Hillary Clinton: What happened

Go Beavers

JimmyV said:

This column is both ferocious and spot on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

What a lot of articles and discussions on “the Clintons” leave out is that with different gender roles and expectations, Hillary could’ve continued her career after divorcing Bill. Maybe even become president after having multiple kids with multiple ex husbands. 

Bentleyspop

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

How many millions of dollars has the Clinton Foundation accepted from countries that execute gays and women for speaking to a man outside of her family?

Pssssh, "equal rights".

Let's parse this out:

Clinton Foundation took money from homophobes and misogynists.

And spent it improving global health, increasing opportunity for girls and women, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, creating economic opportunity and growth, or helping communities address the effects of climate change.

How is that a bad thing?

But but but it's THE CLINTONS!!!!

JimmyV

Go Beavers said:

JimmyV said:

This column is both ferocious and spot on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

What a lot of articles and discussions on “the Clintons” leave out is that with different gender roles and expectations, Hillary could’ve continued her career after divorcing Bill. Maybe even become president after having multiple kids with multiple ex husbands. 

I've never cared that she supported Bill or that she stayed married to Bill. I don't think divorcing him would have hurt her political career at all. It might have delayed it, meaning I don't think she could have run for Senate in NY in 2000. But had she gone away for a few years and then run in 2002 or 2004 I don't think it would have been a problem at all. Not to Democratic voters in blue states, at least.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV said:

Go Beavers said:

JimmyV said:

This column is both ferocious and spot on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

What a lot of articles and discussions on “the Clintons” leave out is that with different gender roles and expectations, Hillary could’ve continued her career after divorcing Bill. Maybe even become president after having multiple kids with multiple ex husbands. 

I've never cared that she supported Bill or that she stayed married to Bill. I don't think divorcing him would have hurt her political career at all. It might have delayed it, meaning I don't think she could have run for Senate in NY in 2000. But had she gone away for a few years and then run in 2002 or 2004 I don't think it would have been a problem at all. Not to Democratic voters in blue states, at least.

Agreed. But there is no way in hell she would have gotten as far as she did if she had multiple kids with multiple ex-husbands.

JimmyV

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

Go Beavers said:

JimmyV said:

This column is both ferocious and spot on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

What a lot of articles and discussions on “the Clintons” leave out is that with different gender roles and expectations, Hillary could’ve continued her career after divorcing Bill. Maybe even become president after having multiple kids with multiple ex husbands. 

I've never cared that she supported Bill or that she stayed married to Bill. I don't think divorcing him would have hurt her political career at all. It might have delayed it, meaning I don't think she could have run for Senate in NY in 2000. But had she gone away for a few years and then run in 2002 or 2004 I don't think it would have been a problem at all. Not to Democratic voters in blue states, at least.

Agreed. But there is no way in hell she would have gotten as far as she did if she had multiple kids with multiple ex-husbands.

True.

Go Beavers

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

Go Beavers said:

JimmyV said:

This column is both ferocious and spot on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

What a lot of articles and discussions on “the Clintons” leave out is that with different gender roles and expectations, Hillary could’ve continued her career after divorcing Bill. Maybe even become president after having multiple kids with multiple ex husbands. 

I've never cared that she supported Bill or that she stayed married to Bill. I don't think divorcing him would have hurt her political career at all. It might have delayed it, meaning I don't think she could have run for Senate in NY in 2000. But had she gone away for a few years and then run in 2002 or 2004 I don't think it would have been a problem at all. Not to Democratic voters in blue states, at least.

Agreed. But there is no way in hell she would have gotten as far as she did if she had multiple kids with multiple ex-husbands.

I guess there’s no way to prove she would’ve survived politically, but I remember multiple conversations from about 20 years ago where that was the reason given as to why she stayed with Bill. 

Halifax2TheMax

Will we ever move on from the Clintons? Or will they be trotted out and beaten like dead horses for eternity? 2040 presidential debates, Republican candidate turns to his democrat opponent and says, “did you know of and support Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s coverup of the Benghazi investigation and her pay to play Uranium One deal?” Democrat candidate’s response, “I hadn’t been born yet.”

