US Presidential Election XII

[martha]

Should we start listing the married Republican male legislators who've lied about gay affairs while voting against LBGTQ rights?


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by martha

You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

Hillary is packing.... wits.

PS. There is no way in hell he actually agrees to a debate. He will make up some stupid excuse because he knows he will be destroyed.

[BigMacPhisto]

Again, I never raised a complaint that Hillary Clinton stayed with her husband. That's not the issue. The issue is creating a facade about how your marriage actually works and therefore lying to hundreds of millions of people constantly. You all jumped on something I never even insinuated. The feminist line I brought up was trying to downplay the allegations against Bill from these women by discrediting them, calling it a right wing conspiracy, etc. Hurting other women in that manner, especially in regards of claims of rape and sexual assault will never be considered a feminist stance.

And yes, the lying and deception is the issue at hand. I could give a fuck about the blowjob. Plenty of other recent Presidents have had the same problems with trustworthiness as well and it's the exact same reason why they didn't deserve to be Commander in Chief in my eyes.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Because for many of us it's the main reason we're voting for her?

No shit. But people don't seem to get that I'm trying to have a discussion about the next President and not about the election. I'm with all of you on the arguments against Trump and can see why you're seeing your vote as an anti-Trump one. People just get too heated in here sometimes.

[martha]

Your discussion of the next president is all about her marriage and how it doesn't fit your ideas of how marriage should work.


Nothing about her policies and plans, her past performances as a senator or secretary of state.


No. Her marriage. And then you keep telling us what she should have done as a wife.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by martha

Should we start listing the married Republican male legislators who've lied about gay affairs while voting against LBGTQ rights?


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

Let's not forget that the former GOP Speaker of the House who went after Bill Clinton during Clinton's impeachment trial was a child molester: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/22/po...oes-to-prison/


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Again, I never raised a complaint that Hillary Clinton stayed with her husband. That's not the issue. The issue is creating a facade about how your marriage actually works and therefore lying to hundreds of millions of people constantly.

Since you're a marriage counselor and can read the minds of strangers; don't you realize the cynical may say this about most marriages in this country.

The thing is, you wouldn't give a shit about if the marriage was truly working if it was a man. You wouldn't call him a liar if you found out the Sanders were having problems and were keeping up appearances for family and political reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

3. As far as Bill lying...yes, he lied, and that's not good, and nobody approves of it, but at the end of the day all he did was deny having an affair he did have in front of cameras a few times. It's not good, but he's hardly the first or last politician to do that, and given the circumstances...that Republican House in the late 90s hated his guts, they were going to go on a witchhunt and Bill probably knew it. If he thought there was any chance he could keep it under wraps and avoid the the long, drawn-out Ken Starr witchhunt, you can see why he'd try.

Having extramarital affairs while in office, getting caught, and then lying about it is never good but the lie isn't always the kind of lie that makes you question whether you can trust a person in matters of state. Bill Clinton denied the affair a couple times and then within a few months copped to the whole thing. It's not the kind of lie that make one, or at least me, question if he can be trusted in office(let alone Hillary).

That's actually not true.

He lied about having an affair with Lewinsky under oath, in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment trial. He committed perjury. He's even admitted to such after the fact, even though he was acquitted in the Senate.

He was held in contempt of court after he left office, and disbarred.

Now of course we can argue whether this was worthy enough to actually bring impeachment hearings over (it wasn't), but it was certainly more than just lying on tv a couple of times.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BVS

Since you're a marriage counselor and can read the minds of strangers; don't you realize the cynical may say this about most marriages in this country.

The thing is, you wouldn't give a shit about if the marriage was truly working if it was a man. You wouldn't call him a liar if you found out the Sanders were having problems and were keeping up appearances for family and political reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Ding ding ding

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Again, I never raised a complaint that Hillary Clinton stayed with her husband. That's not the issue. The issue is creating a facade about how your marriage actually works and therefore lying to hundreds of millions of people constantly. You all jumped on something I never even insinuated.

You, random internet poster, have exactly zero insight into how the Clinton's marriage actually works. To claim that you know their real situation and can therefore state that Hillary was lying about is, to be frank, utter bullshit.

Stop digging.

And yes, the lying and deception is the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by BVS

The thing is, you wouldn't give a shit about if the marriage was truly working if it was a man. You wouldn't call him a liar if you found out the Sanders were having problems and were keeping up appearances for family and political reasons.

