logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Trump plays his last card, Hillary the enabler
Dingo
post Oct 11 2016, 08:05 PM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



To deflect from his own inclination toward sexual predation Trump has attacked Hillary as an enabler of her own husband's sexual behavior. The writer in the article below takes the position that yes, Bill was a bad boy but making Hillary take the blame is unfair.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/pol...on_hillary.html

QUOTE
I've always found Broaddrick's claims about Bill Clinton credible, though only the two of them know the truth. Five people say she told them about the assault right after it allegedly happened. She denied the rape in a 1997 affidavit filed with Paula Jones' lawyers but changed her story the next year, when she was interviewed by the FBI in the course of Kenneth Starr's investigation. At the time, some Clinton defenders treated her changing story as evidence of her untrustworthiness, but it seems perfectly plausible that, as she told the New York Times, she hadn't wanted to go public but also felt she couldn't lie to federal investigators. In the 1990s, Clinton defenders sometimes pointed to the fact that Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after she says he raped her. But we know it's not uncommon for rape victims to blame themselves and continue to seek their rapists' favor. After all, I also believe Jill Harth, who accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment and attempted rape, even though later, reeling from a divorce, she became his girlfriend.

Far less credible, however, is Broaddrick's claim that Hillary Clinton tried to intimidate her into silence. Even after Broaddrick went public with the rape charges, she initially denied that anyone tried to silence her. Did Bill Clinton or anyone near him ever threaten you, try to intimidate you, do anything to keep you silent?” Dateline’s Lisa Myers asked her in 1999. No, Broaddrick replied. But a few months later, Broaddrick gave an interview to the Drudge Report in which she said that Hillary had indeed tried to shut her up, albeit very subtly. At the Clinton fundraiser Broaddrick attended, she told Drudge, Hillary caught me and took my hand and said 'I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.' Broaddrick interpreted this as a threat, but it sounds like the kind of thing a candidate's wife at a political event would say to all his supporters. Even in her rendering of Hillary's words, there is nothing outwardly sinister in them.

As I've written before, everything we know about the Clintons' marriage tells us that Bill took pains to hide his affairs from his wife. In A Woman in Charge, Hillary's biographer Carl Bernstein describes how Bill initially refused to settle a lawsuit with Paula Jonessetting off the events that led to impeachment because he feared admitting a sexual encounter to Hillary. "Bill didn't dare acknowledge to his wife that something had transpired with Jones, so he rolled the dice and risked his presidency on the outcome just as he would when he denied for months that he had had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky" Bernstein writes.


Questions for discussion:
How much weight do you think private behavior should exert on a political leaders fitness to serve in public office?You are welcome to discuss the range of those behaviors and their relative consequences.

Do you think Hillary carries any special burden for her husband's behavior? If so, in what way and how does that matter as far as her fitness for the highest office in the land?

This post has been edited by Dingo: Oct 11 2016, 08:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 21 2016, 01:23 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,325
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 20 2016, 08:50 PM) *
You might want throw in using American troops to secure possession of ME oil wells, proliferating nuclear weapons, starting a war with Iran etc. etc. etc. as part of your political considerations. The idea that a candidate totally clueless and also reckless in the area of foreign policy would be qualified to be POTUS boggles the mind. In addition the search for safety zones for innocent civilians is going to have to be addressed one way or another if you don't want to have a massive permanent refugee problem.


Clueless. Reckless. Yes, that's the word. For our current foreign policy.

I agree Trump is clueless too. I don't know about reckless. He would have to rely on his advisers just like most presidents, and it depends on what they would advise.
I haven't heard him assert that he would start a war with Iran. Per nuclear proliferation...well, that does require context. See the video of Hillary akaCG provided above.
That's what happened to the guy who agreed to drop his nuke program. Bad guys get that message loud and clear, and they aren't about to disarm now. Just a few short years ago Hillary called Assad a "reformer". Now we're talking about risking WWIII to oust him. Clinton seems to want to insult Putin into doing what we want.
To quote Scott Adams, who is spot-on about her: "this approach seems dangerous as hell to me".

Reckless. Clueless. You'll note in the link above that I agreed with her foreign policy (on Syria) back when it seemed to make sense.
Though I have never liked her, I'm a pragmatist and don't disagree just to disagree.

