BC_chick

I know he won't. That's why I said I wish he would.

That 'dictator' won a majority government even though the number of refugees was openly part of his platform.

I wish Nathan Cullen would run for NDP.

If everything is based on reputation and he said vs. she said then I agree, both sides are being obliviously blind to one side's misconduct. But in Clinton's defense, while both are pigs, at least Bill Clinton was a qualified president. Trump is a despot who wants to erode civil rights, drop nukes and jail political opponents.

I feel like I'm going in circles here because I've already responded to this issue but I'll repeat. This was the 'two for the price of one' couple. The 'we are the president' couple. She was very much involved in his presidency and his campaign. I don't know about you, but if my husband cheated on me and his strategy for damage control was to hire an investigator to dig up anything on the women's pasts to discredit them, I'd be appalled. You may just shrug your shoulders (best case scenario of what Hillary did).... or you may say yes baby, go get 'em (worst case scenario of what she did)... I don't know. Maybe that's why you don't find anything wrong with what she did. Although I think she's much more qualified to be POTUS, I find that that part of her behaviour, well... deplorable.

My bad, that's not what I meant. It should have read *setting out* to destroy their lives. I have never thought she actually succeeded in ruining anyone's life, her mere attempts were bad enough for me and in my posts the last few pages I've been clear about that. Now I do understand why you keep bringing up the money though. I didn't make the connection.

Quote me where I said that. From what I recall, I said the Clintons set out to destroy the reputations of these women just because they came forward with allegations.

I see. So because the Clintons' failed at their objective, it makes their actions ok?

You may be cool with it. Most feminists aren't cool with using a woman's past to publicly shame her into silence.

To add to the my earlier post about them endorsing every democrat candidate since 1956 - you are aware that they are the ones that leaked the Trump taxes right? You know also that currently Trump is threatening to sue them over a published article about women he abused, right? Yes, that's the same paper that acknowledges Hillary has full knowledge (at best) that her husband's campaign had hired an investigator to dig into the lives of Bill's accusers in order to disrepute them.

And yes, hiring investigators to dig into the past of Bill's lovers was very much substantiated. The question is not about what they did, but how much Hillary was involved. At best she agreed. At worst, she encouraged it.

You don't claim she's done nothing wrong, msj, but there have been numerous posters on this thread who do downplay the tactics the Clintons chose in dealing with Bill's affairs. I'll be popping the champagne for Hillary Nov 8th and I'm sooo happy to see Trump lose to a woman and I'm even happier he dragged the whole GOP Senate down with him, but I'm not going to pretend what the Clintons did was ok just because Trump is a pig.

No, Hillary's involvement in discrediting the women her husband slept with was an issue for her campaign even before she won the nomination. I've been reading about it since early 2016. She's still better than Trump by miles but I don't see how hoping for her win must equate some kind of romanticized ideal where she's never done anything wrong.

The last republican the NYT endorsed was in 1956, but sure, they're not left-wing. Also from the article: The information gathered by Mr. Palladino was given to Betsey Wright, a former chief of staff to Mr. Clinton in Arkansas who, with Mrs. Clinton’s support, was put in charge of dealing with accusations of infidelity. “Betsey Wright was handling whatever those issues were,” Susan Thomases, a friend of the Clintons who had served in the campaign, told the oral history project. “And it had been very comfortable because Hillary had let her do it.”

I quote the New York Times again (a left-wing paper)... In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the investigator’s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then disseminated to the news media. By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to “sexual relations” with Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by the private investigator to brand her as a “bimbo” and a “pathological liar.” Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.

The question is not about whether or not she was aware of what Clinton's campaign was aiming to do about the bimbo eruptions, it's about how much was she a motivating factor. At best, she approved, at worst she encouraged it.

If I were up against the Clintons, not necessarily. No actually from the start I brought up the investigators... or did you think I was implying Hillary personally went around talking to their exes trying to dig things up. LOL And sure, "We are the president" and "Two for the price of One" didn't know what their, er I mean 'his' campaign was doing.

No, I don't. She may be a very sexual woman, which would explain why Bill Clinton harassed her. This is exactly the kind of tactic that defense lawyers use to discredit rape victims. I could see it from the Betsy types but not you.

Right, she just goes along with it.

Really, cybercoma? I'm shocked to hear you of all people say this. Are you somehow saying her decision to pose nude takes away from her credibility? Women involved in any kind of sex trade are very likely to be harassed. A woman's decision to capitalize on her sexuality does not take away her credibility about assault. Gah, gross.

I wonder what it is about Bill Clinton that makes all these cray cray women come out of the woods to falsely accuse him of sexual harassment. Poor guy, it doesn't seem to happen to any of the other presidents I've seen in my adult life.

The investigator said they both called to thank him. But of course... he's lying too.

Why? She had a right to capitalize on her notoriety. How does that make a case for her falsely accusing him?

Clinton's campaign hired an investigator to delve into her past just to destroy her reputation. What does her posing nude have to do with using such an anti-feminist tactic to disrepute a woman?

But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce. The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to impugn Ms. Flowers’s “character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.” In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the investigator’s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then disseminated to the news media. By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to “sexual relations” with Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by the private investigator to brand her as a “bimbo” and a “pathological liar.” Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.