Donald vs Hillary

[cybercoma]

Just now, BC_chick said:

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

Think about the way she capitalized on her notoriety. If she wrote a book or something, fine. I can see that. She went on to pose for the Penthouse, not Playboy. She then endorses Trump after he brags about sexually assaulting women. This doesn't sound like someone who was sexually harassed and is concerned about women and their safety. This sounds like an opportunist.

[BC_chick]

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.

[BC_chick]

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

Think about the way she capitalized on her notoriety. If she wrote a book or something, fine. I can see that. She went on to pose for the Penthouse, not Playboy. She then endorses Trump after he brags about sexually assaulting women. This doesn't sound like someone who was sexually harassed and is concerned about women and their safety. This sounds like an opportunist.

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.

[BC_chick]

4 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Investigators are always hired for these types of cases.  That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.  And Hillary certainly didn't plan this.  Bill has people in place to do this sort of stuff.  They are the ones who would ultimately call the shots on how to handle it, not Hillary.

Right, she just goes along with it.

[cybercoma]

You don't think it shows poor judgment to gain public notoriety from being sexually assaulted only to turn around and pose nude in a magazine that is notorious for its terrible treatment of women? Come on.

Edited October 13, 2016 by cybercoma

[BC_chick]

Just now, cybercoma said:

You don't think it shows poor judgment to gain public notoriety from being sexually assaulted only to turn around and pose nude in a magazine that is notorious for it's terrible treatment of women? Come on.

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.

[cybercoma]

She's supporting Donald Trump after that tape came out. I don't feel bad for her one bit. Don't tell me she was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton, but she's going to stand behind Donald Trump. It doesn't add up. At best it's hypocritical. Given the history of the scandals, it's far more likely that Paula Jones is a liar, who got her payday from the Republicans to sink Bill, got her payday from Penthouse when Lewinsky shot them down, and is now getting her payday from Trump. She's made a good living off attacking the Clintons.

[cybercoma]

Oh and she got her payday from the Clintons by settling out of court. I don't know about you, but I would think that justice would be more important than a payday if she was actually harassed.

[BubberMiley]

16 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Right, she just goes along with it.

Your previous assertions suggested she played a more active role by personally destroying these now-much-wealthier women's lives. Funny how those accusations can disperse when actual sources are requested and provided. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by BubberMiley

[BC_chick]

12 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Oh and she got her payday from the Clintons by settling out of court. I don't know about you, but I would think that justice would be more important than a payday if she was actually harassed.

If I were up against the Clintons, not necessarily.

7 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Your previous assertions suggested she played a more active role by personally destroying these now-much-wealthier women's lives. Funny how those accusations can disperse when actual sources are requested and provided. 

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.  

 

[BubberMiley]

3 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

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.  

 

You don't think it's plausible that Bill would shut Hillary out of those dealings as best he could because cheating husbands are often secretive about such things around their wives?

[BC_chick]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

You don't think it's plausible that Bill would shut Hillary out of those dealings as best he could because cheating husbands are often secretive about such things around their wives?

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.

 

[BC_chick]

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.

Edited October 13, 2016 by BC_chick

[BubberMiley]

Calling the NYT a left-wing paper suggests you get a lot of your media from right-wing sources (not that I'm questioning their journalism).

My point is that her position as his wife made it very likely she wasn't getting all the information.

[msj]

I suppose if there is a tape somewhere of Hillary stating that she "grabbed Paula Jones [or whoever] by the pussy" and kissed Gennifer Flowers on the lips (mafia style if you know what I mean) then I would agree that it looks bad for Hillary. 

Until then this is just typical campaign tactics undertaken by any team trying to elect their guy to office. 

BTW, Trump is now, or his campaign team is, doing what is alleged of Hillary so even here they come out, at worst, even on this score.  

And I find little to no fault, so far, with Trump's campaign scrutinizing the women making claims against him. That should be done and is part of the consequences for anyone making any allegations.  

[BC_chick]

3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Calling the NYT a left-wing paper suggests you get a lot of your media from right-wing sources (not that I'm questioning their journalism).

My point is that her position as his wife made it very likely she wasn't getting all the information.

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.”

[BC_chick]

5 minutes ago, msj said:

Until then this is just typical campaign tactics undertaken by any team trying to elect their guy to office. 

 

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.

[msj]

Never said that she has never done anything wrong. 

Just do not think that what you claim she has done has been substantiated in any factual way. 

Even then, I do not see how what was done is not would typically be done by any campaign (see Trump 2016) and in many cases should be done by a campaign.

These are the consequences for making allegations and entering the political arena. 

If one does not like it then either do not enter it by staying silent, make the claim in a court of law (i.e. press charges and deal with the consequences in that way), or make the claims and deal with the political blow back. 

That's the way the world goes round and it may not be perfect but too bad.  

Edited October 13, 2016 by msj

[BC_chick]

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.

[BC_chick]

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.

[msj]

Who cares how much she was involved.  Of course investigators were hired. 

As they SHOULD be.  

[BC_chick]

36 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Calling the NYT a left-wing paper suggests you get a lot of your media from right-wing sources (not that I'm questioning their journalism).

 

 

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.

[BC_chick]

2 minutes ago, msj said:

Who cares how much she was involved.  Of course investigators were hired. 

As they SHOULD be.  

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

[WestCoastRunner]

3 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

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

haha, silence?  I mentioned earlier that Gennifer Flowers made 500,000 selling her stories to the media.

[BC_chick]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

haha, silence?  I mentioned earlier that Gennifer Flowers made 500,000 selling her stories to the media.

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