Current Events > Wait so Bill Clinton is a confirmed rapist and people are cool with him still?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Space_Man posted...

DarkTransient posted...

And now, the conservatives who just got a boner, repeat after me: "Republicans aren't much better."

I kinda went into this topic full-torque.

What should I say?

If you realise that both are pretty damn corrupt and only really care about things when it can be used to attack the other, you can say "I am smart."
---

why can't democrats just admit they aren't so morally superior?
---

I mean I wasn't old enough to vote for Bill Clinton. I think most of us probably weren't.
---

DarkTransient posted...

If you realise that both are pretty damn corrupt and only really care about things when it can be used to attack the other, you can say "I am smart."

I just like admitting when I have a rager.

But yeah, both sides are pretty petty.
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

creativerealms posted...

Yeah both sides are hypocrites.

But for some reason they don't admit it.

People loved the shit out of Clinton when he did all that Lewinsky junk. Quite funny and sad how people's opinions can change so quickly.

Speaking of hypocrites and people that outrage mobs should go after, how the fuck is R Kelly still around? Let alone still successful? He literally got caught fucking a kid on camera. Why doesn't like everyone go after him? Seems like the most obvious of targets. But he gets mostly ignored.

Balrog0 posted...

the better argument is that keith ellison has not faced nearly any pressure to resign from his AG candidacy

Honest question, how well known outside of Minnesota is that?
---

Damn, how could Bill do this....This Broaddrick lady wasn't even attractive 20 years ago.

voldothegr8 posted...

But at least he's not racist!

---

Oakland510_ posted...

Damn, how could Bill do this....This Broaddrick lady wasn't even attractive 20 years ago.

It's more about power than anything.

Balrog0 posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

All the future #metoo people with Hillary in the lead were digging up anything they could to discredit the numerous women accusers.

its been 20 years dude a lot of the people who are doing the metoo thing were either not born or were very young children at the time

20 years and Bill is still considered a hero and untouchable. He earned his nickname "Slick Willy" with the help of the DNC.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Balrog0 posted...

the better argument is that keith ellison has not faced nearly any pressure to resign from his AG candidacy

Honest question, how well known outside of Minnesota is that?

Well, Im not sure how to answer that question because I feel its kind of a feedback loop.

If I'm being honest, of course I agree that AG of MN is less high profile than SCOTUS nominee. But Ellison made national news as a Sanders surrogate, both by endorsing him and then by running for DNC chair and losing... but then being elevated to deputy to maintain the progressive bona fides that the DNC has, such as they are

When the allegations came to light, they were national news. And I think justifiably. But there have been new developments in the past month and they are not being covered. Why?
---

HiddenLurker posted...

20 years and Bill is still considered a hero and untouchable.

Hardly
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-bill-clinton/index.html
---

Antifar posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

20 years and Bill is still considered a hero and untouchable.

Hardly
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-bill-clinton/index.html

I agree with Antifar here but want to take the time to note what a bullshit, cowardly, and self-interested stance this was for gillibrand to take after years of supporting the clintons full throatedly

even her justification is pretty bullshit

"Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction,"

like, things are different now, so we should have acted differently then? that's only a little different, with respect to rhetoric, than ted cruz saying botham jean 'found himself murdered'
---

shockthemonkey posted...

What are the new developments? They definitely deserve to be covered, I havent heard of them yet and the allegations against him are pretty fucking awful.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/keith-ellison-karen-monahan/index.html

The story went dormant for a few weeks -- although Ellison had promised to "talk more about it in the coming days." That all changed earlier this week, when Karen Monahan began to tweet again about the allegations.
She tweeted this: "Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed."
And this: "I expected everything that has taken place, before I decided to break my silence. I even stated it in my original statement. I showed up for myself & that was a huge piece of my healing."
And, this: "My grand baby deserves a world where human dignity is not a political tool for your parties interest. #metoo"

http://www.startribune.com/ellison-ex-girlfriend-posts-medical-record-alleging-abuse/493785421/

Here is one of my Dr visits stating the abuse that occurred. It amazes me the measures people have to take for their humanity to be validated. #metoo, Monahan posted on Twitter on Tuesday.

The document states that she told the doctor she had been in a very stressful environment for years and experienced emotional and physical abuse from a partner from whom she had since been separated.
---

Absolutely correct. I brought this up the other day and somebody here told me to get over it because he answered for it. Same with Anthony wiener (D).
---

Balrog0 posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Balrog0 posted...

the better argument is that keith ellison has not faced nearly any pressure to resign from his AG candidacy

Honest question, how well known outside of Minnesota is that?

Well, Im not sure how to answer that question because I feel its kind of a feedback loop.

