Bill Clinton Sex Scandal

[Ben]

I thought this was worthy of a thread seperate from the Harvey Weinstein stuff. I saw the below article this morning and the part that really stood out was this quote by Gloria Steinem:

As Exhibit A, Flanagan points to this 1998 New York Times op-ed by feminist leader Gloria Steinem.

If the allegations were true, Steinem wrote, "President Clinton may be a candidate for sex addiction therapy. But feminists will still have been right to resist pressure by the right wing and the media to call for his resignation or impeachment."

On Kathleen Willey’s tale of Oval Office groping, Steinem said: "Even if the allegations are true, the president is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb, and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took 'no' for an answer."

In the case of Paula Jones, "Mr. Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection." His relationship with Lewinsky, despite the "power imbalance," was not coerced.

And he should stay in office, writes Steinem, because he was "vital" to "reproductive freedom."

This is hugely embarrassing to read now, nearly two decades later.

What a difference between now and then, eh? Especially given the Roy Moore debacle.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/15/sex-scandal-boomerang-is-left-ready-for-bill-clinton-reckoning.html

[K Frame]

It's my theory that the left isn't calling for Roy Moore to resign for some altruistic purpose.

They see the real opportunity to turn a seat.

[Ben]

It's my theory that the left isn't calling for Roy Moore to resign for some altruistic purpose.

They see the real opportunity to turn a seat.

On Moore, I suspect he is guilty, however I haven't seen concrete documentation on it yet. That said, I agree with the point raised elsewhere that the allegations on Moore are just coming out now. They could have done it during the primaries, or any time during his contentious public career. Instead, everything happens to come out at the most strategically beneficial (for dems) time possible.

Exactly as what happened to Trump. He was a public figure for decades, yet decades old "incidents" only came out as he was going head to head with Clinton. Not when they purportedly occurred, not during the primaries, but during the most strategically opportune time for the dems. What a coinkidink.

[charby]

Times have changed. News is now 24/7 and written by anyone on social media.

I think we need to quit pointing at the past and take action for what is happening today. I think Roy Moore needs to go away.

This does stink that it came out after the 75 day window of being able to change a ballot in Alabama, least that is how I am understanding why no matter what he will be on the ballot.

[Ben]

I think we need to quit pointing at the past and take action for what is happening today.

I couldn't disagree more (on the Clinton stuff vs how the left treats the subject now).

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

The past in this case is absolutely relevant to the present.

[charby]

I couldn't disagree more (on the Clinton stuff vs how the left treats the subject now).

The past in this case is absolutely relevant to the present.

The Clintons also don't try to portray themselves as Christian Conservatives either.

Didn't know that being 30 and trying to bang women/girls under 18 was a Christian Value.

It's that whole a party faithful will support their own, not matter how wicked they become. This applies to both parties.

[Perd Hapley]

The Clintons also don't try to portray themselves as Christian Conservatives either.

But they, and the rest of the party, portray themselves as the allies and protectors of women, so there's that.

IICR, Bill identifies as Southern Baptist. Hillary Clinton has long portrayed herself as a committed Methodist. Since her recent election loss, she is rumored to have said she would go into the ministry.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/hillary-clinton-devotionals/535941/

[charby]

But they, and the rest of the party, portray themselves as the allies and protectors of women, so there's that.

IICR, Bill identifies as Southern Baptist. Hillary Clinton has long portrayed herself as a committed Methodist. Since her recent election loss, she is rumored to have said she would go into the ministry.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/hillary-clinton-devotionals/535941/

Did you not see this?

It's that whole a party faithful will support their own, not matter how wicked they become. This applies to both parties.

[Perd Hapley]

Did you not see this?

Sure, but your first statement was really in need of some context. It's not as if the Clintons are any less hypocritical than Roy Moore is alleged to be, even if their stated ideals differ. And both claim to be religious. So I found your first statement (perhaps unintentionally) misleading.

As for your last statement, that would require more of a response. You're not taking the whole situation into account, if you leave out the fact that Moore's Democratic opponent supports the murder of millions more young children than Moore has, or ever could, molest. And this is a position he and his party have taken very publicly, which has already resulted in millions of documented deaths. While Moore may be guilty, the allegations against him have yet to be substantiated.

Surely, it can and will be argued that electing Roy Moore won't stop abortion. On the other hand, electing him will also not change the laws against sexual assault.

As I've mentioned before, this is how vile we've allowed our politics to become in the past few decades. Which is not to say we haven't been there before. Slavery, and all that.

[charby]

Sure, but your first statement was really in need of some context. It's not as if the Clintons are any less hypocritical than Roy Moore is alleged to be, even if their stated ideals differ. And both claim to be religious. So I found your first statement (perhaps unintentionally) misleading.

As for your last statement, that would require more of a response. You're not taking the whole situation into account, if you leave out the fact that Moore's Democratic opponent supports the murder of millions more young children than Moore has, or ever could, molest. And this is a position he and his party have taken very publicly, which has already resulted in millions of documented deaths. While Moore may be guilty, the allegations against him have yet to be substantiated.

Surely, it can and will be argued that electing Roy Moore won't stop abortion. On the other hand, electing him will also not change the laws against sexual assault.

As I've mentioned before, this is how vile we've allowed our politics to become in the past few decades. Which is not to say we haven't been there before. Slavery, and all that.

Single issue voters, killing the country

[Perd Hapley]

Single issue voters, killing the country

How so? Are you talking about 19th-century America, or the present day? Or both?

Also, any acknowledgment that you were wrong about the Clintons just now? 

