Trump

[Conan71]

My favorite thing is the hypocrisy. If you brag about being able to get away with sexual assault, you can't then act surprised and outraged when women come forward and accuse you of sexual assault.  When you consistently trot out accusers of your opponent's husband and slam your opponent for disparaging the accusers... you can't disparage and threaten to sue your accusers and whine that they are being trotted out even though they are just accusations.

That, my friends, is called hypocrisy.

My memory of that is different, my review of the media archives is different too. There were congressional hearings with these women. It was national front page news for years. There are documentaries made discussing the topic. They have their own wikipedia pages discussing the issues. There were many contemporary lawsuits and appeals. Bill Clinton was forced to tender his law license after one of them filed an ethics complaint. Special prosecutors were appointed to look into Clinton's sex life. The BBC, Washington Post, NY Times, every major news organization covered the story - and many had special sections of the paper devoted to developments (a la the OJ case).

There's a remnant of the Washington Posts continuing coverage still on their website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/pjones.htm

Plus, one could argue that a lot has changed in ~20 years.  The BS that Clinton pulled is no longer seen as just "boys being boys," which is the point that these women were trying to make then. Plus then you had CNN and newspapers. Now you have dozens of news outlets plus social media. And The Donald draws more attention on mundane things than most politicians did 20 years ago. Being a media whore is a double edged sword.

One could also rightfully point out that the liberal talking heads weren't nearly as outraged then as they are now. But I think the media took equal interest. Hell, at least Bill has had the good sense to shut the hell up on the issue and stay slumped in the "I may have inappropriately touched women" shadows.

- - - -

Allegations with Bill started during the 1992 election with Gennifer Flowers and suggestions she was just the tip of the iceberg.  Hillary was dispatched to deal with the "bimbo eruptions" along with Betsey Wright, a longtime Clinton contemporary and aide who coined the term "bimbo eruption".  Our current Democrat candidate for President was literally referring to these women who were allegedly assaulted or harassed by her husband as "bimbos".

But she wasn't just any staffer; she was Bill Clinton's wife, and their job, as Wright so memorably put it, was to stomp out the "bimbo eruptions" before they could derail his presidential aspirations. No wonder the strain of her dual roles seemed, at times, unbearable. Sitting by her husband's side in the famous 60 Minutes interview in early 1992, she pleaded for boundaries in the coverage of her family: She was no Tammy Wynette, "standin' by my man," but still, it was nobody's business if she wanted to be. "I think it's real dangerous in this country if we don't have some zone of privacy for everybody," she said, after the interrogation about whether Bill had in fact had an affair with former Arkansas TV reporter Gennifer Flowers.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/hillary-clinton-media-105901_Page2.html#ixzz4Mzh3xJpq
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Flowers was dismissed by Hillary as an opportunist who had been paid $100K or so to tell her story to a tabloid (speed through to about the 2:30 mark up to roughly the 4:00 mark or feel free to watch the whole thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUOhUei6aTM

Paula Jones' own claims finally gained a toe-hold amidst the White Water investigations in 1994, and more stories started appearing about his alleged assaults, but again, his accusers were treated as opportunists and liars by the administration and he was re-elected in 1996 in spite of pretty much looking like a sexual predator.  Yes his indiscretions were covered by the media, heavily scrutinized by special prosecutors, he was brought up for impeachment, and lost his law license.  

To the best of my objective memory Bill Clinton was not excoriated in the media,  as Trump is being at this point, even after investigations seemed to prove there was some substance to the claims of his victims.  The only place I recall him constantly being raked over the coals or being called "unfit" to lead were conservative-leaning talking heads.

That well could be a change in times 20-24 years later in how society now views sexual harassment and assault or it could be the now non-stop cycle of public babble via blogs and social media which is instantaneous and is capable of spreading rumors with little veracity in a matter of hours.

To me, Hillary working so diligently to cover-up allegations of her own husband's rapes, assaults, and affairs by marginalizing other women to salvage their political careers and further her political ambitions is every bit as repugnant as Trump boasting about his conquests.

[Townsend]

And Clinton won not once, but twice with such allegations known about him, some also with beauty pageant contestants.  There were three or four former Miss Arkansas winners who were either groped or poked by Clinton.  Hillary helped marginalize the claims of some of those women.  Seems somewhat ironic Hillary will throw other women under the bus when it suits her aspirations.

The only difference is, Clinton was never taped bragging about it.  One thing about predators like Clinton and Trump is they always like to brag about their conquests.  Again, it's selective outrage.

I never would have thought there would be an election where both major party candidates were such horrible people.  Neither is fit to be POTUS.