Bingo.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Debra S

evidence of rape?? sure he has been divorced, but his whole family was at the RNC

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Guess we'll find out soon enough.

People are talking

Right, his first wife told people she was raped, to the point that it ended up in a book. Then Trump paid her off so that she would publicly state "I don't mean criminal rape," which I believe ended up as a footnote in said book. It was blatantly obvious that her change of heart on the issue was the result of him bribing her to be quiet.

[martha]

Whoever this is, they know what Hillary's all about!

The Fact That Hillary Secretly Murdered Dozens Shows She’s Ready To Lead

[trojanchick99]

You're right! 😂

[Headache in a Suitcase]

What does "not to be interpreted in a literally or criminal" sense when it comes to rape mean, anyways? How do you figuratively rape someone?

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by martha

Your discussion of the next president is all about her marriage and how it doesn't fit your ideas of how marriage should work.


Nothing about her policies and plans, her past performances as a senator or secretary of state.


No. Her marriage. And then you keep telling us what she should have done as a wife.

You clearly misread my post. I don't give a shit about how marriages should work and the like. It's pretending you have a closed and loving relationship when all the evidence says otherwise and lying under oath to the American people about what went down because you're afraid it will harm you politically. Yes, there's a lot of "moral" voters and it's complete bullshit, but to perpetuate a marriage and pretend that all this other shit didn't happen aside from the Lewinski blowjob is an extremely transparent lie.

And no, it's not because Hillary Clinton is a woman. I have a problem with the falsity of it all, regardless, and the lengths that the Clintons went through to try and discredit all of these women that came forward and to outright lie about this at all times.

If Sanders or anybody else were having marital troubles, I could give a fuck. But when the individual would needlessly would lie under oath or slander women for telling the truth? I'd be just as pissed off. To me, it says a ton about Clinton's trustworthiness.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Diemen

You, random internet poster, have exactly zero insight into how the Clinton's marriage actually works. To claim that you know their real situation and can therefore state that Hillary was lying about is, to be frank, utter bullshit.

And to claim that you know better can be considered to be just as wrong. Why should we just take the Clintons at their word given all the evidence?

I mean, fuck, there's like no situations even when these women are actually lying about what happened. Like when people thought that IMF Socialist was set up when the first woman came forward and then it clearly was far, far from that when more information unraveled. I understand the worry about how any devious political hacks from the other side could just concoct some fake affair or assault scandal in order to discredit the other side, but the fact of the matter is that none of these sexual allegations against people of power have really turned out to be false whatsoever.

I mean, fuck, watch the damn John Mulaney comedy special on Netflix where his mom tells him about how Bill would hang out in front of where the women would leave campus to go to their dorms and walk them home in order to try and get in their pants. You think Hillary Clinton really was naive enough to think for decades that this sort of guy who literally would wait for ass to come along in the quad would be faithful to her for decades or that Hillary herself would be too stupid to figure any of it out? I mean, come the fuck on. The two met each other do to mutual political interests and an obvious thirst for power (and there's nothing wrong with that) and they've since put together an insanely successful run at it. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that she let Bill do whatever he wanted on the side and that his love of his sex is his personal Achilles heal...

And again, it doesn't fucking matter. But lying about it and doing what they did to these women is the problem.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

You clearly misread my post. I don't give a shit about how marriages should work and the like. It's pretending you have a closed and loving relationship when all the evidence says otherwise

Damnitt don't pretend to be happy when BMP can read your mind and knows otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

No because I never once said Bill having flings on the side was immoral or anything else. This seems to happen a lot around here where people just want to read into things and throw out the stupid arguments like I'm some brainwashed member of the right. I don't have any moral qualms with Bill fucking other women and I not once have had a problem with Hillary Clinton being female, etc. Yet some of you just go for the fucking jugular and don't actually try to comprehend what I'm actually saying...such as posters getting ripped on here for saying why it's troubling that Clinton took so much for speeches by a user calling them out as sexist? Like, what the fuck?

Not to mention the constant, irritating need to have to derail any discussion about Clinton with why the Republicans are just as awful, etc. If I'm talking about Hillary Clinton and only Hillary Clinton, then that's the discussion I intended. You don't get a free pass for doing shit that's wrong in the real world because you can point out somebody else that has done much worse. That just reeks of desperation and a needless focus on this already over horse-race.