Edited to add:
QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 20 2016, 08:50 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 20 2016, 10:48 AM) *
It doesn't require endorsement of his behavior, it requires not pointing out the dirt on your opponent's lapel if you are personally wallowing with swine and covered in grime. You don't have to "like" the filth, but if you're living with it, best not to comment so much on it as though your sensibilities cannot get over the shock, as though you've not only never seen it before but can't even believe anyone would ever be that filthy.

This seems apples and oranges to me. Bill was a political ally, Trump is a political opponent. The first would reasonably be handled privately. I understand, for instance, in the case of Lewinski when Bill finally admitted his mutually consenting affair with Monica it resulted in a slap and a period of estrangement but not enough to break up a strong political alliance. It would be strange if when confronted by Trump's groping tape and the subsequent confirmation by 9 ladies within a week that she wouldn't condemn him as any opponent would have. It would be weird if she didn't, particularly as a champion of women. You can call it hypocrisy. I call it political reality.


As I mentioned, I do not blame Hillary for how she reacted. It's completely immaterial to me. That isn't the issue.
The issue is:
If you are married to a grand larcenist you cannot expect that pointing the finger at the guy caught committing petty theft is going to be persuasive political move (unless you have a very very low view of the intelligence of the overall public). By attacking him on this, she is ipso facto shining a light on to herself and her own hypocrisy (and Trump was right to call her on it).

Would it be odd if she didn't mention it? I don't think so at all.
The smart move would be to leave that to others (the media has sure run with it).
If I were in her position, I would just let it stand on it's own and say I'd await the facts before jumping to judgement. She has the single women's vote anyway.
I would have actually respected her for that.
But I'm not a bureaucrat

(I'm also too much of a cynic to believe these claims, at this time, are purely coincidental and not orchestrated).

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 21 2016, 01:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 21 2016, 05:56 PM
Post #22


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,350
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 21 2016, 09:23 AM) *
(I'm also too much of a cynic to believe these claims, at this time, are purely coincidental and not orchestrated).

So much dirt is out there on Trump, it's very surprising to me that his Republican competitors didn't use big wagon loads on him during the primaries. Maybe there's an unwritten rule among Republicans that sex scandals are only to be used against Democrats, being as we are supposed to be a bunch of amoralistic, godless commies.

That explains why Trump wasn't challenged during the primaries. However, the Trump camp's attempt to get Bill's stink to stick to Hillary invited the exposure of Trump being just as bad, maybe worse than, Bill. That leads me to conclude that it indeed was not a conspiracy but an entirely predictable reaction. Trump's people brought it on themselves out of, to be nice, political naivety. I also detect a great deal of wrong-headed thinking about general reality in Trump's camp. Chalk that up to chauvinism, the stuff that seems to have defined the Republican Party today and since the 1960s:

QUOTE
Chauvinism is an exaggerated patriotism and a belligerent belief in national superiority and glory. - Wikipedia

QUOTE
Simple Definition of chauvinism
: an attitude that the members of your own sex are always better than those of the opposite sex
: the belief that your country, race, etc., is better than any other
- MWO


Exaggeration and belligerence define both Trump and the Republican Party, so it's a match made in, ah, somewhere other than heaven.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 21 2016, 07:19 PM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,325
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 21 2016, 12:56 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 21 2016, 09:23 AM) *
(I'm also too much of a cynic to believe these claims, at this time, are purely coincidental and not orchestrated).

So much dirt is out there on Trump, it's very surprising to me that his Republican competitors didn't use big wagon loads on him during the primaries. Maybe there's an unwritten rule among Republicans that sex scandals are only to be used against Democrats, being as we are supposed to be a bunch of amoralistic, godless commies.


Yes.
It is possible they only stated that he is a fraud, bigot, racist, misogynist. But bringing out any actual allegations would be totally "out of bounds".

Or, alternately, there just weren't any at the time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Oct 21 2016, 08:13 PM
Post #24


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



This is an absurd distraction. In fact, Politifact calls it mostly false.

Love her or hate her (ok, just hate her), she is a wife and a mother before anything. She has a young kid. Is she supposed to throw her kid's dad under the bus for political purposes? Does anyone think Bill was being truthful with her? For Jaunita Broaddrick's story to work (I am not saying she is a liar - I am saying she's made herself a questionable witness), Bill would have had to have told Hillary he sexually assaulted the woman at a fund raiser they were supposedly at where Hillary thanked her. This is before anything was known about his actions. It's completely implausible. Politics aside, what kind of person thinks putting politics above defending your family is reasonable?