You and I have a different opinion on "the only difference" on this issue.

[Conan71]

You and I have a different opinion on "the only difference" on this issue.

Groped, raped, and assaulted seems to be a common thread between WJC and DJT.

There actually seems to be two differences: aside from Clinton not being recorded bragging, no one has accused Trump of exposing Little Donald...yet.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Flowers was dismissed by Hillary as an opportunist who had been paid $100K or so to tell her story to a tabloid (speed through to about the 2:30 mark up to roughly the 4:00 mark or feel free to watch the whole thing:


Paula Jones' own claims finally gained a toe-hold amidst the White Water investigations in 1994, and more stories started appearing about his alleged assaults, but again, his accusers were treated as opportunists and liars by the administration and he was re-elected in 1996 in spite of pretty much looking like a sexual predator.  Yes his indiscretions were covered by the media, heavily scrutinized by special prosecutors, he was brought up for impeachment, and lost his law license.  

To the best of my objective memory Bill Clinton was not excoriated in the media,  as Trump is being at this point, even after investigations seemed to prove there was some substance to the claims of his victims.  The only place I recall him constantly being raked over the coals or being called "unfit" to lead were conservative-leaning talking heads.

That well could be a change in times 20-24 years later in how society now views sexual harassment and assault or it could be the now non-stop cycle of public babble via blogs and social media which is instantaneous and is capable of spreading rumors with little veracity in a matter of hours.

To me, Hillary working so diligently to cover-up allegations of her own husband's rapes, assaults, and affairs by marginalizing other women to salvage their political careers and further her political ambitions is every bit as repugnant as Trump boasting about his conquests.

Flowers received over $500k for the stories she sold.  

Her own "claims" were directly opposite what she had been saying for years before that - and suddenly changed when hundreds of thousands of dollars appeared in view.

If the best of your memory is that Billy Bob was not hounded, then we gotta start looking at long term care for you - early onset Alzheimer's started over 20 years ago!!  First evidence - you mention Whitewater "investigations", then say you don't remember....   One of his biggest "hounders" was Newt Gingrich - the guy who had the 10 year ongoing "situation" he ended up marrying because his first wife wasn't pretty enough for Washington life!

Heavily scrutinized by "special investigators"...and the FBI !!   None of which found any wrongdoing!!  Did the Alzheimer's lead to forgetting that little point?   And Kenneth Starr, the specialist of special inquisitors has since recanted and said he regrets dragging it all out for so long - as in much longer than was necessary.  And has said he feels the Clintons were wronged at the time.  

And let's not forget David Brock.  He was the guy who ramrodded the whole inquisition for the RWRE.  Who also has recanted and in trying to gain forgiveness, has said that all of that 'stuff' was made up.  

Remember Vince Foster??  Who was supposedly shot in a Washington park with a shotgun?   Or shot from 300 yards away by someone with a high powered rifle, as someone right across the hall from me said just last week?    When he actually committed suicide with a .38 pistol that was found with his body.  As discovered during 6 independent investigations, including one each by Kenneth Starr and the FBI.

It's more of the concept of the "Big Lie" - if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes truth.  And yeah, both sides try - you guess which side is more successful right now - with Trump having so many supporters.....not even a radical extremist like Ted Cruz, but Trump!

[swake]

Allegations with Bill started during the 1992 election with Gennifer Flowers and suggestions she was just the tip of the iceberg.  Hillary was dispatched to deal with the "bimbo eruptions" along with Betsey Wright, a longtime Clinton contemporary and aide who coined the term "bimbo eruption".  Our current Democrat candidate for President was literally referring to these women who were allegedly assaulted or harassed by her husband as "bimbos".


Flowers was dismissed by Hillary as an opportunist who had been paid $100K or so to tell her story to a tabloid (speed through to about the 2:30 mark up to roughly the 4:00 mark or feel free to watch the whole thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUOhUei6aTM

Paula Jones' own claims finally gained a toe-hold amidst the White Water investigations in 1994, and more stories started appearing about his alleged assaults, but again, his accusers were treated as opportunists and liars by the administration and he was re-elected in 1996 in spite of pretty much looking like a sexual predator.  Yes his indiscretions were covered by the media, heavily scrutinized by special prosecutors, he was brought up for impeachment, and lost his law license.  

To the best of my objective memory Bill Clinton was not excoriated in the media,  as Trump is being at this point, even after investigations seemed to prove there was some substance to the claims of his victims.  The only place I recall him constantly being raked over the coals or being called "unfit" to lead were conservative-leaning talking heads.

