Um, I actually sort of agree with adaher here. I mean, I think Anthony Weiner is probably harmless, and I sort of understand what John Edwards did. But Bill Clinton is pretty much the poster child for “Democrats are OK with sexual harassment.”
Look at the recent case of Trevor FitzGibbon. He probably thought he was basically a harmless guy flirting with co-workers. But he was their* boss,* they were his employees, and it was a problem.
Many modern progressives, to their credit, are trying to deal with this kind of business culture. Clinton Democrats, otoh, insist that not only is it unimportant, but even in a nominating contest, we supposedly want someone who has enabled it.
And you know what? That is a small thing. But it accompanies bigger issues. Hillary is aligned to Wall Street. She seems to only endorse conservation issues or QUILTBAG issues when the polls indicate it’s more useful to support than to oppose them. She’s a fair-weather friend of feminism, QUILTBAG rights, environmentalism, and, well, of the 99%. But we’re asked to support her why again? Because Wall Street and the donors like her? Those guys are the problem!
As long as they don’t threaten her inner circle with their complaints, sure. It’s a bit like saying that GWB has a long history of support for the military.
Obama, while not a sexual harasser, also seems to have a lot of support for women, as long as they aren’t part of his team of advisors and as long as he gets to pay them less.
If we could make Barack Obama disown Jeremiah Wright, you don’t think we can make Hillary disown her husband? Or at least have to give a major speech condemning his behavior? She has never actually condemned his behavior except to the extent it has affected HER. I don’t think she’ll be able to maintain that if she’s the nominee.
This is such a bullshit comparison. Bill Clinton’s behavior had been discussed ad nauseum for decades. There’s no new issue here to discuss, and the American people don’t seem to have any interest in more discussion on Bill’s private life.
THe context is new, at least if she wants to present herself as the champion of all women who don’t complain about the behavior of those in her inner circle.
And it does matter, because how will she handle sexual harassment allegations against high government officials that are close to her?
And of course the media still hasn’t covered clintons love of traveling on the Lolita Express to Orgy Island with Epstein and his underage sex partners.
Be serious now. It is a fact that Clinton travelled on Epstein’s plane 11 times and was in the presence of his underage girls. There is no evidence(yet) that Clinton diddled any of them, but the media will be looking, you can bet on that. And what is proven is damning enough.
But yeah, you haven’t heard much about it yet because it’s hanging around the right wing media and tabloid media. But much like the Edwards scandal, it’s real and it will bubble up in the mainstream media eventually.
The flight logs say nothing about underage girls, and neither does this link. “young” doesn’t mean underage. You’re just so eager to lap up conspiracy bullshit about Democrats that you’ll accept any random accusation, and what’s worse, you’ll embellish and make shit up to make it sound better. Terrible, terrible posting, and you should be ashamed as a Doper that you do it so often.
The woman does say she was one of his “teenage sex slaves” and she saw Clinton on the plane, and he was accompanied by four of Epstein’s girls.
Maybe they weren’t underage. Probably doesn’t matter, since Clinton wasn’t having sex with them, at least according to what we know now.
But you have to admit, just being this close to Epstein’s activities without raising a question or a peep looks bad. The BEST case scenario if this story breaks into the mainstream is that it looks bad.
And again, are you really willing to bet that Bill Clinton draws the line at girls of indeterminate legality when tempted? Good luck with that.
So you make outrageous accusations and walk them back when called on it. Pathetic. Not surprising, and pretty routine for you, but still pathetic. Wouldn’t you like to shed this reputation? It would take very little effort… Just read over your posts every time, and make sure every factual claim you make is actually true, word for word, with a cite ready, before you post.
I walked nothing back. I say it’s a fact that Clinton was on the plane, since flight logs do not generally lie, and there’s a witness who wants nothing from Clinton saying he was there, with four young girls as accompaniment.
Now it’s possible the woman is not telling the truth. That’s just acknowledging the possibilities, not walking anything back.