Hillary Clinton: What happened

13468920

Comments

  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,265
    Anyone claiming Sanders would've lost to trump is denying the data. 
    technically, sanders did lose to trump
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,003
    edited August 29
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Well that is my point - yes, choosing the lesser of two evils... Trump is so much more evil than Clinton as a candidate or POTUS it's almost funny, which is my point. Frankly, I actually feel that any Republican who voted for Trump in the primaries or in the general election is a traitor to their party, as well as an idiot, at best. A horrible, nasty human being at worst.


    Well, I'm sure there are many who voted for Trump who think the same about Clinton voters.

    And perhaps, that's the problem. We need to stop reacting and getting sucked in to those extremists on both sides and find a credible, moderate President.

    Yes, well the problem I have is that I think that is a massive false equivalency. It's like comparing George W. Bush and Stalin or something, and claiming that Bush was perhaps worse as a leader. It just doesn't hold water, given all the facts.

    I wish the left would stop using false equivalency as a default argument. It's such a silly thing and more times than not all it reveals is you don't understand what someone is saying. I've been on the outside of a conversation, seen that used, don't even agree with the person being accused of it, and it's so clear the accuser is clueless. (And I'm not even sure how Stalin got into this conversation.  That's a false something, but I have no idea what).  Basically, all you're saying is the Trump voters are stupid and the Clinton voters aren't. So, keep going with that. It will help you understand things better when all you see is the inside of your own eyelids.

    Anyway, in this case there's no equivalency.   You're making the election Trump v Clinton.  Clinton lost. She sucked.  She was terrible. Move on.  It wasn't a matter of Trump winning other than he energized his base (whatever that was) more than she did. Other than their bases, most people were probably making a decision based on the negatives of 1 of the 2 and holding their nose while doing it. So, they weren't saying Trump>Clinton as much as - no way, Clinton (and yes, that applies the other way, too as you've discussed clearly). And, again, it's such a small part of the population. The bigger thing for Clinton is she didn't inspire. She not getting enough people off their asses in the right places to get out to vote for her was a bigger problem than who voted for Trump.

    And, I'll beat you to it - somewhere in there is a false equivalency. I have no idea where, but let's move on.

    Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,003
    I'm not denying the data. I don't think you can use that data. He wasn't the candidate. Trump had a zero chance of winning while Sanders was still in the race on the left. I don't think it can be accurately stated either way, to be honest. I'm just giving my opinion based on how america typically votes, and they have NEVER voted an independent masked as a democrat. How many bernie bros abandoned him once he started running as a dem?

    Stop talking logic to people who have their minds made up.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,930
    CM189191 said:
    Anyone claiming Sanders would've lost to trump is denying the data. 
    technically, sanders did lose to trump
    Well, no. Technically, Sanders only lost to Clinton.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,100
    edited August 29
    I'm not denying the data. I don't think you can use that data. He wasn't the candidate. Trump had a zero chance of winning while Sanders was still in the race on the left. I don't think it can be accurately stated either way, to be honest. I'm just giving my opinion based on how america typically votes, and they have NEVER voted an independent masked as a democrat. How many bernie bros abandoned him once he started running as a dem?

    Stop talking logic to people who have their minds made up.
    That's not logic. Logic incorporates data and the fact that Sanders had a D next his name. It doesn't matter what he was before. The same way trump had an R next to his and people voted for him. Just thinking Sanders was too liberal to get elected doesn't change votes. Only a scandal would. 
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,003
    edited August 29
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,100
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  

  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,003
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    I'm not denying the data. I don't think you can use that data. He wasn't the candidate. Trump had a zero chance of winning while Sanders was still in the race on the left. I don't think it can be accurately stated either way, to be honest. I'm just giving my opinion based on how america typically votes, and they have NEVER voted an independent masked as a democrat. How many bernie bros abandoned him once he started running as a dem?