JimmyV

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

Go Beavers said:

JimmyV said:

This column is both ferocious and spot on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

What a lot of articles and discussions on “the Clintons” leave out is that with different gender roles and expectations, Hillary could’ve continued her career after divorcing Bill. Maybe even become president after having multiple kids with multiple ex husbands. 

I've never cared that she supported Bill or that she stayed married to Bill. I don't think divorcing him would have hurt her political career at all. It might have delayed it, meaning I don't think she could have run for Senate in NY in 2000. But had she gone away for a few years and then run in 2002 or 2004 I don't think it would have been a problem at all. Not to Democratic voters in blue states, at least.

Agreed. But there is no way in hell she would have gotten as far as she did if she had multiple kids with multiple ex-husbands.

I guess there’s no way to prove she would’ve survived politically, but I remember multiple conversations from about 20 years ago where that was the reason given as to why she stayed with Bill. 

This is actually an interesting "What If?" Imagine she does divorce Bill, and then instead of moving to New York and running for Senate in 2000 she moves back to Illinois (where she was born) and runs in 2004. Does the power of her name prevent Illinois State Senator Barack Obama from entering the Democratic primary? How different might history be today?

Go Beavers

Halifax2TheMax said:

Will we ever move on from the Clintons? Or will they be trotted out and beaten like dead horses for eternity? 2040 presidential debates, Republican candidate turns to his democrat opponent and says, “did you know of and support Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s coverup of the Benghazi investigation and her pay to play Uranium One deal?” Democrat candidate’s response, “I hadn’t been born yet.”

I think we’ll hear about them for quite a long time. I’ve heard more references to Ted Kennedy being a schmuck in the last year than the previous 10. 

JimmyV

Go Beavers said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Will we ever move on from the Clintons? Or will they be trotted out and beaten like dead horses for eternity? 2040 presidential debates, Republican candidate turns to his democrat opponent and says, “did you know of and support Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s coverup of the Benghazi investigation and her pay to play Uranium One deal?” Democrat candidate’s response, “I hadn’t been born yet.”

I think we’ll hear about them for quite a long time. I’ve heard more references to Ted Kennedy being a schmuck in the last year than the previous 10. 

Once we have a 2020 nominee not named Clinton we will hear about them less.

Halifax2TheMax

JimmyV said:

Go Beavers said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Will we ever move on from the Clintons? Or will they be trotted out and beaten like dead horses for eternity? 2040 presidential debates, Republican candidate turns to his democrat opponent and says, “did you know of and support Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s coverup of the Benghazi investigation and her pay to play Uranium One deal?” Democrat candidate’s response, “I hadn’t been born yet.”

I think we’ll hear about them for quite a long time. I’ve heard more references to Ted Kennedy being a schmuck in the last year than the previous 10. 

Once we have a 2020 nominee not named Clinton we will hear about them less.

I doubt that.

JimmyV

Halifax2TheMax said:

JimmyV said:

Go Beavers said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Will we ever move on from the Clintons? Or will they be trotted out and beaten like dead horses for eternity? 2040 presidential debates, Republican candidate turns to his democrat opponent and says, “did you know of and support Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s coverup of the Benghazi investigation and her pay to play Uranium One deal?” Democrat candidate’s response, “I hadn’t been born yet.”

I think we’ll hear about them for quite a long time. I’ve heard more references to Ted Kennedy being a schmuck in the last year than the previous 10. 

Once we have a 2020 nominee not named Clinton we will hear about them less.

I doubt that.

We'll hear about them less than we do now.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

Go Beavers said:

JimmyV said:

This column is both ferocious and spot on.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-clinton-hillary-revisionism-democrats-2017-11

What a lot of articles and discussions on “the Clintons” leave out is that with different gender roles and expectations, Hillary could’ve continued her career after divorcing Bill. Maybe even become president after having multiple kids with multiple ex husbands. 

I've never cared that she supported Bill or that she stayed married to Bill. I don't think divorcing him would have hurt her political career at all. It might have delayed it, meaning I don't think she could have run for Senate in NY in 2000. But had she gone away for a few years and then run in 2002 or 2004 I don't think it would have been a problem at all. Not to Democratic voters in blue states, at least.

Agreed. But there is no way in hell she would have gotten as far as she did if she had multiple kids with multiple ex-husbands.

