On Juanita Broaddrick's accusations of rape by Bill Clinton

Because Trump earned his; Hillary sold off our country to get hers.

People are free to make their own moral decisions as long as they don't hurt anyone and both (or how ever many) parties are consenting adults.

The reason it was stupid in my opinion was because he should have known better politically as he was already caught in the Paula Jones case which was never proved.

The reason I never bought the accusations of rape and other such is because it was all just too politically convenient and nothing was ever proved. If they wasn't forever trying to get them on something, it might have been more believable. I agree he had the morals of a Tom cat and I couldn't have stayed married to him. Hillary's choice to stay married to him was her own business.

I agree with that. However perjury is a crime. And that was disappointing.

He was never convicted of perjury, the charges failed in the Senate. He was cited for contempt of court in the Paula Jones case but not perjury.

Quote Lash:

I admit that Bill Clinton's policies resulted in good Full Time jobs for the population generally, and for the black community especially. Under Bill Clinton, Full Time jobs increased 16% for all races taken together, (which is quite impressive), and 30% for African Americans, (which is truly remarkable).

Oddly, though I have pointed this out several times, you don't seem to be able to deal with it in any meaningful way-or any way at all, actually. I guess the Pretend Progressive Role talking points you receive via Email can't figure an answer out for this yet.

Quote Lash:

Bill Clinton's policies resulted in the rising wave of black murders not only subsiding, but actually going down 30% by the end of his term. Here are the facts, let the readers decide who is posting pre-fab crap and who is posting actual figures:
Black Murder Victims By Year
Under Bush I
1987......8,998
1988......9,956
1989.....10,566
1990.....11,487
1991.....12,227
1992.....11,777

Bill Clinton Takes Office
1993.....12,433
1994.....11,854
1995.....10,442
1996.......9,473
1997.......8,841
1998.......7,933
1999.......7,139
2000.......7,425

Under Bush I's last year murder rate, there would be 94,216 black people murdered in the years 1993 through 2000. Instead, under Bill Clinton only 75,540 black people were murdered in those years. Bill Clinton's presidency saved over 18,000 black lives.

Lash-or whatever sources or organizations Lash gets her information from-are very careful not to mention this. Lash only mentions it when she is complaining that I am posting it. The fact that thousands of black lives were being saved simply doesn't impact her intellectual or emotional radar.

I don't think there is any new evidence that wasn't out there when the story first surfaced.

In and of themselves, Bill's antics should not influence the election, but they didn't happen on another planet, and whether her fans like it or not she was a major player in the scandals because she led the charge against all of Bill's accusers.

If she is now saying that a woman who charges rape should, by default, be believed then she owes Broaddrick a big apology.

I'm no fan of Trump but he had the perfect response to her charge that he was a sexist...how she provided cover for her sexually predatory husband. It's important to note she hasn't personally tried that **** since.

The "Woman's Movement" in the US sustained a huge black eye when they decided to follow partisan politics and support Clinton over the women he wronged.

The height of hypocrisy is a Dem grunting about how these women all just had the hots for Slick Willy.

Abortion being legalized decades earlier has more to do with the decline in crime than either president's actions IMO.

Abortion and crime

https://youtu.be/zk6gOeggViw

LOL. I'm sorta worried about Blickers now. I don't think she is capable of handling that information. A LOTTA investment in that erroneous Clinton stat. (giggling)

Quote Robert Gentel:

Unfortunately your opinion is not backed up by the data. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980-2008, apparently 10.6% of the murders were committed by people between the ages for 14 through 17.



Now let's take a look at the black murder victims by year. Remember that abortion was nationally legalized in 1973:
Black Murder Victims
Under Bush I
1987......8,998
1988......9,956
1989.....10,566
1990.....11,487
1991.....12,227
1992.....11,777

Bill Clinton Takes Office
1993.....12,433
1994.....11,854
1995.....10,442
1996.......9,473
1997.......8,841
1998.......7,933
1999.......7,139
2000.......7,425

With 10.6% of the murders committed by 14, 15, 16, and 17 year olds, most probably half of that was by 14 or 15 year olds. With abortion legalized in 1973, that means that black murders should have started going down in 1987 or 1988 at the latest. Instead, we see that from 1987 through 1993, black murders soared up an amazing 38%, with only one year out of those seven, (1992), having murders even slightly decline-followed by an increase the next year. After that, with Clinton in the White House, black murders declined an amazing 37% from the year before Bill took office.