    Stop talking logic to people who have their minds made up.
    That's not logic. Logic incorporates data and the fact that Sanders had a D next his name. It doesn't matter what he was before. The same way trump had an R next to his and people voted for him. Just thinking Sanders was too liberal to get elected doesn't change votes. Only a scandal would. 
    I'd argue it is logical to assume we'd need to see numbers of Sanders v Trump AFTER Sanders had won the nomination, not when he was still running against Hillary. apples to oranges to me. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,930
    edited August 29
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    You do recongnize how ridiculous it is, though, to suggest that it may be reasonable to feel that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump because she 'didn't stand up to her husband for cheating' (I have a major issue with this idea in another way too, but I'll stick to the most obvious one), and doesn't think her husband sexually harassed someone, while Trump himself is the cheatingest, harassingest scumbag around - a man who uses prostitutes while married, has talked about how 12 year old girls will be old enough to bang soon enough, and who quite clearly wants to fuck his own daughter, and who has had THIRTEEN WOMEN accuse him of sexual assault, a crime he admitted to himself on camera? You think that hearkening to Clinton's failure to deal with her HUSBAND'S indiscretions the way you think she should somehow outweighs Trump's own indiscretions?? And you think that is some kind of feminist viewpoint? Surely not. I must be misinterpreting what you're saying.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,003
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    You do recongnize how ridiculous it is, though, to suggest that it may be reasonable to feel that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump because she 'didn't stand up to her husband for cheating' (I have a major issue with this idea in another way too, but I'll stick to the most obvious one), and doesn't think her husband sexually harassed someone, while Trump himself is the cheatingest, harassingest scumbag around - a man who uses prostitutes while married, has talked about how 12 year old girls will be old enough to bang soon enough, and who quite clearly wants to fuck his own daughter, and who has had THIRTEEN WOMEN accuse him of sexual assault, a crime he admitted to himself on camera? You think that hearkening to Clinton's failure to deal with her HUSBAND'S indiscretions the way you think she should somehow outweighs Trump's own indiscretions?? And you think that is some kind of feminist viewpoint? Surely not. I must be misinterpreting what you're saying.


    I'm not saying anything about Trump. That was kind of my point about degrees of assholery.

    So, I guess you're excusing Hillary's behavior in berating victims of sexual abuse.  That much is very clear.

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    this is so ridiculous. so a woman defends her husband against unproven allegations and somehow SHE is the shithead? because the only thing proven that I'm aware of is a consensual affair with Lewinsky, and Trump's admission of sexual assault on tape. and no, I'm not talking about the P grabbing, which he said he "could do", but the kissing of women without their consent that he says he has done. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,930
    edited August 29
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    You do recongnize how ridiculous it is, though, to suggest that it may be reasonable to feel that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump because she 'didn't stand up to her husband for cheating' (I have a major issue with this idea in another way too, but I'll stick to the most obvious one), and doesn't think her husband sexually harassed someone, while Trump himself is the cheatingest, harassingest scumbag around - a man who uses prostitutes while married, has talked about how 12 year old girls will be old enough to bang soon enough, and who quite clearly wants to fuck his own daughter, and who has had THIRTEEN WOMEN accuse him of sexual assault, a crime he admitted to himself on camera? You think that hearkening to Clinton's failure to deal with her HUSBAND'S indiscretions the way you think she should somehow outweighs Trump's own indiscretions?? And you think that is some kind of feminist viewpoint? Surely not. I must be misinterpreting what you're saying.


    I'm not saying anything about Trump. That was kind of my point about degrees of assholery.

    So, I guess you're excusing Hillary's behavior in berating victims of sexual abuse.  That much is very clear.