I guess there’s no way to prove she would’ve survived politically, but I remember multiple conversations from about 20 years ago where that was the reason given as to why she stayed with Bill. 

Though 20 years ago all those reasons were undoubtedly 100% valid. I guess now that times have changed she could divorce him now, but by now perhaps they are very satisfied with their marriage, one way or another.
BTW, why do people assume she ever wanted to divorce Bill???? Not every person who gets cheated on wants to divorce. It's not like they're obligated to. And frankly, why someone wants to get divorced or not is absolutely nobody's business. I also don't think it's fair that everyone assumes she didn't divorce him solely for political/career reasons. I'm sure that likely had something to do with it, but it seems to me that everyone thinks that's the ONLY reason she's stayed with him. I personally don't think so at all. I think she genuinely loves him too.

josevolution

yeah it's absurd when the righteous crowd gets all bent when a woman or man don't divorce the cheating partner i know plenty of folks who have been caught cheating on their spouses and they worked it out ....

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Monica blew, Hillary knew.  Bill raped, Hillary attacked the victims.    This all could have stopped 20 years ago had Hillary been brave enough.  She's no better than Joe Paterno.  She had all the power in the world to stop the passing along. How many victims could have been prevented?   It's about time the clintons are being called out for what they are.   Trump is nothing compared to what Bill did.  Sorry, those are the facts.   Doesn't make trump a good person, but none the less.  Time to stop your hypocrisy,   Cmon, you can do it.   The Libs in govt and media are finally admitting their collusion was wrong.  You can too.   

Maybe if this shit had stopped and the offenders tossed in jail and never heard from again, we wouldn’t have had the Clintons? You know, Moral Majority, the Jimmies, Jim Swaggart and Jim Bakker. The family values, moral majority Republican hypocrisy party should cease and desist their enabling and justification via the sweet baby Jesus. Don’t even get me going on the Catholic Church. It’s all wrong but one party, and religion, is more hypocritical than the other. Wanna talk about the threat gays pose? And their shit goes back 30 or 40 years. Hell Bush was grabbing Bush before Clinton had a gleam in his eyes. Family values, character matters, Rushbo, Newt the Beaut, Hastert, O’Reilly, et al. All wrong but only one party mocks and doesn’t own it, hello Roy. Where’s Randy Paul? Diddling the neighbor’s wife?

I agree. There are many road signs on the path that could have altered the course.  To me, this was just the most egregious, obvious and proven.   There are rationalizations of his and her behavior.  The platform they had was higher than anyone has ever had.   That's the point here.  But, yes, numerous examples that hopefully we will stop ignoring including admitting where we missed an opportunity.  Funny folks like Gloria Steinem rationalized it away at the time.  Very Machiavellian in the worst kind of way.  

I see Hillary as a Greek fable.   She did everything to reach her ultimate goal of being president with the hubris that regardless of the collateral damage, she would be the greater good.  Well, how did that work out?   Like all Greek fables, theres a moral.   Do the right thing when you have the chance to, and the greater good will be served.  Think of where Hillary could have stood in history if she stood up for victims when the opportunity presented it?  Who knows?  Maybe she'd even be president now.  How ironic.   

If Bill being a rapist is a fact, isn’t there even more evidence that trump is a rapist?

There is?  Please share.  He talks like an 8th grader trying to impress his friends,  do I think he's used his position to do things he shouldn't?  Sure.  but I'd like to hear the evidence other than his 8th grade impressing the guys talk.   And, yes that is an indictment on its own. We shouldn't have a president that talks like an 8th grader.  

To a couple other comments - I don't want either Clinton jailed.   I don't even bring this up in light of trump.  You all do.   I am responding to a Hillary thread.

im also not sure why every time someone talks about the Clintons it turns back to trump.  They are separate issues.

take this - a CEO has an affair with an intern in his office.  Put on your Human Resources hat and let me know if you see a problem there.  Then multiply that by 1,000,000 and you get the power issue involved in what Bill did as an AG, a governor and a president. 