That well could be a change in times 20-24 years later in how society now views sexual harassment and assault or it could be the now non-stop cycle of public babble via blogs and social media which is instantaneous and is capable of spreading rumors with little veracity in a matter of hours.

To me, Hillary working so diligently to cover-up allegations of her own husband's rapes, assaults, and affairs by marginalizing other women to salvage their political careers and further her political ambitions is every bit as repugnant as Trump boasting about his conquests.

So a wife defending her husband against accusations is equal the crimes that the accusations allege? Seriously? Melania Too? What about Ivanka? Kelly Ann Conway?

Trump himself attacked Bill Clinton accusers.

[Conan71]

So a wife defending her husband against accusations is equal the crimes that the accusations allege? Seriously? Melania Too? What about Ivanka? Kelly Ann Conway?

Trump himself attacked Bill Clinton accusers.

Here we have one of the Clinton's most trusted aides who literally rebuilt his political career after losing his re-election bid for governor in 1980 explaining Hillary's accepted role in the 1992 presidential bid and also explaining it was his proclivities that led her to advise him not to run in 1988.

That's called enabling.  If she was aware of the repeated behavior to a degree that part of her job leading up to the 1992 election was stanching "bimbo eruptions" she knew there was a problem and a pattern.  Based on some allegations these were not just affairs: they were allegations of him exposing himself, groping, and forcing women to have sex with him (known as "rape" in some circles).  You know, basic criminal behavior.  If the allegations are true, that made her a party to covering up sexual crimes (known as "conspiracy" in some circles).

The rational thing to do when you realize you are married to a serial adulterer and sexual predator is to get a divorce and alert the authorities.  Unless you are concerned about your future political ambitions and you really don't care who gets hurt on the way up.

If you were aware of this behavior by a friend or family member, would you cover it up?  My conscience would not allow me to.

Lest anyone think I'm a Trump apologist, I'm not.  I'm simply illustrating HRC covering up a sexual predator's behavior is no better than committing the crimes.  It shows the same disrespect for other women as Trump and WJC ostensibly show their accusers.  It's also shows a level of hypocrisy with HRC that she did anything in her power to keep that from derailing her husband's bid for president but she is using it to attempt to destroy her opponent.

[Conan71]

Flowers received over $500k for the stories she sold.  

Flowers received $150K for selling her story to the Star, Hillary even says it in the video link I provided.  But, you will continue to make the facts to your liking, I'm sure. 

So, if it becomes known that each of these women now coming out about Trump were paid or promised something for them to come forward, will you dismiss their accounts just as easily?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Flowers received $150K for selling her story to the Star, Hillary even says it in the video link I provided.  But, you will continue to make the facts to your liking, I'm sure.  

So, if it becomes known that each of these women now coming out about Trump were paid or promised something for them to come forward, will you dismiss their accounts just as easily?

So, here is what I actually said...as a reminder since it has been a couple of  hours.

"Flowers received over $500k for the stories she sold. "


Nowhere did I say anything about the Star...I said the stories she sold...all of them.  Plural.  Implying more than one.  

As for facts, well we have seen just how little facts mean to the Trump side of the world - and I don't need to make up anything when it is the source herself who said what she made.  She said in 1998 that she made $500,000 clear for selling her stories.  And then it is public record that she made at LEAST $400,000 in a deposition she gave.

She said Republican Functionary Ron Fuller offered her $50,000 for her "story".  And a job in California.... No evidence she took that one.

The Star sale got her $150,000.  Your number.  And generally accepted as correct.

And Penthouse sources have said she got about $1 million for her participation, but that is tough to know since she was offered $750,000 plus 50 cents a copy over average sales.  But later it was reduced to $250,000 plus 50 cents per copy.  Since she did that 'story', it is safe to say there was at least $250,000 plus maybe something more...

In her book, Passion and Betrayal, page 125, she wrote, "Then I heard from a group of Republicans who offered to buy the tapes from me for nine hundred thousand dollars. They would run them, keep whatever revenue they generated, and, with any luck, fatally damage Bill Clinton's candidacy. Nine hundred thousand dollars,"

Can't tell that she ever did that - seems like it would be extremely out of character for her to not take it, given the rest of her history, but hey there is no accounting for what people will do.

So we have HER testimony that she got $400,000 plus maybe an extra $50,000 or $900,000.  And with her talking about it and saying she cleared a half million, well, ok....MAYBE I was off by as much as 50 to 100k.  Still way closer than the attempt to minimize her "sales" as $150,000.