    I am not excusing anything. I said that there is a difference between Hillary not believing the victims or believing them. I have no idea what she really believes, so I don't feel qualified to judge that situation one way or the other. If she somehow knows that they are his victims, then yeah, obviously that is really wrong. But I don't know if she does know that. I said that very clearly already. As for the Lewinsky thing.... I don't give a flying fuck about that as far as Hillary is concerned, nor about how Hillary handled Bill's affairs within her marriage. Show me a POTUS who did NOT cheat on his wife, and I'll be impressed.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful: 


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    You do recongnize how ridiculous it is, though, to suggest that it may be reasonable to feel that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump because she 'didn't stand up to her husband for cheating' (I have a major issue with this idea in another way too, but I'll stick to the most obvious one), and doesn't think her husband sexually harassed someone, while Trump himself is the cheatingest, harassingest scumbag around - a man who uses prostitutes while married, has talked about how 12 year old girls will be old enough to bang soon enough, and who quite clearly wants to fuck his own daughter, and who has had THIRTEEN WOMEN accuse him of sexual assault, a crime he admitted to himself on camera? You think that hearkening to Clinton's failure to deal with her HUSBAND'S indiscretions the way you think she should somehow outweighs Trump's own indiscretions?? And you think that is some kind of feminist viewpoint? Surely not. I must be misinterpreting what you're saying.


    I'm not saying anything about Trump. That was kind of my point about degrees of assholery.

    So, I guess you're excusing Hillary's behavior in berating victims of sexual abuse.  That much is very clear.

    I am not excusing anything. I said that there is a difference between Hillary not believing the victims or believing them. I have no idea what she really believes, so I don't feel qualified to judge that situation one way or the other. If she somehow knows that they are his victims, then yeah, obviously that is really wrong. But I don't know if she does know that. I said that very clearly already. As for the Lewinsky thing.... I don't give a flying fuck about that as far as Hillary is concerned, nor about how Hillary handled Bill's affairs within her marriage. Show me a POTUS who did NOT cheat on his wife, and I'll be impressed.
    if Obama did, he sure as shit faked his love for Michelle really well. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,930
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful: 


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    You do recongnize how ridiculous it is, though, to suggest that it may be reasonable to feel that Hillary Clinton is worse than Trump because she 'didn't stand up to her husband for cheating' (I have a major issue with this idea in another way too, but I'll stick to the most obvious one), and doesn't think her husband sexually harassed someone, while Trump himself is the cheatingest, harassingest scumbag around - a man who uses prostitutes while married, has talked about how 12 year old girls will be old enough to bang soon enough, and who quite clearly wants to fuck his own daughter, and who has had THIRTEEN WOMEN accuse him of sexual assault, a crime he admitted to himself on camera? You think that hearkening to Clinton's failure to deal with her HUSBAND'S indiscretions the way you think she should somehow outweighs Trump's own indiscretions?? And you think that is some kind of feminist viewpoint? Surely not. I must be misinterpreting what you're saying.


    I'm not saying anything about Trump. That was kind of my point about degrees of assholery.

    So, I guess you're excusing Hillary's behavior in berating victims of sexual abuse.  That much is very clear.

    I am not excusing anything. I said that there is a difference between Hillary not believing the victims or believing them. I have no idea what she really believes, so I don't feel qualified to judge that situation one way or the other. If she somehow knows that they are his victims, then yeah, obviously that is really wrong. But I don't know if she does know that. I said that very clearly already. As for the Lewinsky thing.... I don't give a flying fuck about that as far as Hillary is concerned, nor about how Hillary handled Bill's affairs within her marriage. Show me a POTUS who did NOT cheat on his wife, and I'll be impressed.
    if Obama did, he sure as shit faked his love for Michelle really well. 
    Obama does indeed impress me, and that is one of the reasons why. I would be shocked to hear he cheated on his wife. But such a POTUS is few and far between... There was that gay president who wasn't even married, so he's definitely off the hook, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,100
    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    I don't think I'm splitting hairs based on who's being accused. Bill was a proven sexual harasser, not a sex offender. trump admitted to sexual assault, which makes him a sex offender. You seem to be narrowing down the argument to Hillary's reaction to this one issue. This was what was done during the campaign: maximize Clinton's flaws and minimize trump's. 