I'm sure most wives getting cheated on don't have nice things to say about the mistresses no matter what she knows. This is an aburd standard. And come to find out, it's bullcrap - never happened. Everything supposedly said is known through second-hand sources. Once again, the party of family values is criticizing someone for trying to keep the family together in the face of "for worse", a cheating douche of a husband.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 21 2016, 08:51 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,325
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Oct 21 2016, 03:13 PM) *
This is an absurd distraction. In fact, Politifact calls it mostly false.

Love her or hate her (ok, just hate her), she is a wife and a mother before anything. She has a young kid. Is she supposed to throw her kid's dad under the bus for political purposes? Does anyone think Bill was being truthful with her? For Jaunita Broaddrick's story to work (I am not saying she is a liar - I am saying she's made herself a questionable witness), Bill would have had to have told Hillary he sexually assaulted the woman at a fund raiser they were supposedly at where Hillary thanked her. This is before anything was known about his actions. It's completely implausible. Politics aside, what kind of person thinks putting politics above defending your family is reasonable?


And...how would you respond if you were accused of sexual exploitation of women by this person?

This attack was a choice she made. SHE made it personal. And she didn't have to. She could have just let the media and her minions run with it and stayed largely out of it.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 21 2016, 08:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 22 2016, 01:48 AM
Post #26


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,350
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 21 2016, 04:51 PM) *
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Oct 21 2016, 03:13 PM) *
This is an absurd distraction. In fact, Politifact calls it mostly false.

Love her or hate her (ok, just hate her), she is a wife and a mother before anything. She has a young kid. Is she supposed to throw her kid's dad under the bus for political purposes? Does anyone think Bill was being truthful with her? For Jaunita Broaddrick's story to work (I am not saying she is a liar - I am saying she's made herself a questionable witness), Bill would have had to have told Hillary he sexually assaulted the woman at a fund raiser they were supposedly at where Hillary thanked her. This is before anything was known about his actions. It's completely implausible. Politics aside, what kind of person thinks putting politics above defending your family is reasonable?


And...how would you respond if you were accused of sexual exploitation of women by this person?

This attack was a choice she made. SHE made it personal. And she didn't have to. She could have just let the media and her minions run with it and stayed largely out of it.

Or as Trump would put it, she was being smart. Trump's weakness is legend, but the voting public needed to be reminded about who he really is. It's icing on this turd cake that Trump has reinforced the truth of the matter.

Again, I don't care if he'd been balling under-aged teens all along. His fluid politics and vague policies are enough to keep me voting Democratic. It's the Trump supporters, or maybe more accurate, his potential supporters who need to see and hear the truth from the candidate himself.

Testify, Donald!

*

Hey DR, I've gone electric with a Strat (Mexican, needed extensive setup and still buzzes on open skinny E, which I don't play anyway) because acoustic is now too loud for the living conditions. Piping the axe through overdrive pedal and clean headphone amp, both mounted on the strap. Whisper quiet for everyone but me, and loving this new way of approaching blues/jazz/rock. Looks funny as hell when I'm outside jamming up a storm and there's that little tinny ding-ding stuff that unamped solids make. And me dancing around, gesturing like it's a big league concert. Good exercise for the old abused bod and sure beats a treadmill.

Sustain, wow. LOUD!!!! Silky smooth action, thanks to my guit-guy. Trying not to blow out the eardrums, as that's my only part that still works like new. Still, sometimes it has to be what it is. Light the sucker on fire, figuratively speaking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 22 2016, 06:21 PM
Post #27


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,325
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 21 2016, 08:48 PM) *
Or as Trump would put it, she was being smart. Trump's weakness is legend, but the voting public needed to be reminded about who he really is. It's icing on this turd cake that Trump has reinforced the truth of the matter.


Yah, thinking further...you know, you're right. This was smart.
In fact, it was so smart I envision it as a new revolutionary campaign style.

What a powerful persuasion tactic.
Chris Christy should've charged on to that stage and criticized everyone with a few extra pounds about their weight. How can you vote for all these guys with belly flab? They might have a heart attack on the job! And, really Jeb could've brandished more of a following if he'd complained about everyone's wealth. THey're so out of touch!
Or does this brilliant strategy only work if their wives are the rich fat sows?

Added later:
Just watching South Park. It's really something how satire can say it so well.