PJ_Soul

Seriously? You are unaware of the rape accusations laid against Trump?? Even the child-rape one? She even attempted to take it to a civil trial, but couldn't afford the legal fees.
And the reason it always turns back to Trump is because he's the current president, so it's way more relevant, and no, they aren't really separate issues. Not in the context you bring it up. You are trying to tie it to current politics. So just the fact that all those accusations against Trump existed BEFORE he was elected makes it infinitely more relevant to the issue of sexual assault running rampant among the so-called elite, and infinitely more relevant in terms of current politics.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento said:

Go Beavers said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Monica blew, Hillary knew.  Bill raped, Hillary attacked the victims.    This all could have stopped 20 years ago had Hillary been brave enough.  She's no better than Joe Paterno.  She had all the power in the world to stop the passing along. How many victims could have been prevented?   It's about time the clintons are being called out for what they are.   Trump is nothing compared to what Bill did.  Sorry, those are the facts.   Doesn't make trump a good person, but none the less.  Time to stop your hypocrisy,   Cmon, you can do it.   The Libs in govt and media are finally admitting their collusion was wrong.  You can too.   

Maybe if this shit had stopped and the offenders tossed in jail and never heard from again, we wouldn’t have had the Clintons? You know, Moral Majority, the Jimmies, Jim Swaggart and Jim Bakker. The family values, moral majority Republican hypocrisy party should cease and desist their enabling and justification via the sweet baby Jesus. Don’t even get me going on the Catholic Church. It’s all wrong but one party, and religion, is more hypocritical than the other. Wanna talk about the threat gays pose? And their shit goes back 30 or 40 years. Hell Bush was grabbing Bush before Clinton had a gleam in his eyes. Family values, character matters, Rushbo, Newt the Beaut, Hastert, O’Reilly, et al. All wrong but only one party mocks and doesn’t own it, hello Roy. Where’s Randy Paul? Diddling the neighbor’s wife?

I agree. There are many road signs on the path that could have altered the course.  To me, this was just the most egregious, obvious and proven.   There are rationalizations of his and her behavior.  The platform they had was higher than anyone has ever had.   That's the point here.  But, yes, numerous examples that hopefully we will stop ignoring including admitting where we missed an opportunity.  Funny folks like Gloria Steinem rationalized it away at the time.  Very Machiavellian in the worst kind of way.  

I see Hillary as a Greek fable.   She did everything to reach her ultimate goal of being president with the hubris that regardless of the collateral damage, she would be the greater good.  Well, how did that work out?   Like all Greek fables, theres a moral.   Do the right thing when you have the chance to, and the greater good will be served.  Think of where Hillary could have stood in history if she stood up for victims when the opportunity presented it?  Who knows?  Maybe she'd even be president now.  How ironic.   

If Bill being a rapist is a fact, isn’t there even more evidence that trump is a rapist?

There is?  Please share.  He talks like an 8th grader trying to impress his friends,  do I think he's used his position to do things he shouldn't?  Sure.  but I'd like to hear the evidence other than his 8th grade impressing the guys talk.   And, yes that is an indictment on its own. We shouldn't have a president that talks like an 8th grader.  

To a couple other comments - I don't want either Clinton jailed.   I don't even bring this up in light of trump.  You all do.   I am responding to a Hillary thread.

im also not sure why every time someone talks about the Clintons it turns back to trump.  They are separate issues.

take this - a CEO has an affair with an intern in his office.  Put on your Human Resources hat and let me know if you see a problem there.  Then multiply that by 1,000,000 and you get the power issue involved in what Bill did as an AG, a governor and a president. 

I believe you brought up trump in an earlier comment. And trump isn’t speaking like an eighth grader in the tape, he speaking like a sex offender. Eighth graders who make up stories make up consensual stories. Unrepentant sex offenders brag about their behavior.   

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul said:

Seriously? You are unaware of the rape accusations laid against Trump?? Even the child-rape one? She even attempted to take it to a civil trial, but couldn't afford the legal fees.
And the reason it always turns back to Trump is because he's the current president, so it's way more relevant, and no, they aren't really separate issues. Not in the context you bring it up. You are trying to tie it to current politics. So just the fact that all those accusations against Trump existed BEFORE he was elected makes it infinitely more relevant to the issue of sexual assault running rampant among the so-called elite, and infinitely more relevant in terms of current politics.

