For someone is not going to argue something, you had a lot to say about his sexual activities.]
And the above is a weak attempt to score a point. I actually haven't said much at all about his sexual activities other than they were more than flirting. My comments addressed what I believe is your view of his acts and why I don't find it problematic to describe him as "likable" or to acknowledge I admire certain of his talents. I've no interest in arguing whether or not he was guilty of sexual harassment (or worse) or simple marital indiscretion. Neither of us will convince the other of their respective points of view.
Quote:I think he was more than a flirt, he had known affairs, consensual affairs, some long term. What I don't believe is that he forced in any way someone to have any kind of sexual acts and I don't think it has been proven. Affairs, sexual acts, yes, force or harassment, no. It wasn't even proven in court despite their best efforts. I think his affairs was personal, Paula Jones was pure politics, as well as that other rape charge. It was just not credible or believable by anyone. I also think for a smart guy, Bill Clinton behaved unbelievably stupid. I mean he had to know the Star report conspiracy ring was just waiting to trip him up and I guess he felt like he could get away with having a consensual relations with Monica Lewinski if he was smart enough to get around them. It was a dumb thing to do, but not criminal. I could see Hillary have a holly fit over it and throwing things. Despite the mocking Hillary got, she was in my honest opinion right about the vast right wing conspiracy. One of the players so to speak even wrote a book talking about the whole thing. I forget his name right now.
All I will say is that since you are emphasizing facts in terms of charges made against Clinton, you must have more supporting your contention that it was all "a vast right wing conspiracy" beyond a reference to an unnamed "player" writing an unnamed book.
Quote:This line of attack is so obvious, I am just afraid it will work. Words like sexual predator and harassment puts a different aspect than just consensual affairs even if was a 21 year old intern.
Hillary Clinton opened the door to attacks involving her husband's sexual predation, when she accused Trump of being a sexist. We have expected all along that she would resort to charges of sexism at the drop of a hat and we've not been disappointed. She even insinuated Bernie Sanders was a sexist when he made the comment: “All the shouting in the world is not going to do what I would hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence.” She is the first woman to have a real shot at becoming president of the United States and as with Barrack Obama's opportunity to become the first African-American President, the possibility of a a woman president is a big deal to a lot of people who will vote for her for no other reason.
It is a big deal, and if Carly Fiorina wins it will be a great achievement for a woman, women and the country.
Clinton would be foolish not to capitalize on the appeal of electing the first woman president. In and of itself it's a stupid reason to vote for someone, but, obviously, she believes she has plenty of additional qualifications beyond her gender. Since society (thanks to folks like Clinton and those who support her) have established "sexist" as an effective, and easy to use epithet, almost as powerful as "racist," she can be expected to employ it at every opportunity -- even those she herself creates out of whole cloth.
However, if she is going to accuse her opponents of being sexists then it is fair game for her opponents to consider her past behavior in the face of sexism and to utilize it in the form of an attack if they believe it is informative of her character.
That is what Trump has done. He's certainly not the first person to call into question the ways in which Hillary responded to her husband's blatant sexism: Namely, attack those who have claimed to be or have been identified as the victims of his sexist, sexual predation. If someone is going to present themself as a, or even the, Defender of Women, and Champion Against Sexism, then it is appropriate to question if she has played those roles when she had a personal stake in the situation, or, instead, betrayed the virtues they represent.
Since the days of Bill's sexcapades, there has been a high profile, highly charged public discussion of sexual predation by men. A great many participants in that discussion have expressed outrage and dismay whenever a claiming victim is dismissed as a slut with ulterior motives, or a jilted lover. Sounds an awful lot like the well rehearsed and practiced response of Hillary and the Clinton Team whenever a woman dare accuse Bill of sexual harassment or worse.
Don't forget now. Everyone go to see the current film on Dalton Trumbo.
Does it remind you of Trump?
Now you seem to be suggesting that the consideration of "likability" in a political contest is somehow sexist.