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,780
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,003
    this is so ridiculous. so a woman defends her husband against unproven allegations and somehow SHE is the shithead? because the only thing proven that I'm aware of is a consensual affair with Lewinsky, and Trump's admission of sexual assault on tape. and no, I'm not talking about the P grabbing, which he said he "could do", but the kissing of women without their consent that he says he has done. 


    That's not what I'm saying. But, she's also not the victim. And in the position she was in at the time and the position she desired recently, I'd expect more. That's all I'm saying. You can say it was defending her husband. But, I wasn't just talking about the Lewinsky thing. She "beat up" all his prior accusers, too.  Where there's smoke there's fire. 

    I'm also saying - tough for her to say she stands for women when the women who needed her most she let down.  Double standard. 

    What's your view on Bill Cosby's wife?  I'm not saying a wife can't stand by her man. That's their private business. But, she wanted to be President. There should be a higher standard, as all of you are so quick to point out about Trump (And I'm not disagreeing with).

    And, again - the main thread of this wasn't to rehash the whole thing. It was to point out the fallacy of not understanding how other people view Hillary.  This is just 1 thing that is so obvious it's funny that you guys even compare her to Trump. I thought she was better. Isn't that your point? So her actions should stand on their own.  What's next - comparing her to Robert E. Lee?  She doesn't believe in slavery?  Cool.

    (There's a false equivalency for those fans).

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    this is so ridiculous. so a woman defends her husband against unproven allegations and somehow SHE is the shithead? because the only thing proven that I'm aware of is a consensual affair with Lewinsky, and Trump's admission of sexual assault on tape. and no, I'm not talking about the P grabbing, which he said he "could do", but the kissing of women without their consent that he says he has done. 


    That's not what I'm saying. But, she's also not the victim. And in the position she was in at the time and the position she desired recently, I'd expect more. That's all I'm saying. You can say it was defending her husband. But, I wasn't just talking about the Lewinsky thing. She "beat up" all his prior accusers, too.  Where there's smoke there's fire. 

    I'm also saying - tough for her to say she stands for women when the women who needed her most she let down.  Double standard. 

    What's your view on Bill Cosby's wife?  I'm not saying a wife can't stand by her man. That's their private business. But, she wanted to be President. There should be a higher standard, as all of you are so quick to point out about Trump (And I'm not disagreeing with).

    And, again - the main thread of this wasn't to rehash the whole thing. It was to point out the fallacy of not understanding how other people view Hillary.  This is just 1 thing that is so obvious it's funny that you guys even compare her to Trump. I thought she was better. Isn't that your point? So her actions should stand on their own.  What's next - comparing her to Robert E. Lee?  She doesn't believe in slavery?  Cool.

    (There's a false equivalency for those fans).

    but, if you want to use "false equivalency", this is it. Trump is the alleged assaulter. HC is not. she is the wife of the alleged assaulter. how is she letting down women when, for all we know, the accusers were all lying? at that level, I wouldn't put any conspiracy past anybody. 

    if Bill came out and said what Trump said on tape, or in public, then yeah, you'd have a case. and I'm almost certain if that was the case, she'd be front and centre speaking up about it. 
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that no one understands why people don't like Hillary. I think that has been well covered by both sides. 
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,003
    this is so ridiculous. so a woman defends her husband against unproven allegations and somehow SHE is the shithead? because the only thing proven that I'm aware of is a consensual affair with Lewinsky, and Trump's admission of sexual assault on tape. and no, I'm not talking about the P grabbing, which he said he "could do", but the kissing of women without their consent that he says he has done. 


    That's not what I'm saying. But, she's also not the victim. And in the position she was in at the time and the position she desired recently, I'd expect more. That's all I'm saying. You can say it was defending her husband. But, I wasn't just talking about the Lewinsky thing. She "beat up" all his prior accusers, too.  Where there's smoke there's fire. 

    I'm also saying - tough for her to say she stands for women when the women who needed her most she let down.  Double standard. 

    What's your view on Bill Cosby's wife?  I'm not saying a wife can't stand by her man. That's their private business. But, she wanted to be President. There should be a higher standard, as all of you are so quick to point out about Trump (And I'm not disagreeing with).