From the words of Skankhunt, notorious internet troll: Its not about one person. Its about pushing peoples buttons so that theyll react in a way that pushes other peoples buttons. Look, you dont just troll the individual to get a reaction. Its all about the group of people that are going to come to their defense. They are going to eventually become so self righteous that they are going to cause another group of people to find them annoying. You set them against each other. Its like the fission reaction that sets off the fusion explosion. The internet does it all, and you just sit back with your glass of wine and laugh

Gentlemen.
Im telling you right now, you are infantilizing Hillary.
Clinton (as a couple) are a brand. This is clear.
Dingo, see above when I asked about Hillarys accomplishments you referred to her husband as an example and reflection on her. You cant have it both ways.
Trump is a brand also.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 22 2016, 06:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 22 2016, 06:39 PM
Post #28


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 22 2016, 11:21 AM) *
Dingo, see above when I asked about Hillary€™s accomplishments you referred to her husband as an example and reflection on her. You can't have it both ways.

I'm satisfied my answer in post #4 was quite adequate. I think you are reading in rather than reading.

And you might want to enumerate Mr. Trump's accomplishments that would qualify him to be POTUS by contrast.

Edit to add.

In going back over previous posts I must say I got a chuckle from this excerpt by AM.

QUOTE
Do you think Hillary carries any special burden for her husband's behavior? If so, in what way and how does that matter as far as her fitness for the highest office in the land?

Only within the warped logic of the modern conservative brain. This is guilt by association, very similar to how rape victims are blamed for getting raped or unarmed people being blamed for getting shot by police. But it's much worse--it's blaming a bystander for the event due to having some sort of witchy magic. Maybe HRC should be thrown into a body of water to see if she floats (good) or sinks (evil and stone-to-death worthy).


This post has been edited by Dingo: Oct 22 2016, 07:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 22 2016, 10:29 PM
Post #29


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,325
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 22 2016, 01:39 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 22 2016, 11:21 AM) *
Dingo, see above when I asked about Hillary€™s accomplishments you referred to her husband as an example and reflection on her. You can't have it both ways.

I'm satisfied my answer in post #4 was quite adequate. I think you are reading in rather than reading.


Agreed. I think it was clear in this statement:
"I'm not a big expert on Hillary but she was a partner in what seemed to be a relatively successful administration from 1992-2000"
That Hillary was a "partner" in her husband's administration. She was. More than most...he actually appointed her with a position (Healthcare Task force).
So...yes, she was a partner. That doesn't indicate she liked and approved of everything he did.
But it does mean she was a partner. One can't just accept the good and discard the bad.
Unless this isn't a discussion but a political advertisement.

This topic is based on the premise that Trump is somehow metaphorically sucker-punching her and hitting low, and for no good reason.
Remember the first debate. They shook hands. Hillary won (big time). Trump wasn't exactly amiable, but he did say, "If she wins, I will support her".
(this was at the end...find it if you think I'm making this up)

THEN the tape came out two days before the next debate. The tape also (potentially) endangered HIS family and marriage.
This wasn't an accident. Hillary might have had absolutely no hand in it, but she chose to run with it and attack his character in a speech was obviously rehearsed.

That made it personal. She shares responsibility here. Big time.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 22 2016, 11:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 23 2016, 01:45 AM
Post #30


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 22 2016, 03:29 PM) *
THEN the tape came out two days before the next debate. The tape also (potentially) endangered HIS family and marriage.
This wasn't an accident. Hillary might have had absolutely no hand in it, but she chose to run with it and attack his character in a speech was obviously rehearsed.

That made it personal. She shares responsibility here. Big time.

I simply don't fathom how you turn Trump into a victim here. This is a guy who slobbers over everything that Putin feeds to him and of course spins it to his own political convenience..

He said the words, he engaged in the behavior. It's on him, not Hillary.

And no I don't believe it was a preplanned conspiracy but of course you are free to believe otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 24 2016, 09:46 PM
Post #31


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 21 2016, 09:23 AM) *
...
(I'm also too much of a cynic to believe these claims, at this time, are purely coincidental and not orchestrated).

I'm afraid the following is not going to be of any help in dampening your cynicism:
QUOTE
...
The porn star who claims Donald Trump forcibly hugged and kissed her then offered her $10,000 for a romp launched her online sex shop just one day before leveling the allegations.
...
Figures for the Web traffic to Drakes store werent available, but the popular PornHub site showed she shot up to No. 89 in views for the week ending Sunday, compared to her all-time rank of No. 634.
...

Link: http://nypost.com/2016/10/23/porn-star-lau...mp-allegations/

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 15th, 2018 - 08:56 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.