I won’t argue with Will Rogers. One of the great political satirists this nation has produced.
They’re in the bag for the Clintons. Why, I don’t know. A couple of undeserving, self-important, narcissistic graspers whose day is pretty much done.
Let Argentina have the, “husband head of state succeeded by his wife,” trope. What need have we for such twaddle?
Looks like somebody swung a dead cat and hit another Christie abuse of power.
Hung. Past tense.
Frankly, after all the allegations against Clinton, 90% of which couldn’t hold water in a monsoon, you wonder why we “dismiss [this] as if it’s nothing?” Apparently The Boy Who Cried Wolf hasn’t learned the moral of the story.
About as much as we need the “OverageFratBoy Drunk-Driving Son of Former Head of State Succeeding His Dad” trope. Twaddle-Dee, Twaddle-Dum
Alabama apparently thought it did.
Since nobody has actually bothered to do so in this thread, could you explain what you mean by ‘this’? There’s no need to defend anyone in the absence of a meaningful accusation.
The problem here is that you didn’t read the article, which is shitty journalism anyways, and then you go off to jump on some partisan scandal-mongering posts.
So Clinton hung out with this guy between 2002 and 2005. Then he’s convicted and serves time in 2008. Clinton cuts off contact and returns campaign contributions. And the scandal is that Clinton knew someone before they were convicted of a terrible crime, and then repudiated them after his depravity came to light…?
That’s just stupid. It is a non-issue.
What, exactly, do you think the Clinton’s should have done? Spied on all their friends to suss out who the sex offenders were before they were caught? Order hits on anyone they once knew who have done awful things? Be specific: you’ve just been hired as the Clinton’s political adviser, and you find out that a former associate of theirs was convicted of a crime. What do you advise them to do upon discovering this, that the Clintons did not do?
So, if Clinton hung out with a (forgive my bluntness) guy who regularly has sexual contact with minors, aren’t you conceding that this falls into the 10% of times where it’s legit?
Let me ask a hypothetical. If Laura Bush were to run for president, and George liked to party with Epstein, would you dismiss it?
Of course. Would you?
You’ve not read carefully. Go to the OP. I asked if anybody thought this would hurt Hillary’s campaign. I never laid out a timeline, nor turned it into a left vs. right issue. I asked a question about politics.
Only after, as Shodan pointed out, the reaction was to scoff did I say anything further.
Clinton took trips to Epsteins home, where a lot of the crimes took place, between 2002 & 2005, a period when he was committing these crimes. High powered people are also tied to this scandal. Is it really out of bounds to think Clinton may have had an idea of what was going on?
I wouldn’t dismiss it.
Well, first things first, they should start a mis-informed message board thread about the situation.
ETA: This was in response to Raveman upthread.
There’s reports Hillary is angry with Bill over the scandal.
Yes.
You’ve proved Shodan’s point.
Did you really just post a link to the Moonie News?
I guess Benghaziwater didn’t work out, so the minions have been instructed to pump up Epsteinwater. Best of luck.
Is it out of bounds to just ask a few questions about what YOU knew about this child molester and when you knew it?
I mean, it’s all very convenient that you’re trying to pin this so-called scandal on the Clintons, and not yourself. So how do we know that you weren’t involved in illicit activities yourself, since you’re so insistent about this subject?
Wow, you’re Hillary’s knight in shining armor. Bully for you. Hope that works out well for you.
I get the feeling anything negative to the Clintons must come from a nefarious source in your mind. No sense arguing with the true believers.
Actually, I wish the Clintons would exit the political stage completely. That doesn’t mean the weak shit you’re serving up isn’t weak shit.