    And, again - the main thread of this wasn't to rehash the whole thing. It was to point out the fallacy of not understanding how other people view Hillary.  This is just 1 thing that is so obvious it's funny that you guys even compare her to Trump. I thought she was better. Isn't that your point? So her actions should stand on their own.  What's next - comparing her to Robert E. Lee?  She doesn't believe in slavery?  Cool.

    (There's a false equivalency for those fans).

    but, if you want to use "false equivalency", this is it. Trump is the alleged assaulter. HC is not. she is the wife of the alleged assaulter. how is she letting down women when, for all we know, the accusers were all lying? at that level, I wouldn't put any conspiracy past anybody. 

    if Bill came out and said what Trump said on tape, or in public, then yeah, you'd have a case. and I'm almost certain if that was the case, she'd be front and centre speaking up about it. 

    What does is mean?  C'mon. Bill said it in a Congressional hearing.

    anyway, not the point.  (and the false equivalency re: REL was meant to be a joke).

    I disagree with your last assertion as his womanizing was very well known. He was just smart enough not to talk about it (until he was forced to). So, you're being a little obtuse in your view point.

    But, again, all besides the point.  Some have been flabbergasted that folks could vote for Trump over Hillary.  I'm not sure why.  The fact is, if it were a race strictly on who does things the right way, they both would have lost  (and in effect, they both did, as he's now spending his early 70's answering to the public like he never had or wanted to. So, maybe, that's the moral of the story).

    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,780
    edited August 30
    if you're going to over use a term at least have the decency to over use it properly
    false equivalence not false equivalency
    thanks
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    this is so ridiculous. so a woman defends her husband against unproven allegations and somehow SHE is the shithead? because the only thing proven that I'm aware of is a consensual affair with Lewinsky, and Trump's admission of sexual assault on tape. and no, I'm not talking about the P grabbing, which he said he "could do", but the kissing of women without their consent that he says he has done. 


    That's not what I'm saying. But, she's also not the victim. And in the position she was in at the time and the position she desired recently, I'd expect more. That's all I'm saying. You can say it was defending her husband. But, I wasn't just talking about the Lewinsky thing. She "beat up" all his prior accusers, too.  Where there's smoke there's fire. 

    I'm also saying - tough for her to say she stands for women when the women who needed her most she let down.  Double standard. 

    What's your view on Bill Cosby's wife?  I'm not saying a wife can't stand by her man. That's their private business. But, she wanted to be President. There should be a higher standard, as all of you are so quick to point out about Trump (And I'm not disagreeing with).

    And, again - the main thread of this wasn't to rehash the whole thing. It was to point out the fallacy of not understanding how other people view Hillary.  This is just 1 thing that is so obvious it's funny that you guys even compare her to Trump. I thought she was better. Isn't that your point? So her actions should stand on their own.  What's next - comparing her to Robert E. Lee?  She doesn't believe in slavery?  Cool.

    (There's a false equivalency for those fans).

    but, if you want to use "false equivalency", this is it. Trump is the alleged assaulter. HC is not. she is the wife of the alleged assaulter. how is she letting down women when, for all we know, the accusers were all lying? at that level, I wouldn't put any conspiracy past anybody. 

    if Bill came out and said what Trump said on tape, or in public, then yeah, you'd have a case. and I'm almost certain if that was the case, she'd be front and centre speaking up about it. 

    What does is mean?  C'mon. Bill said it in a Congressional hearing.

    anyway, not the point.  (and the false equivalency re: REL was meant to be a joke).

    I disagree with your last assertion as his womanizing was very well known. He was just smart enough not to talk about it (until he was forced to). So, you're being a little obtuse in your view point.

    But, again, all besides the point.  Some have been flabbergasted that folks could vote for Trump over Hillary.  I'm not sure why.  The fact is, if it were a race strictly on who does things the right way, they both would have lost  (and in effect, they both did, as he's now spending his early 70's answering to the public like he never had or wanted to. So, maybe, that's the moral of the story).

    so being a womanizer is the same as sexually assaulting someone?

    you're not sure why?

