This is what is thinking. The law is so convoluted that there are few, if any, who have never broken any. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” is bullshit because there is no way any person can know all the laws they are subject to.
And there are lots of people who keep trying to legislate douchebaggery. But I don’t think Weiner’s specific form of douchebaggery had been made illegal…yet.
Why is Weiner vilified for his actions, when Bill Clinton is generally excused?
On the face of it, Clinton’s actions appear much more betraying.
And also a loser!
Bill Clinton was caught and publically at least) sinned no more. I think the issue with Weiner is that he keeps gong back to the well. This is the third time he been *caught *so I think we can safely assume there has never been much of a break in his sexytime texting (as himself) even after losing his job and publically humiliating himself and his family.
Clinton was a run of the mill horndog. Weiner appears to have some kind of death wish.
How is Clinton excused? He’s a punchline for his actions. That stain (pun intended) will never fade.
How is Weiner any more villified? Weiner too is a punchline. He makes it worse for himself by continuing to be a douchebag.
Do you forget Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, et al. You have a funny definition of “no more”.
Get back to me when Weiner speaks at the next DNC.
He meant “forward in time” not “backward in time as far as Roger Ailes & Friends money can research and bribe”.
People are labeling Weiner as mentally unhinged because of his 3rd strike of sexting, not even meeting these women.
Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky was his 3rd or 4th strike. Clinton admitted his affair with Flowers, and paid off Jones, $850k. His track record of denials, isn’t that believable when he later admits his infidelities.
ETA: this thread itself is evidence of Clinton defenders coming to the rescue.
Clinton’s wife is one of his defenders. Weiner’s wife… not so much. By that alone we can tell which man has dealt with his problems better.
:dubious:
ETA: one of the first things Hillary will do when taking office will be to get rid of the Resolute desk in the oval office.
Bill Clinton’s behavior toward women was inexcusable, but not as hilarious as Tony Weiner’s. Perhaps that is due to differences in their pathologies, perhaps that is due to differences in the social media available during the height of their transgressions. In any case, their douchebaggery has no impact on my fundamental moral values or political views. I’ll still vote for the candidate who best represents the policies I want to see implemented, regardless of his/her transgressions or the transgressions of their spouses. Is your comment intended to suggest I should do otherwise?
And by that alone we can tell which woman would rather stay with a serial cheater than give up her political power.
Right. Because one marriage/relationship is pretty much like any other.
I thought my point was clear that I was talking about what happened AFTER they were caught. Clinton’s activity ended (so far as can be determined) once he was caught vs Weiner’s persisting after the fact.
Clinton was caught during his first campaign for POTUS in 1992. Have you forgotten the famous 60 minutes, Stand By Your Man interview. Just because he denied and later admitted it, doesn’t mean he wasn’t caught.
Define “better”. Why does anyone get a vote as to what the wife of a cheating husband in a relationship that is not their own should do? Unless a politician is a stalwart “family values” type, I could give two shits if they cheated on their spouse. Even then, it’s only their hypocrisy that bothers me.
Does denying it and it later being found to be true, fall into hypocrisy?
It might simply be that Clinton was considered a good president and was a likeable character. This Weiner douche is not.
“Did not ruin a marriage.” Clinton destroyed his reputation. Weiner destroyed his reputation and his marriage.