17
   

"Bill Clinton should have resigned"

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 05:17 pm
@hightor,
State AG running for Governor vs nurse

Let’s see your integrity in action.
revelette1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 07:06 pm
@Lash,
Trump been sued plenty of times and he is a wealthy person. I am sure there are a lot of wealthy people who have been sued and have had pay.

I am just amazed with all this obsession over Clinton's accusers, no is bringing Trump's accusers and saying he should resign.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 07:26 pm
@revelette1,
It is sort of amazing that I don’t know about Trump accusers other than his former wife.

I think their names would be proclaimed from every rooftop.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 07:28 pm
@revelette1,
How do you think it would work out for you suing the Clintons or Trump?
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Nov, 2017 09:03 pm
@Lash,
I don't find it amazing at all you don't know about Trump's accusers.

Donald Trump's Sexual Assault Accusers Demand Justice in the #MeToo Era: 'We Were Forgotten'

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 01:19 am
To the OP: and Henri VIII should have abdicated...
najmelliw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 04:14 am
@maxdancona,
You misread my post max. I don't believe that harassment of any type should be politicized in itself. However, this discussion resolves about prominents in the democratic party not being convicted for sexual harassment in the past, and the other side crying foul now that some figures on their side of the political fence are under scrutiny in this regard.

Yes, Bill Clinton should have been convicted for his misdemeanors, especially if his offences reach beyond Monica Lewinsky to other women.

However, I get the impression the republicans seem entirely unwilling to let any of their 'flock' be criticized for such behavior. And frankly, I find the actions of Roy Moore more despicable than those of Bill Clinton. And in that regard, it probably wouldn't matter if Bill Clinton had been condemned at all. Heck, if he had been given the death penalty, we'd probably hear a line of defense from Republicans that goes a bit like: "I was possessed by the ghost of Bill Clinton, who escaped from the confines of the hell where all dems reside, to possess me and cause me to commit these atrocious acts... I'm innocent in all of this, I tell you!"
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 04:19 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

To the OP: and Henri VIII should have abdicated...

C'est qui, ce type ?

maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 06:28 am
@najmelliw,
Quote:
Yes, Bill Clinton should have been convicted for his misdemeanors, especially if his offences reach beyond Monica Lewinsky to other women.


The point is the hypocrisy of the left. No, it does not excuse the right either for doing the same thing for their partisans. The left's continuing defense of Bill Clinton is indefensible.

There is a credible accusation of rape that was made against Bill Clinton. This accusation is consistent with his behavior toward other women (he lured, or pressured women into a hotel room and then pushed them into sexual acts).

This is not a misdemeanor. You are defending Bill Clinton by saying that he is "not as despicable" as Roy Moore. So what?

This is the account from The Atlantic Magazine (a respected left leaning magazine... this is not Fox News).

Quote:
Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.


https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 07:03 am
“Ken Starr was Right” is trending on Twitter. It does feel very good that the Clintons’ ability to ride above the law is ending.

Stay tuned for other Clinton revelations.

Most of the “right wing conspiracies” will be acknowledged as true.

None of this would’ve happened if she’d been able to cheat her way to the presidency.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 07:05 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The left's continuing defense of Bill Clinton is indefensible.

Who on the left is continuing to defend Bill Clinton?
Quote:
You are defending Bill Clinton by saying that he is "not as despicable" as Roy Moore. So what?

No, najmelliw is not "defending" Clinton, he is simply stating that in his opinion, Moore's crimes were more despicable. You just want everyone to march in lock step with you. Well guess what? People can have different perspectives. Personally I find Weinstein's behavior to be the most despicable of the cases we've mentioned. That doesn't mean that any and all lawbreakers shouldn't be punished for their crimes.
The Atlantic wrote:
Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism.

But it wasn't at all surprising at the time. No more surprising than the evangelical support for Trump and Moore today.

maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 07:09 am
@hightor,
1. Can you show me anyone on the left who mentions Bill Clinton when the list the powerful men who have harassed or assaulted women? He gets a pass. I still don't see any prominent person on the left who is holding Clinton to account.