    -known/suspected racist
    -known/suspected sexual predator
    -known/suspected tax evader
    -known/suspected employee cheater
    -known/suspected russian colluder
    -known/suspected all-around asshole

    to name but a few. 
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,100
    this is so ridiculous. so a woman defends her husband against unproven allegations and somehow SHE is the shithead? because the only thing proven that I'm aware of is a consensual affair with Lewinsky, and Trump's admission of sexual assault on tape. and no, I'm not talking about the P grabbing, which he said he "could do", but the kissing of women without their consent that he says he has done. 


    That's not what I'm saying. But, she's also not the victim. And in the position she was in at the time and the position she desired recently, I'd expect more. That's all I'm saying. You can say it was defending her husband. But, I wasn't just talking about the Lewinsky thing. She "beat up" all his prior accusers, too.  Where there's smoke there's fire. 

    I'm also saying - tough for her to say she stands for women when the women who needed her most she let down.  Double standard. 

    What's your view on Bill Cosby's wife?  I'm not saying a wife can't stand by her man. That's their private business. But, she wanted to be President. There should be a higher standard, as all of you are so quick to point out about Trump (And I'm not disagreeing with).

    And, again - the main thread of this wasn't to rehash the whole thing. It was to point out the


    PJ_Soul said:
    Seriously, this is an interesting topic but can be summed up very quickly:

    How to lose to the 2nd most beatable person to ever run for president? 

    Be the most beatable person to ever run for president.

    I'm sure she will find many outside factors, etc that contributed.  But the bottom line is people....in her own party...don't like her very much.  They don't trust her very much.  Now ... the Donald is certainly less likeable and has proven to be less trustworthy of course to the average US Citizen.  The problem is the average US citizen doesn't vote anymore.  Mostly the fringe of each party and Hillary failed to excite the Dems fringe.  So they stayed home while the Donald excited a lot of the fringe of the Republicans.  I can't believe there needs to be a book about it.  Of course unless the book is merely a cash grab and something to for Hills to shower the blame on other than herself in order to protect her bigly ego. 
    This is what I don't get. For the life of me, and being pretty damn well-informed and as someone who was not a Clinton supporter, I can't figure out how in the fuck anyone in their right mind could possibly consider Clinton to be a worse option than Trump. I sincerely feel like Americans were brainwashed into hating Clinton as much as they do. :fearful:


    I know libs hate this, but you seem to forget/downplay that this is a woman who was supposed to stand for women, then when she had her moment, she bashed her husband's victims. How does the left reconcile that? I guess they would have done the same...  One is talk. The other is action.  Interesting.   Oh, I know - old news.

    Maybe, the left isn't as smart as they consistently tell us they are.

    You're supporting pjsoul's point. That's how you're countering trump, someone accused of sexual assault and admitted to sexually assaulting women. You're playing up a Clinton negative.  

    I am just responding to how people can view one as worse than the other. If you don't see how the action speaks louder than the words to some people, then you are making the same mistake Clinton and her party made and continue to make. 

    Everyone else is stupid and thinking any different than them is a ridiculous thing.

    You're wondering how people view a sex offender differently than what Hillary said in your example?  


    First of all, Bill was a proven serial sex offender and got elected, too, then continued (which is what serial sex offenders do, so not sure why anyone was the least bit surprised). 

    I'm also not judging which is worse b/c in some ways both are worse than the other in different ways. But, in my example it is somewhat worse (Except it isn't) b/c Hillary was supposed to be the strong supporter of women and what little girls aspired to. I would not want my daughter aspiring to standing up for her sex offender husband by berating the victims. Which is what Hillary did.  I would want her to walk out on him and never look back regardless if he was running for President or not (remember, Bill was a sex offender BEFORE he got to office. He was only able to continue unlike other candidates in the same position b/c his wife stood by him - very pragmatic - only problem is Hillary never got the big payoff. So, in the end, she got her dessert - not going to say just desserts b/c the women who Bill committed sexual offenses against would probably say otherwise).