IF for some reason I just wanted to make up facts, I would just go around copying everything Trump says and repeat it....

As for dismissing accounts....huh...just stating what is actually fairly easily accessible.  I bet there is more, but I really don't have to speculate, since the documented truth is so easy.   But then I am not willing to just blindly accept what any person, woman or man, says if it relates to something as significant as this.  And 500k versus 150k is all you took from that?  No commentary/analysis on the rest of it?  Arguably much more significant to the overall story of the Clintons, since it affects a wider swath of the defamation that has been done to them.  By the people who initiated and drove the activity.


And I really hate being in the position of appearing to defend either of them (Billy Bob or Hillary), since I disagree with such a substantial portion of what they are all about.  But it once again goes to the concept of proportion and scale - loud foaming at the mouth, near-psychotic raves over 1 unit of BS as deflection/projection from 10 units of BS on the other side.  I would bet - seriously put down money with odds - that Trump alone has done more than 10 to 1 of anything that Billy Bob or Hillary have done.

[Conan71]

And I really hate being in the position of appearing to defend either of them (Billy Bob or Hillary), since I disagree with such a substantial portion of what they are all about.  But it once again goes to the concept of proportion and scale - loud foaming at the mouth, near-psychotic raves over 1 unit of BS as deflection/projection from 10 units of BS on the other side.  I would bet - seriously put down money with odds - that Trump alone has done more than 10 to 1 of anything that Billy Bob or Hillary have done.

Great, I can't wait to start reading links you provide to prove Trump is 10 times sicker than WJC and 10 times more corrupt than HRC.  Get posting.

Monetary values aside, you did exactly what people who are dismissing what appears to be sick or criminal behavior on Trump's part are doing:  It's automatically assumed that someone is a liar because they may have received some sort of monetary benefit for telling their story. 

Here's a newsflash for you: Average every day people are attracted to the wealthy and famous because somewhere in their psyche, they believe their life will be enrichened (monetarily or otherwise) by drawing close to that person.  Quite often, that results in powerful, rich, or famous people taking advantage of the situation.   That's repugnant.

People who cover up for and enable people who betray the trust of others in the interest of furthering their own ambitions or to protect their social or financial position is equally as repugnant.  Real women have ostensibly been hurt by the actions of the Clintons and the Trumps- two families who seem to accept objectifying and marginal treatment of women is acceptible so long as it serves their means. Get it now?

[erfalf]

In short, this trait (womanizing) makes Trump unfit to be president, but was a diversion for Clinton brought about by the right wing attack machine. Am I off base on my take as to how a large majority views these two?

Are we really trying to make the case that all this about Clinton was completely made up? That Clinton is pure as the driven snow? If so, Conan is right, you all are exactly like those you claim to despise.

[swake]

More Pedophile Trump:

This from a Chicago Tribune news report in 1992 with a then 46 year old Donald Trump:

Donald Trump turned up Monday for a carol sing by a youth choir outside Manhattan's Plaza Hotel. He asked two of the girls how old they were. After they replied they were 14, Trump said, "Wow! Just think—in a couple of years I'll be dating you."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-girls-chicago-tribune-archive-20161013-story.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

Monetary values aside, you did exactly what people who are dismissing what appears to be sick or criminal behavior on Trump's part are doing:  It's automatically assumed that someone is a liar because they may have received some sort of monetary benefit for telling their story. 

Here's a newsflash for you: Average every day people are attracted to the wealthy and famous because somewhere in their psyche, they believe their life will be enrichened (monetarily or otherwise) by drawing close to that person.  Quite often, that results in powerful, rich, or famous people taking advantage of the situation.   That's repugnant.

No...not at all.  When I become dismissive, it is because of people who were actually involved making statements to the effect that they were wrong.  Became sick and tired of the deception, recanted their previous lies, and then let people know about it.  Kenneth Starr.  David Brock.  The 'lead' people in the witchhunts.

Much like the many times the FBI has investigated the Clintons over the years, under widely different regimes - much of the time with an agenda being pushed on them to find something...anything!   And yet, there is nothing.  Never has been anything that raised to the level of criminal activity.  (When are we gonna have real investigations into the culture of torture established by Baby Bush and Puppetmaster Cheney??  By definition, criminal activity.)