2. I have never said that Najmelliw is defending Clinton. I am saying that you, Hightor, are defending Bill Clinton. I was responding to you directly. You said he was acquitted of sexual harrassment (he wasn't... the impeachment was for obstruction of justice). You said that he was accused of "misdemeanors" (rape is not a misdemeanor). You seem to be taking every chance to minimize the credible accusations against Bill Clinton.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 08:01 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I still don't see any prominent person on the left who is holding Clinton to account.

I still don't see any prominent person on the left who is defending him.
Quote:
I have never said that Najmelliw is defending Clinton.

You just did, a few posts ago, addressed directly to him:
maxdancona wrote:
You are defending Bill Clinton by saying that he is "not as despicable" as Roy Moore. So what?

Quote:
I am saying that you, Hightor, are defending Bill Clinton. I was responding to you directly.

No, you were responding to najmelliw. You answered his post.
Quote:
You said he was acquitted of sexual harrassment

You're getting confused here. I didn't say that. Show me where I said that.
Quote:
You said that he was accused of "misdemeanors" (rape is not a misdemeanor).

No, I didn't say that either. Here's the statement from the post:
najmelliw wrote:
Yes, Bill Clinton should have been convicted for his misdemeanors

Quote:
You seem to be taking every chance to minimize the credible accusations against Bill Clinton.

Where have I "minimized" the credible accusations? I did point out differences between the crimes allegedly committed by the men in the discussion. A jury would do the same. That doesn't mean I'm "minimizing" the criminality of any sort of behavior.

However, I am taking every chance to criticize your sloppy thinking and your belligerent attitude. Like ex-smokers and ex-drinkers, ex-clintonites are a study in desperation. But unlike you, I never liked the guy, never understood his appeal, never discounted or denigrated his accusers. You want to turn this into a discussion into two opposing sides and in desperation you've tried to make me your foil. But it won't work; nothing I've said backs your contentions.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 08:22 am
@centrox,
Heu... HenrY VIII I guess.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 08:53 am
@Lash,
Quote:
How do you think it would work out for you suing the Clintons or Trump?

In most cases where a common citizen of modest means successfully sues one of the rich and powerful he has the backing of a like-minded legal organization, investigative journalists, or a wealthy benefactor.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 10:19 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
I don't think Clinton paid off his accusers and made them sign non-disclosure agreement. I don't think Clinton plied underage men with alcohol. I don't think Clinton cruised shopping malls looking to pickup teenage girls. I might have missed the full story but it seems simplistic to say that Bill Clinton is the same as Weinstein and Spacey and Judge Moore.


hightor wrote:
Yeah, one case that was litigated [against Clinton]. It wasn't a non-disclosure agreement


hightor wrote:

It's simplistic to claim that Cluinton's actions are "the same" as the other three people you mentioned.


hightor wrote:
Had Broaddrick pressed charges in 1978 and he had been found guilty he never would even have been president.


hightor wrote:
But the fact is, had [Clinton] been convicted of a crime forty years ago he wouldn't have had a successful political career.


hightor wrote:
[Bill Clinton] wasn't that powerful, or that wealthy, in 1978.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 10:50 am
@maxdancona,
Pretty weak, Max. And your point is?

1. Did Clinton pay off multiple accusers over thirty years and make them sign non-disclosure agreements?

2. As far as I know, the Paula Jones case is the only one which actually went to litigation. There was no non-disclosure agreement since it was all public and on the record.

3. Each one of the cases we've discussed has been different. Moore's alleged activities, Weinstein's, Spacey's, etc — all different. To point out the differences in no way lessens the seriousness of the individual charges.

4. It's unfortunate that Broaddrick didn't feel she had the means to press charges back in '78. Had the alleged crime occurred somewhere other than Arkansas she might have been able to find support from a women's rights group.

5. I don't believe Clinton would have won the nomination with a rape conviction against him.

6. Clinton was a lot less prominent and wealthy in '78 and that would have been the best time to have to have prosecuted him. He wouldn't have received the automatic support of liberals like yourself.