The abortion hypothesis sounds nice but it simply doesn't follow the facts.

No he pled out and surrendered his law license.

Don't get me wrong, other than eroding personal liberties with e-mail collecting and giving FISA courts more power, Allowing privat industry to "manage" corrections facilities, and legislation to end "supper predators" with three strike laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and the deregulation of the banking industry, Bill was a very good President with one of the best economy ever. I think Bush fucked up by trying to to out-slick Willy. At least Clinton knew to at least tax the wealthy, just like Ronnie Reagan (raiesed taxes six out of eight years) did. In fact Ronnie and Bill taxed at about the same rates.

I'd vote to give Big Dog another eight.

First of all it is not my opinion, it is a battle-tested hypothesis that has overcome much better criticisms during peer-review than you have been able to muster. This is not something I came up with myself as my own opinion. This is science that other brilliant people did and that you are simply not refuting.

It might not fit your interpretation of your data here but the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis is a body of academic work that far exceeds the few variables and assumptions you are stringing together to refute them (and if you really think you have refuted them you should publish your work and win a John Bates Clark Medal like Levitt did for your academic contribution to behavioral economics).



Abortion was actually not nationally legalized at the same time, and that states with different dates saw their corresponding drop in crime hit at different years was a small part of the corroboration of the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis.



This selection of these ages is something that jumps out at me as not making academic sense. The majority of crime was committed by people 18-24 and this is why the drop in crime happened later than you are saying it must, because the majority of criminals are far older than the ages you have selected (for reasons unclear to me).



Nope, the drop in crime that correlates to the legalization of abortion started in 1992 and peaked in 1995 because 18-24 year olds are the key demographic, not 15 year olds like you are focusing on.



It didn't fit your cherry-picked age, no but you have not in any way refuted the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis. In fact "all of the decline in crime from 1985-1997 experienced by high abortion states relative to low abortion states is concentrated among the age groups born after Roe v. Wade." [1] and the papers themselves acknowledge that there was a temporary spike in black male homicide during the 80s (concentrated in certain metropolises) that correlates to the introduction of crack cocaine to the marketplace.

Here is a quote from the source I linked above:



The spike in black homicide that briefly overcame the effect of legalized abortion is due to the introduction of crack to inner cities and the subsequent epidemic it caused and this is also something that neither president is responsible for just like the abortion crime drop.

Bottom line is that those numbers peaked and dropped mainly due to abortion and crack and not Bush and Clinton and no, your data does not refute this at all. In any case just out of curiosity what specific policies do you point at for claiming Clinton as the cause of the improvement and Bush as the one to blame?

He was cited for contempt, he was not charged nor did he plead out for perjury charges in the Paula Jones case.

CLINTON IS FOUND TO BE IN CONTEMPT ON JONES LAWSUIT

Quote Blickers:

Quote Robert Gentel:

Suit yourself. But the thing is, what you stated was this.
Quote Robert Gentel:

You mentioned it as being your opinion, so I just went with that.

Quote Robert Gentel:

The Supreme Court ruled it legal in 1973, and most states follow suit quickly. At any rate, the number of abortions, according to the CDC, started rising immediately, from 1973 to 1979 the number of abortions doubled, from about 0.6 Million, (600,000), to 1.2 Million.



Which means that, 14 or 15 years later, some impact on the murder rate should occur. Not having to wait 22 years for the very first impact to occur.

Quote Robert Gentel:

The majority of murders were not committed by people between the ages of 18-24, the chart I posted before makes it clear it was 37.5%. The 18-24 group committed a little more than three times as many murders as the younger group, but once again, when the first generation of kids born when abortion first became available hits 14 or 15 years old, some downward effect on the murder rate should occur. But we don't see this at all.

15 years after 1973 is 1988. That year should show some diminishing of murders, with greater attenuation as time goes on. Yet we find that period of time, from 1987 through 1993, murders increased at the rate of 5.5% annually. And the annual increase in murders was not even going down at the end of that period-1993 had 5.5% more murders than 1992.

If we saw a gradual levelling off of the number of black murder victims 14 or 15 years after abortion was legalized and the number of abortions started to climb, this hypothesis might make sense. As the main reason for the decline in murders, it does not fit the facts.