If I'm being honest, of course I agree that AG of MN is less high profile than SCOTUS nominee. But Ellison made national news as a Sanders surrogate, both by endorsing him and then by running for DNC chair and losing... but then being elevated to deputy to maintain the progressive bona fides that the DNC has, such as they are

When the allegations came to light, they were national news. And I think justifiably. But there have been new developments in the past month and they are not being covered. Why?

Oh, I just mean that I'm from Minnesota so I'd heard about the Keith Ellison stuff. But the only reason I've seen any of the newer updates was because of Jake Tapper who has a hate boner for Keith Ellison because of his connections to Farrkahan (sp).

I think Bernie supporters forgot all about him once he became deputy chair.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I agree with Antifar here but want to take the time to note what a bullshit, cowardly, and self-interested stance this was for gillibrand to take after years of supporting the clintons full throatedly

Compared to the alternative where she continues to stan for the Clintons, this is significantly better.

Self-interested: in the sense that she recognizes where the attitudes among Democratic voters currently are, sure. But at some level aren't politicians supposed to change with their constituents? It's a good thing if the anti-Bill stance is also a winning one.

Cowardly, I'm not seeing, especially given some of the backlash she's gotten from the #stillwithher crowd
---

https://wapo.st/2zncxGL

Critics of Ford have taken to calling into question whether its possible for a 30-year-old memory to be credible.

Fords account is credible, even though she cant remember several details.

Theres no criminal trial, but Kavanaugh still has the presumption of innocence, said attorney Douglas Wigdor, a former prosecutor who now represents victims in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases against high-profile men.

I stand to believe theres no such thing as a he-said-she-said case, Linda Fairstein, former chief of the Manhattan District Attorneys Offices Sex Crimes Bureau, told The Post. As a prosecutor, its your job to break down every minute of the encounter so that details on one side pushes the facts over the edge.

Prosecutors do that regularly, in large part by parsing whats reasonable and whats believable through corroboration, details that have the ring of truth and inconvenient facts that are subtle signs of credibility.

[The worst is yet to come for Kavanaughs accuser. Take it from this sexual assault attorney.]

Fords account is credible, even though she cant remember several details.
Theres no criminal trial, but Kavanaugh still has the presumption of innocence, said attorney Douglas Wigdor, a former prosecutor who now represents victims in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases against high-profile men.

But, according to Fairstein, it was completely normal that Ford didnt remember several details.

If she testifies, I would expect her to say I dont remember scores of times, Fairstein said, for two reasons: the passage of time and trauma. She found this experience so upsetting that she felt her life was in danger. There might be 220 things she doesnt know and then a very specific sentence about what happened that was so traumatic."

According to psychologist Anne Meltzer, it may be challenging to recall peripheral details of an assault years later such as who spread word of the party, who was the designated driver but that should not detract from a victims veracity if she can clearly and consistently articulate central details of what happened, such as the who, what and where, she told The Post.

Meltzer, who has not reviewed the details of this case, has testified as an expert witness hundreds of times in child sexual abuse cases, with victims up to 17 years old.

Are the details Ford did mention more telling?
Perhaps more striking are the details Ford did mention.

Fairstein said sexual assault rarely happens with witnesses present. Yet Ford puts two people in the room Kavanaugh and his prep school classmate, Mark Judge, whom she called an essential witness.

To me, its compelling that [Ford] puts someone else there, and that the person who happens to be in the room has a blackout drinking problem," said Fairstein. Judge, now a filmmaker and author, described himself similarly in his book Wasted: Tales of a Gen-X Drunk. Thats sort of the intoxicated behavior she described that night, she added.

Ford mentioned details like the pool party, the narrow staircase, that the house was in Montgomery County. There are enough facts for someone to remember it was their party and their house, said Fairstein.

Wigdor echoed Fairstein, saying: She put a third person in the room. If you were making something up, why would you do that?

Wigdor also mentioned that Ford voluntarily took and passed a lie-detector test. While not admissible in court, theyre used by various governmental agencies, and many people believe in their abilities, he said.

as for bill, there are plenty of people who don't like him. trump himself was accused of rape by his ex-wife, and yet he was elected.
---

Antifar posted...

Compared to the alternative where she continues to stan for the Clintons, this is significantly better.

that seems like a meaningless statement to me

Antifar posted...

Self-interested: in the sense that she recognizes where the attitudes among Democratic voters currently are, sure. But at some level aren't politicians supposed to change with their constituents?

yes, they are. but I hope you have this level of magnanimity when shitty GOP or centrist democrats are elected in other states? or are you just flexible with garbage politicians that represent you?

Antifar posted...

Cowardly, I'm not seeing, especially given some of the backlash she's gotten from the #stillwithher crowd

Well, I've never seen that hash tag and I know plenty of women who like her for said stance and this is the cycle of the woman in a post-Trump era and I live in Arkansas. Just different perspectives I guess.
---

Balrog0 posted...

yes, they are. but I hope you have this level of magnaminity when shitty GOP or centrist democrats are elected in other states? or are you just flexible with garbage politicians that represent you?

