Bingo. And they elected him while excusing it as the right of a powerful man on their own side (yet worthy of prison if not on their side).
That’s just the ad hominem fallacy. It’s fine when anyone else says it, and it’s fine when she says it. It’s the truth.
She isn’t running for office anymore. So being politically correct is unnecessary. Oh no, she pisses off these people who can’t affect her life anymore? So what! Are all those working class whites going to keep her from getting that big lucrative business job (that she reportedly has sewn up?)
No one has cared about Bill Clinton for a long time. It’s just something brought out by Trump supporters, because they can’t point to anything good Trump has done, and thus have to point to the last election. It’s all they have.
So maybe she threw them a bone. It’s not one that will hurt whoever runs against Trump, but it makes them feel a little better, so why not? It’s less time for them to go after anything important. I’d rather them be mad a “Hillary” than their current attack on freedom of speech for anyone further left than Nixon.
I mean, when they bring up Hillary, I can just bring up that Trump is president now. It’s not really a big deal.
While declaring they didn’t want an adulterer in the White House.
Okay look, let’s not pretend BC is a good person. The guy got a BJ in the Oval Office! The guy obviously didn’t respect the boundaries of his marriage, and he didn’t respect the boundaries of the office he worked for. And if he doesn’t respect those boundaries, why would I think he respects the boundaries of other women? No, no charges were filed. But god damn, there’s got to be some truth to all those allegations. It doesn’t follow common sense to believe otherwise.
You just quoted her doing the exact thing I said she did, but then put some weird spin on it that makes no sense. You have to go out of your way to assume what she said had nothing to do with the question.
She did not attack Trump out of the blue. She responded to a question with a valid point. It connects perfectly back to what she is being asked. She didn’t know about Weinstein, but it doesn’t surprise her, given how fucked up the American people are in this area.
Seriously, the spin people will take because they hate her. When this is a giant nothing-burger about a political has-been. But, then again, read my previous post.
1: The dynamics of his marriage is between him and his wife. I don’t recall the man haranguing all and sundry to be following a so-called traditional values marriage, so, really, that is pretty much irrelevant.
2: What actual evidence do you have that the man has not respected other women’s “boundaries”?
- Besides the simple thing that there is no such thing as “common sense”, that is one freaking incredibly stupid standard of evidence you have set. By that standard, there is validity to both the claim that Barack Obama is Muslim and the claim that he was not born in the United States.
To be fair, it is kind of exploitative and skeevy to enter into a sexual relationship with someone who’s your subordinate and half your age, even if it was consensual between adults.
And all the headlines I’ve seen said that Hillary said that Trump ADMITTED to sexual assault, not COMMITTED, which the quote in the linked article in the OP also says.
But it seems to me, JM, that the first half of your post indicates nothing more than the fact that the written part of the news article does not accurately reflect what Clinton said. Nowhere in the text does it explicitly acknowledge that Clinton denied any knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior. The way the text is written makes it seem like Clinton avoided the question about her knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior by pivoting to Trump.
Whoever wrote the article did a poor job of conveying Clinton’s answer because, as you note in your second paragraph, the video clip demonstrates that she explicitly denies any knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior—in fact, denies it twice—and then pivots to Trump. I’m not sure why that’s a problem at all. After the denial, what else did you want from her? Whatever one might think of Hillary Clinton, she’s not responsible for the unrelated actions of the people who donate money to her campaign, and she’s not responsible for cleaning up sexual harassment in the entertainment industry.
In a country where 60 million people voted for a guy who was caught on tape advocating unwanted sexual contact with women, i think her point is perfectly valid.
We might argue that it’s somewhat tone-deaf of her to make these points, given her own husband’s behavior. I get that. I always thought that she was too forgiving of Bill’s fucking around, largely for her own political benefit. I also tend to think that describing all of Bill’s indiscretions as consensual is a bit problematic, given that sexual harassment in the workplace is considered bad not only because the behavior itself is unacceptable, but because in a place where there are discrepancies of power, even consensual relationships can be the result of inappropriate pressures and power dynamics. It’s hard to imagine a larger workplace power discrepancy than the one existing between an intern and the President of the United States.