I am very liberal toward people's behavior in their private lives.  I feel no compulsion to interfere or try to impress my codes upon them until and unless it impinges on MY life.  Live and let live type philosophy.  But I have pretty much always felt that Penthouse is a pretty trashy publication - yeah, I know lots of people rationalize and deflect by talking about "the articles".... That's ok - whatever lets one get to one's happy place.  As part of that, I also have opinions of the participants in the business - in general, I feel they have less than the best, upright moral fiber - I feel it is a morals topic.  It is mental/visual prostitution - pimps and harlots.  While it has a long and varied history, it's just not something I feel is praiseworthy.  Others have a different appreciation of the industry.   And the participants are more prone to character flaws that would preclude blind acceptance without verification.  As in this case - it just seems disingenuous that she would be saying one thing for many years and then when money appears, say something totally opposite.  So, by her own testimony over many years, she is a liar.  By definition.



Newsflash - "average people".  There is a name for that.  Sychophant.   Never saw the attraction myself... And yeah, "Trumping" it for advantage is repugnant - common ground!!

[erfalf]

it just seems disingenuous that she would be saying one thing for many years and then when money appears, say something totally opposite.  So, by her own testimony over many years, she is a liar.  By definition.

I agree...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/aug/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-cuba-embargo-change-position-did/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/11/22/hillary-clinton-flip-flop-flips-on-iraq/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/donald-trump/donald-trumps-largely-accurate-about-clintons-past/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTmN2wbJ0A

[heironymouspasparagus]

In short, this trait (womanizing) makes Trump unfit to be president, but was a diversion for Clinton brought about by the right wing attack machine. Am I off base on my take as to how a large majority views these two?

Are we really trying to make the case that all this about Clinton was completely made up? That Clinton is pure as the driven snow? If so, Conan is right, you all are exactly like those you claim to despise.

No.  Womanizing is not what makes him unfit - and it is not "womanizing" to grope without permission, it is criminal.   I would also submit it is not "womanizing" to walk in on a room full of naked 15 to 18 year old girls at the Miss Teen USA pageant just to "look around".  Maybe our lawyers could tell us what the criminal statutes say, if anything, about that....

No, Clinton is not pure by any stretch - he has a long track record of ongoing extramarital events.  I suspect both of them do - it sounds like an "open marriage" to me that may (probably) involves multiple partners and I suspect group activities.

There is no doubt Flowers was involved - was it consensual?  No doubt.  Which puts it in a whole other category from what Trump has bragged about.  What is really strange is how people conflate the two.

And one other thing that really, truly, puzzles me is the 'moral outrage' over someone who shows disrespect to a ritual and object, while at the same time excusing, with no moral outrage, the actions of someone who physically violates another human being.  Can someone explain that to me??  So it makes sense...!  (I always stand and salute the flag during the National Anthem, but some choose to use that as a political statement.)

And when the 'testimony' of two of the chief architects of the efforts to smear are factored in, then a wider view must be taken of the overall campaign that has gone on for decades.  One must "de-conflate".   Or just fall into the septic sludge that is Trump....

[swake]

In short, this trait (womanizing) makes Trump unfit to be president, but was a diversion for Clinton brought about by the right wing attack machine. Am I off base on my take as to how a large majority views these two?

Are we really trying to make the case that all this about Clinton was completely made up? That Clinton is pure as the driven snow? If so, Conan is right, you all are exactly like those you claim to despise.

I'm sure Bill Clinton has done bad things, I'm unsure about how bad. I would not vote for him today, but he's not running.

Most of the women that Clinton was attacked about were women he cheated with. I am positive that happened over and over. What was proven in court was that he cheated. I think he probably groped some women. I have large doubts about the cases accusing him of rape. It's hard to tell because the same people behind the women accusing him in most cases are the same people that pushed stupid charges like the killing of Vince Foster.

Trump is another thing. None of the women accusing him are for simple affairs, though I am sure there many of those as well. His cheating has been proven in court, just like Bill's. I am reasonably certain of his groping as well, just like with Bill. Unlike Bill I am also reasonably certain he is guilty of rape. Read the original accusations from Ivana from their divorce, it's really scary. I know she recanted, but that was required as part of the settlement and they have kids, so I get why she recanted. The accusation in her deposition is more believable to me than her pulling it back in the settlement. So I am pretty certain he's guilt of that.

The thing that has really pushed me over the edge lately is the stuff with children. His going backstage at Miss Teen USA and his now two documented cases of ogling children and telling them he would date them in a few years. It's very sick.

Add the groping, the rape, the pedophiliac behavior on top his bullying, paranoia, xenophobia, racism, bigotry, sexism and then his fraudulent "University" and "Foundation" and his ugly, ugly business dealings and his demonstrably lying most of the time. I mean that, most of what comes out of his mouth is a lie, and often pointlessly so. He's a sick, sick man in ways Bill could never approach. And again, Bill isn't running.