Adding IMO to the end was meant to just make it sound less of an absolutism, a convention I use to make introducing diametrically opposing ideas more palatable, but even typing "IMO" gave me pause when I wrote it because this is really not just my opinion but generally accepted science, I decided on adding it anyway because it softens the difference of opinion. Now that you have indulged in inordinate absolutism yourself, calling your position factual I only think it fair that you know that this isn't some idea of my own but something with a lot more science behind it than you are prepared to refute.



5 states legalized it 3 years prior to that, and in those states the crime rate dropped 3 years earlier than the other states. That is the key point you are ignoring that I made, not that in 1973 it became widespread (which is certainly true, just irrelevant to the point that the timing of the crime drop is clearly correlating with abortion and doing so 18+ years later, not in the 14 years you arbitrarily decide it should to try to refute this body of science).



Says you but upon what do you base this claim? I have pointed you to the science behind the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis that shows that this drop occurs primarily 18-24 years after abortion is legalized. You just arbitrarily declare in an ipse dixit that it should happen at 14-15 but this is simply not what the data shows. The data (from dozens of states and multiple countries in distinct studies) show that the drop primarily should occur 18-24 years after abortion.



I didn't say murder, I said crime but either way I misspoke here. It is not the majority, I was wrong to say so and you are right to correct that. However 18-24 are the peak ages for violent crime (again, citing the 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime") and that is the fact that I was misstating.



Your claim that you should see the crime drop 14-15 years after abortion being legalized is just your own arbitrary line you've drawn. The many studies on this show that this effect is most significant at 18-24 years after abortion.

But in any case in many places there was a drop earlier too. And like the authors of this study have said the reason why black homicide temporarily bucked the trend: the crack cocaine epidemic reaching inner cities.



Who is this 'we"? You are contradicting hundreds of award winning scientists, you should just say that you refuse to see it and not that this is something that "we" cannot. The science has been out on this for 15 years and is generally accepted (except, of course, among conservative opponents to abortion).



18 years after 1973 is 1991. That's when the crime started dropping and that is when it should really start to do so according to the studies on this (again, by multiple people, in multiple states, and in multiple countries).

You arbitrarily demand to see it happening at 15 years after abortion is legal when the body of science makes it clear that it tends to happen 18-24 years after abortion is legal.



Says you again arbitrarily, contradicting the enormous body of science on the subject that says we should see it primarily 18-24 years after (the peak drop is was 22 years after if I remember the data correctly).



According to your own arbitrary rule that despite the science saying it should really start to drop 18-24 years after that it should be earlier. And you also ignore that the scientists have already addressed your exact qualm with the data by saying you need to control against the crack epidemic.

Look, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink so now that I've pointed you at science that has withstood 15 years of conservative attacks there's little more that I can do to convince you and will have to live with failing to do so. The science is clear that crack and abortion are the primary causes of the spike and drop and if you refuse to accept that science in favor of your arbitrary ideas on how it should actually work there's nothing I can do about that.

But I can ask you this yet again as you haven't bothered to address it the last time: What specific policies do you blame Bush for and credit Clinton for when you attribute this to them? Reject the science that points clearly at crack and abortion if you want, but what are you even claiming? If you attribute this to Bush vs Clinton how did that work? Where is the science behind your claim? I've showed you mine, which you rejected out of hand as is your prerogative, but what is your claim that Bush and Clinton are the ones responsible for these numbers based on?

I wish you wouldn't have gloated, that only makes people double down on their positions and doesn't help the discussion any.

Dude, I've seen that particular Clinton stat from that particular individual thirty five times. I felt my comment was much more comic relief than gloating, but apologies and point taken.

He surrendered his law license over it. His contempt was his inability to tell the truth.

From the way I see when I look at all in totality, including the language they used to describe sexual relations, he was just trying too hard to be "slick" willy and dance around his dilemma he brought on himself. If had admitted his relationship with Lewinski, it would have tripped him on the Paula Jones case, (though I don't see how an office affair between two consenting adults would have meant he did what Paula Jones accused him of.) So he used the meaning they had come up with in the Paula Jones case to skirt around divulging oral sex with Monica Lewinsky. Probably why he used the words, "inappropriate relations" when he finally got around to admitting it to keep in the confines of the definition of what the Paula Jones case had decided constituted sexual relations. The way I see it he got himself in a sticky web of his own making for the whole entire world to witness.

I went through all this at the time, I remember it pretty well, not really sure why it has to get rehashed every time there is an election coming around, even if the Clinton are not involved, it seems it gets thrown in anyway.