Listen: Kristen Gillibrand is absolutely an opportunist. Like 10 years ago she was representing a reddish district and singing a much different tune than she is now. She still has a lot of views I find objectionable, and I think you can have doubts as to whether a President Gillibrand (and let's be honest, that's what all this posturing is about) would follow through on some of the things she's started talking about lately. (She's voiced her support for a Jobs guarantee, and postal banking, among others).

I'm not convinced that Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill's votes on Wall Street deregulation are out of any sort of deference towards the popular will of West Virginia or Missouri. There's probably more support for that shit in NY (Gillibrand voted against undoing Dodd-Frank) than in rural America.

But I'm not going to criticize Gillibrand for taking a good stance just because in the past she had a bad one. It's good when politicians take good public stances (and especially when they vote on those public stances). It is bad when they publicly take bad stances and vote that way. I don't particularly give a shit about their hidden motives or private beliefs.

The example that came up earlier today is Obama's support for gay marriage. As a candidate, Obama didn't support it. As president, his administration played a big role in its acceptance and nationwide legalization. If you're a gay person, how much does it matter whether those policies came from cynical calculation or a genuine change of heart?
---

Antifar posted...

HiddenLurker posted...

20 years and Bill is still considered a hero and untouchable.

Hardly
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/17/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-bill-clinton/index.html

20+ years after the fact and one inept "he should have resigned" a full year AFTER Hillary lost and no Clintons in any political office. Never mind she was campaigning for Hillary and Bill to return to the White House that previous year as well.
---

Antifar posted...

Listen: Kristen Gillibrand is absolutely an opportunist. Like 10 years ago she was representing a reddish district and singing a much different tune than she is now. She still has a lot of views I find objectionable, and I think you can have doubts as to whether a President Gillibrand (and let's be honest, that's what all this posturing is about) would follow through on some of the things she's started talking about lately. (She's voiced her support for a Jobs guarantee, and postal banking, among others).

I'm not convinced that Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill's votes on Wall Street deregulation are out of any sort of deference towards the popular will of West Virginia or Missouri. There's probably more support for that shit in NY (Gillibrand voted against undoing Dodd-Frank) than in rural America.

But I'm not going to criticize Gillibrand for taking a good stance just because in the past she had a bad one. It's good when politicians take good public stances (and especially when they vote on those public stances). It is bad when they publicly take bad stances and vote that way. I don't particularly give a shit about their hidden motives or private beliefs.

I'm not convinced that she made her stance about bill in response to popular will in New York, either! it seems clearly motivated by national interest groups and the general support for me too on a national level

and yeah, I understand that for strategic reasons. but only strategic reasons. if you are not like this when other politicians take good stances, then I feel you are not being sincere about your motivations here.

did you support mccain this much when he voted against the ACA repeal? if so, then I understand your position and I agree with you. if not, I feel you may be a bit of a hypocrite

edit - this is actually more meaningful for the mccain example, because her stance against the clintons is not a policy stance, it is an obvious PR move
---

You can't compare back then to now.

Balrog0 posted...

did you support mccain this much when he voted against the ACA repeal? if so, then I understand your position and I agree with you. if not, I feel you may be a bit of a hypocrite

It was a good vote! It doesn't absolve him of all his other bullshit or make him a hero. Likewise, Gillibrand denouncing the Clintons (to the extent she did) doesn't absolve her of voting to expand the military budget again.
---

Given the choice between a Kristen Gillibrand who says "Bill Clinton should've resigned" and a Kristen Gillibrand who doesn't, all else being equal, I will take the former.
---

Antifar posted...

It was a good vote! It doesn't absolve him of all his other bullshit or make him a hero. Likewise, Gillibrand denouncing the Clintons (to the extent she did) doesn't absolve her of voting to expand the military budget again.

I agree. It isn't what I asked. I'm asking, did you go to the mat for McCain over this vote the way you seem willing to go to the mat for Gillibrand over this stance? How many people did you talk to who hated McCain did you say, "Well, look, he does bad stuff but he did a really good thing just now." or do you talk about his support for the military the way you just gave me a fig leaf and talked about Gillibrand's support of the military?

Likewise, how many people who hate Gillibrand do you say to them, "Yeah, she's garbage and she loves bombing brown people." or do you talk about the things you like about her?
---

Antifar posted...

The example that came up earlier today is Obama's support for gay marriage. As a candidate, Obama didn't support it. As president, his administration played a big role in its acceptance and nationwide legalization. If you're a gay person, how much does it matter whether those policies came from cynical calculation or a genuine change of heart? It is absolutely better to have a president sign good policy into law out of pure self-interest than to have one honestly deny that policy, polls be damned.

