Paula Jones. Not all of the allegations relate to consensual sexual contact.

And don't forget to buy the book from worldnet daily....

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Imagine you had wealth and power sufficient so that you could have almost anything you wanted materialize at your bec and call.

What would you order from McDonalds?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I have no idea what being a five-iron means, but when you take out the white-male-speak in your post I read "She's superbly qualified and brilliant." Why put a "but..." on that?

I mean, she's talented and would have achieved something. But it'd have been a far cry from what she achieved as a result of connecting with Bill. Bill may have also benefited from her discipline and cunning (God only knows how many "bimbo explosions" she prevented over the years). But he could stand alone and win major public office. He's uniquely gifted in all areas needed to succeed. She's a wonk who doesn't telecast much better than any other wonk might. She needs a huge money advantage, a uniquely bad GOP field, and the power of the DNC pushing (rigging things) for her to get the Presidency. She's been beaten by a first term senator (uniquely talented, like her husband, but still...), almost beaten by a ranting geriatric senator, and still - still right now - would be beaten like a gong if Joe Biden decided to enter the race.

She's just "meh" in every regard. It's like we're electing an Actuarial in Chief.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am focusing on Hillary's behavior, not Bill's, but to answer your question, groping Kathleen Willey was not consensual, nor was the sexual harassment alleged by Paula Jones. Not all of the allegations relate to consensual sexual contact.

Willey was a cuckoo-pants-crazy liar looking for a media moment. Paula Jones filed a lawsuit as the stat of lims wound down to bleed some cash out of Clinton and take a lap through daytime talk show circuit. These are the Kardashians of sex assault claimants.

Nowhere, anywhere, has anyone ever claimed Bill Clinton forced someone into a sexual act with him. Not even Lewinsky claimed that.

Bill was a dirty dog, but he was not a rapist. People who conflate those two things know what they're doing, and I'm sure they think the ends justify the means... But understand: It's backfiring. Nobody's voting one way or the other based on what Bill Clinton did with his dick. But they might vote Democrat because they're sick of hearing clear and obvious lies from a GOP that thinks its audience is that stupid and provincial.