I never claimed to have evidence of anything.
And are you really trying to argue “common sense” isn’t a thing?:dubious:
For tens of millions of Americans?
President Trump. Checkmate.
+1
Skeevy probably has a wide variety of definitions depending on the people making the judgment.
So, the twerp either did commit the act he admitted to committing or he is proud to boast about committing sexual assault whether he committed the act or not. That is certainly not a good person to be the freaking president of the United States.
Yep!
No, you just said there has to be some truth to the accusations.
Yes, I am arguing that common sense is not a thing. The whole concept is BS.
I suppose there’s no such thing as common common sense, i.e. we could easily see two human beings dropped into similar circumstances and coming to wildly different conclusions, even if each was operating by their own common sense.
Further, even what we call “common sense” is likely just the post-hoc rationalizations we use to justify the conclusions we want. Talk to anyone whose “common sense” tells them legalized abortion will lead to widespread infanticide.
Back to the original question she was asked, it’s irrelevant whether she’d heard rumors, because such rumors would be a lousy basis on which to condemn someone.
It’s not “now that he is not making blockbusters”, it’s “now that some women have actually come forward and leveled accusations”. You can’t do anything without that.
Look, it was common knowledge that Bill Clinton was an adulterer, and he was elected anyway. It was common knowledge that Trump was a serial sexual predator, and he was elected anyway. Clearly how a powerful man treats women is irrelevant to whether or not he will be elected to high office.
It’s hilarious when right wingers point to Weinstein as evidence of the hypocrisy of the left. When has the left ever claimed liberals never commit sexual offences?
Actually, no.
I mean, sure, it may well have been common knowledge among Arkansas politicians, but when Clinton was elected, most of us just knew about Gennifer Flowers’ claims, and there didn’t seem to be much to that, if you weren’t paying much attention. Which most people weren’t, other than that one time when Bill and Hillary were interviewed on TV about it.
By the time of his re-election, there was also Paula Jones. (If her allegations were true, then not adultery, but worse.) Clinton might’ve lost in 1996 on account of that if the Republicans hadn’t decided to shut down the government for weeks in late 1995 and early 1996.
Well, let’s roll tape on your logic:
Damned if I know what you mean by “didn’t respect the boundaries of the office he worked for.” Did he try to walk through the walls of the Oval Office, or what?
At any rate, your common sense tells you that if someone commits adultery and doesn’t “respect the boundaries of the office” they work for, then he’d sexually harass and assault women as well.
Because what? Because no adulterer ever stops at consensual adultery, but moves on to sexual assault? That’s a weird sort of ‘common sense’ that makes no sense at all.
Psychologically, there is a BIG difference between a no-name business guy who fooled around once when he was out of town on business, and a President that has every minutia of his life combed over by the media.
If you are in that level of position, and decide to follow through with your bull shit anyway? Yeah, you are a narcissist of epic proportions. And I don’t get the sense that narcissist on that order of magnitude care much about boundaries at all.
I am an Arkansan, I have personally met Bill Clinton, he was obviously a player. I think what he did to women was one thing, but he did to his wife was horrible. She apparently has forgiven him, and they have worked it out. Trump is an idiotic blowhard, who has very probably assaulted women, maybe to a criminal extent, He is a liar, and a slimy creep. And I don’t trust him with me and my family’s well being or safety. Hillary has her faults, we all know them. But she is NOT responsible for her husbands philandering. She, also, is not in or running for a political office.The 'Bash Hillary ’ train has left the station! Come up with someone else to blame. Hmmm… Trump, maybe?
Like Bill Cosby, rumors have been going around for decades. But it wasn’t until they were out of their prime that people started coming forward.
It is hard not to be cynical. Once Louis CK stops bringing in the money and selling out shows I’m sure people will start coming forward about him too.