But if Trump’s previous relationship with her included the kind of give-and-take banter we saw on the video, that knowledges transforms the interpretation of what we saw.
He doesn’t have to be a mind reader. Just has to have worked with her before.
That’s an exaggeration. Of course she tells the truth more free than she lies, even if she lies more frequently than most their people do. She lies when the politics seem to require it, not “always.”
Why, why, why can’t everyone simply stick to actual factual attacks? Why is dislike a license to create fantasy attacks?
Where do we learn this rule? And on what basis do you suggest that we all adopt it, if you are suggesting that?
I believe the US constitution says something about all men created equal, followed by several amendments which guaranteed equality under the law. But these are not concepts exclusive to America alone. Granted, parts of the world have yet to catch up. Can we agree that societies are generally better off when they promote and practice equality?
And while I agree that consenting adults ought to have the freedom to express themselves any way they see fit, there are limits to certain freedoms of expression, no?
Hmm, you think it’s OK to grab and kiss co-workers that you’ve bantered with?
Oh, gimme a fucking break. Yes, that was indeed my position at the time. I’d forgotten that I’d discussed that here, but I’m glad you brought it up.
First of all, if you want to dig up ancient history, the Lewinsky impeachment was bullshit. So of course the Dems did the right thing in defending him there.
So let’s suppose the Broaddrick accusation was credible. (I’m not willing to re-litigate that here, because I’d have to re-learn everything I’ve forgotten about it, but my recollection is that there was plenty of reason to doubt that. Sworn testimony on her part? I forget. But for now, we’ll assume it was credible.)
Now, let’s do a very simple thought experiment, with some branchings:
- The Dems drop in on Clinton and ask him to resign.
- They don’t.
1A) Clinton says, nice of you to drop in, but forget it.
1B) Clinton says, OK, I’m out of here, Al Gore will be an excellent President.
1A1) Dems say, if you’re going to be that way, here are articles of impeachment.
1A2) Dems say, well, we tried. Nothing more to do.
Notice that there’s no further branchings from #2. Kinda pointless, really. If they’re not going to ask him politely to resign, they’re definitely not going to suggest impeachment. So what’s the point of suggesting it if we’re down the #2 branching?
And if we’re down the #1 branching, what’s the point of suggesting articles of impeachment until we know whether we’re in #1A or #1B? If we’re in 1B, then it worked; no need for next steps.
OK, done with that flowchart.
Now, notice that one set of actors hasn’t been mentioned: the Republicans who had just rushed an impeachment through the House in about 20 minutes (you know it was 10 months back in 1973-74 between the Saturday Night Massacree that threw impeachment into the House’ lap, and the day Nixon resigned? And impeachment hadn’t even gone before the full House yet) over the Lewinsky business. They were free to say, “yeah, Lewinsky was a mistake on our part, but this is the real thing.”
If the Republicans who were looking for excuses to crucify Clinton didn’t bother taking up Juanita Broaddrick’s cause, why should I have expected the Dems to even do as much as politely ask for Clinton’s resignation? I’d tell my 1999 self that if the GOP wasn’t going crazy over it, odds were that they’d already figured out that there was no ‘there’ there. They spent a year hounding Clinton over a quite consensual blowjob; they didn’t give Broaddrick more than a passing glance over a rape allegation.
But like I said, thanks for bringing this up.
Why, why, can’t everyone simply stick to actual factual attacks? Why do some posters feel they have a license to create fantasy facts?
While I don’t regard Politifact as the be-all and end-all of judging the truthfulness of politicians, they rate her as being a good deal more honest than most politicians, including most of the GOP primary field from earlier this year.
If you’ve something that says differently, feel free to toss it in.
It’s in the fine print of the J.D.
Because all the reasonable people have left this board and it’s just the retards left slapping each other with fish going,
“Nuh uh”
“Uh huh”
“Nuh uh”
“Uh huh”
“Nuh uh”
“Uh huh”
Oh you must be a mind reader!! No way you could know that!! That happened before the board existed!
::reads details::
Uh…
Smoothly switching from one to the other with not even a syllable wasted on, “OK, maybe I was wrong.” As usual.
Except that’s not the yardstick you apply to Trump. Here, you’re frothing with indignation and vim.
My point was not their reaction, though: it was to show YOUR differing standards of reaction.
I don’t quite agree with that, either, but this is an argument over degrees. It’s beyond cavil that she doesn’t lie constantly. She lies, and head to head with almost anyone other than Trump I’d take the time to show how she lies more often. But against Trump, she’s Steve Urkel in the ring with Deontay Wilder.
So indulge us, lest you be thought a mere braggart. I suggest comparisons to Romney, McCain and/or Pence might be informative.
Look, you’ve been caught out on a variety of stuff in this thread, from a bullshit claim that Jennifer Hawkins explicitly said she’d given her consent, to a bullshit claim that she made her remarks in front of an audience of adoring fans. And have yet to concede that you’re wrong.
But for some reason, the thing where it’s important that someone says they’re wrong is whether they’d discussed something on this board back in 1999.
And apparently “I’d forgotten that I’d discussed that here, but I’m glad you brought it up” isn’t good enough for you.
Funny how it is that we all think we’re analyzing without bias, but the other guy is frothing. Because in my eyes, of course, I’m just trying to point out that (a) what we’re seeing in the video is pretty straightforward, and (b) her statement was far too general to have any bearing on that.
But if you think I was frothing about Trump in this thread, go for it. Come up with RTFirefly’s Greatest Anti-Trump Froths in this thread.
Except you didn’t. You brought up that old for-instance, and simply asserted that my reaction was inconsistent.
Apparently my belief that a sitting Democratic President should resign over the Broaddrick accusation was inconsistent with somethingorother, in a way that demonstrates my blatant partisanship. Damned if I can figure it out.
Sure. Because what I ACTUALLY said was that “She’s asked about the event years later, while Trump is halfway around the world, and she’s surrounded by an audience eager to support her in agreeing that Trump acted poorly.” The audience in question was the audience to which her interview was directed, not a physical audience. That was clearer because I mentioned how she was halfway around the world, in a sovereign land. And unless she was doing theatre in the round, how would an in-person audience “surround” her? But when RTFirefly edits my remark to “in front of,” then magic happens.
And she DID explicitly say that Trump had always treated her with respect. She did not add, “…except for that time.” So what she EXPLICTLY said means that she did not regard her contact with Trump as an example of disrespect, which implies (but does not explictly say, I grant) that it did not lack consent.
No. Because it suggests that you have nothing to walk back. You go from heatedly denying I could know such a thing to admitting it without ever saying that you suffered an instant’s error.
I agree the video is straightforward, but I don’t agree in the least that the statement is too general. It’s a direct response to an invitation to discuss the incident captured in the video and it disavows any time in which Trump was disrespectful. That’s not general.
So your metaphorical use of “surround” is okay, but his of “in front of” is not?
You’re an only-slightly-more literate version of Trump himself. Congratulations.
Do you believe that?
I agree with that–but not because those arguments are being made by non-Christians. They’re poorly grounded because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what religion means.
Yes, I think you have the occasional tendency to misrepresent your own earlier statements to a near-Trumpian degree. Plus you manifest a tendency to project your own failings (or at least the failings of the people you’re ostensibly defending) onto others, another trait you share with Trump.
I will walk back the “slightly”, though. Your writings on this board are of a considerably higher technical quality than Trump’s tweets.
So your new statement is that I am a more literate version of Trump himself. That’s your genuine belief?