I don't see how any of these statements can be seen as "defending" Clinton.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 11:46 am
FLANAGAN: Well, that's really actually have a really strong question to start with because I think a lot of people conflate his extramarital affairs - which, you know, that's his own business - with the very strong history of women coming forward and saying that he assaulted them in unambiguous terms. And so there were a series of women throughout the course of his presidency who came forward with accounts of things they said he did to them which really mirror the kinds of things we're looking at now in the very worst of the cases. Juanita Broaddrick, most prominently, said that he raped her very violently in a way that is quite like the Harvey Weinstein accusations in terms of the hotel room and the suddenness and the bleak horror of it all

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/18/565095154/rethinking-bill-clinton-amid-sexual-harassment-debates

And for political reasons, these women weren't believed at all on the left. They were marginalized. They were ridiculed. They were absolutely - the modern term is slut shamed. And we all kind of buried it into the past thinking that it's over and done with. Maybe that was a mistake to have done that, but it's in the past. But things that are wrong in the past usually have a way of boiling back up. And lately, all of that history has been boiling back up. And people on the left are saying, did we really make a mistake there in being so cruel to those women?

MARTIN: Well, so to that end - and I want to point out that you've written two pieces here. There was the first piece that you wrote about "The Reckoning" and the second piece was called you, know, "What Hillary Knew." But to your earlier point that the Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton, the party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant big-dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history. There are consequences for that - your words. What does that look like now?

FLANAGAN: Well, I think now we're seeing the reckoning. I think for there to have been an editorial in The New York Times by one of its own writers, not a guest writer, saying I believe Juanita, that's very powerful. That was a very just and right thing for them to do. So I think we are beginning to see the reckoning. And I think that'll be important for the party as it moves forward.

MARTIN: So what does this look like going forward? Do you think that an editorial in The New York Times is sufficient? What does that look like?

FLANAGAN: I think it means not sort of saying, well, that was a long time ago. Why are we talking about ancient history? We're in this terrible mess. We have Donald Trump posing the greatest existential threat to the progressive goals and agenda of half a century.

Those things are true. It's also true that these women - something very wrong was done to them by the very group of people who most often say they protect women and protect women's interests - again, the progressive left and the feminist movement. And I think that the party's sort of realizing the truth will set you free. And the truth is, for political reasons, there was an almost calculated decision that we're going to make these women's claims go away.

MARTIN: One does not want to minimize the impact on people, you know, personally. But because it takes place in the context of a political discussion, what about the politics of the moment? I mean, there is a current sitting president who's facing numerous allegations, which he dismisses, of similar conduct, of inappropriately touching people, groping people. So to that end, you can see where people might say, you know, Caitlin, you might be right as a part of an ethical construct, but as part of a political construct where these policies are hanging on a razor's edge, why is this the time to do that?

FLANAGAN: My answer to that is that Donald Trump had a fantastic teacher in how to handle these accusations of sexual assault, and his name was William Jefferson Clinton - deny, deny, deny, marginalize, slut shame. So I think that if we are going to really hold Trump to account for this hideous string of accusations - and remember, there's not one single woman accusing him of anything as grave as Juanita Broaddrick has consistently accused Bill Clinton - we as Democrats should stand up and say we were on the wrong side of history.

We made a profound error. We apologize to these women for what was done to them by our own side. And therefore, with a clean conscience, we can go forward and say, once again, we have a sexual abuser in the White House. And that is something that is profoundly wrong and should be on everyone's mind for 2020.

MARTIN: That's Caitlin Flanagan. She's a contributing editor at The Atlantic. She wrote "Bill Clinton: A Reckoning." And she was kind enough to join us from NPR West. Caitlin Flanagan, thank you for speaking with us.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 12:18 pm
@maxdancona,
You have to understand I am not a native English speaker. So, when I use the term 'misdemeanors', I am not making an implicit statement regarding the extent to which the accused party (at least, accused in this discussion) should be prosecuted, but I'm merely using a term that came to mind while I was trying to find some way to describe his actions. If you feel the term should be crimes, then fair enough, let's call them crimes.

I still feel that what Roy Moore has done is more despicable. If the situation had been reversed though, I would have said the same about Clinton. I'm not judging the man behind the crimes, just the crimes in themselves.

Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2017 12:29 pm
@najmelliw,
I’m not certain; correct me if I’m wrong.

Moore preferred teenaged girls, sought them out, and asked some on dates. Did he assault any of them?

Clinton raped a few adult women, sexually assaulted many more.

Are these the behaviors you’re judging?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 10:40:39