[Perd Hapley]

Now Rush Limbaugh is accused of defending Moore, because he suggested that Moore (allegedly) got away with sexual misconduct because he was a Democrat at the time. 

[charby]

How so? Are you talking about 19th-century America, or the present day? Or both?


Now Rush Limbaugh is accused of defending Moore, because he suggested that Moore (allegedly) got away with sexual misconduct because he was a Democrat at the time. 

Present day.

It's truly fouled up that people are so narrowly focused on a couple single issues that they would elect a sexual predator that may impregnate a victim and the victim may get an abortion due to rape. Just because they don't want the other party to win.

[charby]

Also, any acknowledgment that you were wrong about the Clintons just now?  

I wanted them to resign back in 97-98, they should of resigned. The feminists should of called them out instead of defending them, but no we're going to support them to keep the republicans away.

[Perd Hapley]

Present day.

It's truly fouled up that people are so narrowly focused on a couple single issues that they would elect a sexual predator that may impregnate a victim and the victim may get an abortion due to rape. Just because they don't want the other party to win.

Instead of getting "hung up" on the "single issue," of millions of murdered children, we should get hung up on a single, potential senator, and the young women he seems to have assaulted? Just sayin...

FWIW, I haven't said anyone should vote for Moore.

[charby]

Instead of getting "hung up" on the "single issue," of millions of murdered children, we should get hung up on a single, potential senator, and the young women he seems to have assaulted? Just sayin...

FWIW, I haven't said anyone should vote for Moore.

Then stop lobbing the abortion grenade.

[Jamisjockey]

Sure, but your first statement was really in need of some context. It's not as if the Clintons are any less hypocritical than Roy Moore is alleged to be, even if their stated ideals differ. And both claim to be religious. So I found your first statement (perhaps unintentionally) misleading.

As for your last statement, that would require more of a response. You're not taking the whole situation into account, if you leave out the fact that Moore's Democratic opponent supports the murder of millions more young children than Moore has, or ever could, molest. And this is a position he and his party have taken very publicly, which has already resulted in millions of documented deaths. While Moore may be guilty, the allegations against him have yet to be substantiated.

Surely, it can and will be argued that electing Roy Moore won't stop abortion. On the other hand, electing him will also not change the laws against sexual assault.

As I've mentioned before, this is how vile we've allowed our politics to become in the past few decades. Which is not to say we haven't been there before. Slavery, and all that.

You just can't leave it alone, can you.  You have to wade all the way into the abortion topic.  Is Clinton's support for abortion and feminists overlooking his activities because of it germane to the topic? Yes.
Is turning this into a full out abortion manifesto germane to the topic? No.
Put away the abortion grenade, it's getting old hat.

[Perd Hapley]

Abortion is a grenade now? When the moral equivalency between the two parties is exposed as a myth, you just say abortion is a grenade? When abortion is called by its proper name, it's a manifesto?

More on Moore:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/14/no-50-pastors-not-endorse-roy-moore-sexual-assault-allegations/

[Jamisjockey]

Abortion is a grenade now? When the moral equivalency between the two parties is exposed as a myth, you just say abortion is a grenade? When abortion is called by its proper name, it's a manifesto?

More on Moore:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/14/no-50-pastors-not-endorse-roy-moore-sexual-assault-allegations/

You don't get it, to you?

You consistently try and turn anything that could possibly have any abortion connotation into a debate on the topic.
The only thing that is worth mentioning in this thread on abortion is that the feminists gave Clinton a pass because of his abortion stance.
So yes, you're lobbing a *expletive deleted*ing abortion grenade and killing another topic.
You said:
"If you leave out the fact that Moore's Democratic opponent supports the murder of millions more young children than Moore has, or ever could, molest."
Has no damn bearing on the conversation at hand, but you just have to say it anyways.
You just can't resist.  And it's getting really, really old.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not forcing anyone to talk about abortion, or anything else. If people respond to the topic, they're obviously interested in discussing it.

And just for the record, I bring up abortion when it's relevant. I treat it like any other topic. If you don't think it's relevant, that's your opinion. Obviously, I disagree.

[Jamisjockey]

Enough. Come back to the relevance of the topic or walk away. 
Steering topics into abortion land is your specialty and the moderators and many of the members are tired of it.
That's the end of the discussion on it.

[Perd Hapley]

That makes no sense at all.

[charby]

That makes no sense at all.

walk away

[Jamisjockey]

That makes no sense at all.

Do you need it spelled out in simpler terms?
Stop bringing up abortion or face account suspension or a ban.  
Abortion topics and discussions never end well.

[French G.]

Most of the traction the left has now is because they have been able to bait the right into using abortion as a conservative purity test and thus tearing themselves apart with no further help from outside. Done it for years. This candidate is too conservative. This candidate is a rino. Meanwhile, as the search for Goldilocks continues, the other side lines up behind a candidate, no matter how terrible, stifles all dissent, and wins! Got us Obama. Any better challengers the Rs ate themselves.

In an imperfect world we would have a 20 week abortion ban, OTC plan B pills, and the one thing Congress could do right is to figure out how to make adoption easier and support adoptive families.

There has to be someplace where the adults get on with the business of being a country. There is no place in government for the theocracy that would come in lockstep with a total abortion ban. Nor is there a place for the disgusting moral slippery slope that the far left wants to kill kids already born.

I personally abhor abortion, but it is a losing political fight to totally ban it. It is a fight your opponent dearly wants. When someone is spoiling for a fight you cannot win, perhaps a frontal assault is not wise?