But that's policy. Not just an attempt at horserace manouvering.
---

Antifar posted...

Given the choice between a Kristen Gillibrand who says "Bill Clinton should've resigned" and a Kristen Gillibrand who doesn't, all else being equal, I will take the former.

its just weird to me that a self-avowed socialist has this kind of weird milquetoast take on one of the two senators they can actually vote for

you're not wrong but ok
---

Anteaterking posted...

Antifar posted...

The example that came up earlier today is Obama's support for gay marriage. As a candidate, Obama didn't support it. As president, his administration played a big role in its acceptance and nationwide legalization. If you're a gay person, how much does it matter whether those policies came from cynical calculation or a genuine change of heart? It is absolutely better to have a president sign good policy into law out of pure self-interest than to have one honestly deny that policy, polls be damned.

But that's policy. Not just an attempt at horserace manouvering.

yes, exactly

my issue here is

far right dude does something actually good: well he sucks anyway but Im glad he did that I guess

centrist says something good way too late for it to matter: I'm very glad she said this even though she is clearly doing it to get votes

I really think the strong pro-Clinton establishment dem party in NY has scrambled your brain here antifar
---

Balrog0 posted...

I agree. It isn't what I asked. I'm asking, did you go to the mat for McCain over this vote the way you seem willing to go to the mat for Gillibrand over this stance? How many people did you talk to who hated McCain did you say, "Well, look, he does bad stuff but he did a really good thing just now."

I'm not going to the mat for Gillibrand except to say that there are a lot of people who hate her for the dumbest available reasons: her comments on Clinton and Franken.

Balrog0 posted...

Likewise, how many people who hate Gillibrand do you say to them, "Yeah, she's garbage and she loves bombing brown people." or do you talk about the things you like about her?

If that's why they hate Gillibrand, I'm right there with them in agreement. I'm not gonna break bread with someone who hates her because she's pro-choice.
---

again, that isn't what I asked or said, have a nice evening antifar
---

Balrog0 posted...

my issue here is

far right dude does something actually good: well he sucks anyway but Im glad he did that I guess

centrist says something good way too late for it to matter: I'm very glad she said this even though she is clearly doing it to get votes

Is your problem that I didn't criticize Gillibrand enough while talking about a good thing she said? Because I can do that. It won't be to the extent that I criticize McCain, because Gillibrand is not as bad as McCain.
---

Antifar posted...

Is your problem that I didn't criticize Gillibrand enough while talking about a good thing she said? Because I can do that.

Nah, it's my perception that you are much less willing to criticize her than others, despite her value system not aligning with yours. This is expressed by your equivocation when she comes up in this context. I could be wrong, I don't follow your posts closely. But it seems to me that your 'I actually don't care what politicians privately think' mentality is pretty inconsistent, I feel like you are very willing to talk about the past behaviors, stances, and affiliations of other people all the time, especially when it's convenient for dunking on someone you already don't like.

Maybe I'm wrong!

Antifar posted...

It won't be to the extent that I criticize McCain, because Gillibrand is not as bad as McCain.

that's kinda what I mean, are you not one of those 'fish hook theory, dems are right wing' dudes? like how can you unironically say this if so?
---

I mean, again, it isnt wrong, its just the exact same damn justification for every compromising centrist politician that has ever existed and I thought you hated those people

so its just weird that you're arguing over how its good for her to condemn a dude who hasnt held public office for 20 years even though she's not taking any policy stance, she supported him for more than 20 years and never said shit about it until this year, and most importantly she's not even really saying she was wrong to not condemn him in the past!

just weird, no big deal though really
---

Balrog0 posted...

that's kinda what I mean, are you not one of those 'fish hook theory, dems are right wing' dudes? like how can you unironically say this if so?

Democrats are a right wing party, but they are not as bad as the Republicans. My line has always been that both parties are bad, but they are not the same. There are real differences that do have an impact on people, but those differences aren't so large that the two parties occupy opposite ends of the spectrum as they are sometimes portrayed.

To give the example in this topic: the good thing John McCain did is something every Democrat did without half the theatrics. Gillibrand did it. Joe Manchin did it.
---

Grischnak posted...

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

creativerealms posted...

Yeah both sides are hypocrites.

But for some reason they don't admit it.

People loved the shit out of Clinton when he did all that Lewinsky junk. Quite funny and sad how people's opinions can change so quickly.

Speaking of hypocrites and people that outrage mobs should go after, how the fuck is R Kelly still around? Let alone still successful? He literally got caught fucking a kid on camera. Why doesn't like everyone go after him? Seems like the most obvious of targets. But he gets mostly ignored.

I hate to laugh but anytime he gets brought up I immediately go to that chappelles show skit.
---