I'm reminded of a quote from an article I read yesterday about what Progressives are thinking about Clinton courting the right and one guy boiled down how this election that happens every four years can essentially mean that we just get behind the Democrat and ignore their flaws with being just to the left of David Duke potentially being good enough. I'm sorry, but that's now how actual analysis or rational discussion works and that's how you get Presidential nominee John Kerry.

And let's be fucking honest, if Hillary Clinton had ran on basically the platform of Joe Lieberman circa 2004, she'd have still won this damn nomination. It's all about the awful other guy with the Democratic party and never their own candidate. I find that extremely troubling and it leads to the low-turnout midterms and random right-wing Presidential pivots that nobody on the left happened to want (TPP or Grand Bargain, anyone?). It's lazy.

Call me crazy, but I think Republicans actually pay far more attention to the actual platform than Democratic voters. One attempt at "amnesty" derailed Marco Rubio for most of the race, etc. You can call it needless bitching or wanting to be righter-than-thou but that sort of arguably trivial stance actually matters a great deal to those people. Clinton got a lot of voters that never learned who the hell Sanders even was or that merely chose her because they felt she would do better against the Republican nominee. Neither of those are actual informed policy reasoning for getting behind a candidate and it's explicitly laid out in both primary polling and even recent polling where a great deal of Clinton's backers can't even name a single policy proposal. It's shit like this that just leads to a disappointing Presidency. Like making sure you get pizza instead of steak for dinner and then not actually looking at what type of pizza it happens to be as you're already satisfied with the outcome.

And that last paragraph isn't really pointed at too many people in here, mind you, but some of the same illogical reasoning for why Clinton was a better choice or why we shouldn't look into her flaws deeply was made in here fairly often even if the users had backed her because of policy agreements.

Anyway, If you want Hillary Clinton to be a damn great President then make Hillary Clinton be a damn great President. Whatever Trump does is fucking irrelevant. Look at what you are voting for and what she needs to support, not hand out Gold Stars because she's not a fucking troll.

[corianderstem]

Edited: never mind, already addressed multiple times.

However, still would like to see trustworthy articles regarding "what Hilary did" to the women who accused Bill of wrongdoing. You must have seen something around somewhere if you keep bringing it up?


Regarding "not criminal rape." oh, so just "rape" and not "rape rape." She must be coming from the Whoopi Goldberg School of Rape.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

No because I never once said Bill having flings on the side was immoral or anything else. This seems to happen a lot around here where people just want to read into things and throw out the stupid arguments like I'm some brainwashed member of the right. I don't have any moral qualms with Bill fucking other women and I not once have had a problem with Hillary Clinton being female, etc. Yet some of you just go for the fucking jugular and don't actually try to comprehend what I'm actually saying...such as posters getting ripped on here for saying why it's troubling that Clinton took so much for speeches by a user calling them out as sexist? Like, what the fuck?

I'm thinking you might be the one with the comprehension issues, how is this even remotely a response to my post? It's nowhere near anything I was saying.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Not to mention the constant, irritating need to have to derail any discussion about Clinton with why the Republicans are just as awful, etc. If I'm talking about Hillary Clinton and only Hillary Clinton, then that's the discussion I intended. You don't get a free pass for doing shit that's wrong in the real world because you can point out somebody else that has done much worse. That just reeks of desperation and a needless focus on this already over horse-race.

Who's done this to you?

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Call me crazy, but I think Republicans actually pay far more attention to the actual platform than Democratic voters. One attempt at "amnesty" derailed Marco Rubio for most of the race, etc. You can call it needless bitching or wanting to be righter-than-thou but that sort of arguably trivial stance actually matters a great deal to those people. Clinton got a lot of voters that never learned who the hell Sanders even was or that merely chose her because they felt she would do better against the Republican nominee. Neither of those are actual informed policy reasoning for getting behind a candidate and it's explicitly laid out in both primary polling and even recent polling where a great deal of Clinton's backers can't even name a single policy proposal. It's shit like this that just leads to a disappointing Presidency. Like making sure you get pizza instead of steak for dinner and then not actually looking at what type of pizza it happens to be as you're already satisfied with the outcome.

Definitely crazy...