    So, in that perspective it is worse b/c it's factual, clearly proven and she's trying to stand up for the opposite of her action.  Honestly, I can't understand how any woman would want her to have been our first female President.  She's abhorrent in almost any way. Interestingly, if she had won, we wouldn't be talking about it, but in hindsight it would have been because she was in an election vs the only other person in the history of Presidential races she could beat (which is basically what Trump did to continue the hyperbole).

    It is kind of ironic that the Hillary supporters are the most vocal about Trump's sexual transgressions.

    Bill wasn't running. Also, sexual harassment isn't a sex offense. Rape and sexual assault is. If Hillary has any sexual transgressions, I'd be glad to discuss those.  


    I'm not sure the hair you're splitting there, but ok. I guess you're accepting some facts and not others based on who the accused is.

    But, the point of Hillary was her reaction to those things and claiming to be the standard bearer for women.   So, in this case, with someone as powerful as Hillary, would she standing up against her husband once and for all when he committed the ultimate in workplace sexual misconduct have done more for the issues we are dealing with today? Do you think it might have had some impact in the battles women such as the ones that have stood up vs. Bill Cosby face?

    I think you're creating a narrow argument to ignore the facts you want to ignore. If you don't want to discuss her ability to impact the discussion of victims of sexual abuse when she had the unfortunate golden opportunity, then that's fine. Just don't think you can sweep it under the carpet or try to play the degrees of assholery.  I think plenty of victims of sexual misconduct would have loved to have her standing in their corner instead of showing all the perpetrators how to get a "strong" (used very loosely here, as it shows the very basic of weaknesses) woman to stand up for you against your victims.

    I'm making this a trump vs Hillary comparison. You're playing up a Clinton negative
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 6,100
    The topic beings up an interesting gender issue: that women are judged more on the quality of their relationships then men. Imagine if Hillary had multiple children with multiple ex-husbands? Or think about how people would look at a race between Michelle Obama vs. Mr. Lisa Murkowski? How much would their spouse factor in?
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 12,120
    The topic beings up an interesting gender issue: that women are judged more on the quality of their relationships then men. Imagine if Hillary had multiple children with multiple ex-husbands? Or think about how people would look at a race between Michelle Obama vs. Mr. Lisa Murkowski? How much would their spouse factor in?
    excellent point as well. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,930
    The topic beings up an interesting gender issue: that women are judged more on the quality of their relationships then men. Imagine if Hillary had multiple children with multiple ex-husbands? Or think about how people would look at a race between Michelle Obama vs. Mr. Lisa Murkowski? How much would their spouse factor in?
    Haha, oh, if a female with multiple kids from various men tried running for office she wouldn't even get off the ground. Meanwhile, Trump has an ex-wife who says he raped her, and even his opponents didn't seem to give a shit about it.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,077
    PJ_Soul said:
    The topic beings up an interesting gender issue: that women are judged more on the quality of their relationships then men. Imagine if Hillary had multiple children with multiple ex-husbands? Or think about how people would look at a race between Michelle Obama vs. Mr. Lisa Murkowski? How much would their spouse factor in?
    Haha, oh, if a female with multiple kids from various men tried running for office she wouldn't even get off the ground. Meanwhile, Trump has an ex-wife who says he raped her, and even his opponents didn't seem to give a shit about it.
    And he didn't even have the balls to tell Marla Maples to her face but instead "leaked" (snicker) it to the New York Post in some sadistic public humiliation tactic. He'll get his when he's wearing orange.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,780
    Hillarys Victory Fund year end reports for 2015 and 2016 were just amended three hours ago. Hmm?
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • JC29856 said:
    Hillarys Victory Fund year end reports for 2015 and 2016 were just amended three hours ago. Hmm?

    Not gonna bother doing that google thing.  Has her book been published yet? Or is this the edit before being published?
    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
13468920
Sign In or Register to comment.