I'm not saying Trump is innocent.  I just asked for your facts.   Neither he nor Hillary were fit to be President.

to be purely political, Bills rape came out before he was elected and Hillary attacked the victim.   And all of that happened before Hillary ran for senate or anything else.  Then he doubled down while in office.   If that doesn't bother you, I don't know what to tell you.  I believe you for one said - well, it was consensual, so no big deal.   You couldn't be more wrong.  If I got your sentiment confused with someone else, I apologize.   However, it's that exact sentiment that prevents us from fixing this problem.  

And maybe, if she had come out for the victims and against the raper 30 years ago, you wouldn't be stuck with Trump as President.   Are you guys having trouble connecting the dots?  I can't lay it any more bare for you. 

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

Seriously? You are unaware of the rape accusations laid against Trump?? Even the child-rape one? She even attempted to take it to a civil trial, but couldn't afford the legal fees.
And the reason it always turns back to Trump is because he's the current president, so it's way more relevant, and no, they aren't really separate issues. Not in the context you bring it up. You are trying to tie it to current politics. So just the fact that all those accusations against Trump existed BEFORE he was elected makes it infinitely more relevant to the issue of sexual assault running rampant among the so-called elite, and infinitely more relevant in terms of current politics.

I'm not saying Trump is innocent.  I just asked for your facts.   Neither he nor Hillary were fit to be President.

to be purely political, Bills rape came out before he was elected and Hillary attacked the victim.   And all of that happened before Hillary ran for senate or anything else.  Then he doubled down while in office.   If that doesn't bother you, I don't know what to tell you.  I believe you for one said - well, it was consensual, so no big deal.   You couldn't be more wrong.  If I got your sentiment confused with someone else, I apologize.   However, it's that exact sentiment that prevents us from fixing this problem.  

And maybe, if she had come out for the victims and against the raper 30 years ago, you wouldn't be stuck with Trump as President.   Are you guys having trouble connecting the dots?  I can't lay it any more bare for you. 

Did you say It’s a fact Bill is a rapist, or was that someone else? 

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento said:

PJ_Soul said:

Seriously? You are unaware of the rape accusations laid against Trump?? Even the child-rape one? She even attempted to take it to a civil trial, but couldn't afford the legal fees.
And the reason it always turns back to Trump is because he's the current president, so it's way more relevant, and no, they aren't really separate issues. Not in the context you bring it up. You are trying to tie it to current politics. So just the fact that all those accusations against Trump existed BEFORE he was elected makes it infinitely more relevant to the issue of sexual assault running rampant among the so-called elite, and infinitely more relevant in terms of current politics.

I'm not saying Trump is innocent.  I just asked for your facts.   Neither he nor Hillary were fit to be President.

to be purely political, Bills rape came out before he was elected and Hillary attacked the victim.   And all of that happened before Hillary ran for senate or anything else.  Then he doubled down while in office.   If that doesn't bother you, I don't know what to tell you.  I believe you for one said - well, it was consensual, so no big deal.   You couldn't be more wrong.  If I got your sentiment confused with someone else, I apologize.   However, it's that exact sentiment that prevents us from fixing this problem.  

And maybe, if she had come out for the victims and against the raper 30 years ago, you wouldn't be stuck with Trump as President.   Are you guys having trouble connecting the dots?  I can't lay it any more bare for you. 

Me being bothered isn't the issue. My point is that it is relatively irrelevant right now. Also, as I've argued before, you assume that Hillary believes the victim. Why?? If she doesn't believe the victim then of course she is going to attack her. She isn't actually obligated to believe some woman over her husband. She might be wrong, but she has a right to believe what she believes, since there isn't any proof. You seriously expect women to automatically side with some stranger over her husband, in general? That just isn't how it works. I feel like you act as though Hillary is the accused. She isn't. And as far as we know, she doesn't defend a guilty man. She defends a man she thinks isn't guilty for all we know. Even if she suspected her husband was guilty, I can't believe you think her defending her husband against accusations 30 years ago can be mentioned in the same breath as the current POTUS who admitted to being a sexual predator himself and who has 16 accusers of more recent crimes. I have no clue how you put Hillary Clinton in the same ballpark as Donald Trump. I think that is ridiculous. I also think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that if she had believed it all, and had then sided with any accuser, that it would have had a big impact on the rampant problem of men being predatory perverts. That idea is pretty naive.