Hillary 2016

Post Reply New Topic

Hillary has tried very very hard to go unnoticed this election season but of the few things she has talked about and has been made a main theme in her campaign is the whole 'war on women' narrative which is a now a staple of Democratic talking points but the problem with that is that there is no worse person on this planet to deliver that message than the Clinton's. There are things we have known about for a long time now just as we have with Bill Cosby but the times have now changed and that lovable Bill is not so lovable anymore, if we are to take Hillary's campaign message seriously then surely the same standard should fall upon Bill and herself for their conduct and the troubling accusations made against the two. It's not one, not two, not three, but more and like with Bill Cosby I am swayed by the 'where there is smoke there is fire' effect by the amount of accusations.

Partisans can stick their head in the sand and believe the lie that it is all some vast right wing conspiracy to make specifically her and husband look bad but I don't see anybody coming out and making these types accusations against Barack Obama or really anybody else for that matter. As much as I dislike Obama I can at least credit him with being a loving husband and father from as far as I can see.

I'm a bit disorganized right now but I'll get back to this later but here's a very interesting video of Hillary Clinton recounting her defending a child rapist some time back in the 70s.

A possible positive thing about a Hillary presidency would be having all those fudementalist Muslim leaders like the Saudi Royal family sh*****g thier pants because they have to meet with a women head of state, especially a women with her personality.

Unnoticed? How so?
Just what is "the woman card" anyway? She is a woman. Can someone define this for me; so far Trump has called a woman going to the bathroom disgusting. He also said Megyn Kelly's question was based on her menstruation. I think he plays the woman's card.
Why?Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby are not the same person; even though they have the same initials.Clinton is a dog; but that's not a crime. A lot of powerful men have voracious sexual appetites, I've never heard a claim of anything other than consensual sex.
Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby are not the same person. See above.Her laughter was at the incompetence of the crime lab, not the crime itself. Nothing damning here.

I don't think 'unnoticed' is exactly the right word, what I think Jacoby is referring to is that Hilary would prefer not to face too much scrutiny on specific aspects of her record, e.g. her hawkishness or her Wall Street ties, and so has kinda tried to arrange more of a coronation than a campaign. Some good examples would be her extreme control of the media around her, the lack of debates and their timing during dead air, etc. Basically, she's positioned herself as the default, inexorable candidate and doesn't want people looking too hard at her actual record.



The "woman card" is 'vote for me because I'm a woman and it will be a historic event/being a woman makes me uniquely qualified', as opposed to 'vote for me because I'm the best candidate for the job'. Hilary also plays the 'everyone is against me because I'm a woman, not because I'm a terrible candidate with terrible positions' variant, more commonly associated with the racial version.



Because Hilary has objectively bad positions that have nothing to do with her gender, and because of her role in her husband's scandals, which I'm getting to.



No one said they are, the point being made is that, like Cosby, Clinton had a lot of accusations made against him that at the time were not taken particularly seriously, that had they been made in today's political climate, likely would have brought him down. He had actual rape accusations made against him, and Hilary is now pushing the "I believe women" line? Wouldn't you agree that's pretty rich? Even the "mere" sexual harassment stuff might have been enough, and the Lewinsky scandal takes on a whole new dimension when you view it in the light of current feminist views on power dynamics and consent.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_mi ... ll_Clinton

Juanita Broaddrick is only the most well known name on that list.

As far as I know, (amidsts several cases of sexual misconduct) Juanita Broaddrick is the only woman who alleges rape against Bill Clinton. I have no trouble believing that of him, but since the rape in question is said to have taken place in 1978 and was first brought up in 1999, it's not strange that the case against him was dismissed in 2001.


Hillary herself is no saint, either: http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/hillary-ha ... oors-book/


That being said, ASPartOfMe's point about the Saudis would be funny to see.

Last edited by Wolfram87 on 29 Dec 2015, 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ahh, but would it be funnier than sending Trump to Europe as a head of state? I mean if we're voting purely on trolling principles, I think Trump leads by a mile.

The only assailant of Monica Lewinsky was the press. She wasn't attacked by Bill Clinton, but by the media. Neither she nor Clinton did anything wrong.
As for the rape allegation, I see it was dismissed.
There is nothing here. Trump is trying to create distractions.

The most powerful man in the world pursues a twenty-something intern for sex, and you don't see a "problematic" power imbalance there? Better not tell your feminist friends, they'll revoke your woman card...




But don't you believe woman, like Hilary is telling you to? Don't you know that false rape accusations are rarer than hens teeth and therefore any accusation should be treated as if it were true? That other Bill hasn't been convicted of rape either.



Trump is a distraction, that doesn't mean there's nothing there, just that you don't want to see it.

Unclear. Hillary and the Saudis is one situation that is guaranteed to happen, and guaranteed to be...interesting. But as you say, for sheer trololols with pretty much any european head of state, Trump has that special je ne sais quoi, his trolling X-factor. I say both of them have the potential to end the world in some hilarious manner.

Trump for President, Clinton for Prison!! !

How about Trump with the Saudis and Mexicans?.

But this is a Hillary thread. I used the Saudis as an example, same will apply to most if not all Muslim leaders not only of countries, but terrorist organizations.

I am primarily concerned that Hillary Clinton will be less enthusiastic about implementing long-overdue criminal justice reforms than Barack Obama. However, she does seem to have moved closer to the views of O'Malley and Sanders on the subject recently. She stills seems to be wavering when it comes to putting an end to the ridiculous War on Drugs, though.

The obvious reason for this is - of course - that many of these policies were introduced and/or expanded by Bill Clinton during his presidency and strongly defended by Hillary as she was the First Lady. However, this is likely to more of a headache for Hillary in the Democratic primary (as it questions her commitment to views strongly held by many Democrats) than in a general election versus a GOP candidate.

Some positions I strongly endorse: Hillary Clinton is adamantly pro-choice, strongly in favor of the live-saving PPACA, and in favor of rolling back the primary source of the massive US federal deficit: The Bush-era tax cuts, in favor of the Paris Accords on climate change, in favor of the nuclear deal with Iran and in favor of ending the US embargo against Cuba.

She's also in favor of gay marriage, but that's a rather moot point after the United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges decisions.

I'm not sure how I feel about her sudden opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), but that's because I'm not sure how I feel about the TPP itself. It is currently getting scapegoated (just as NAFTA unfairly was) as the big job-killer in the US, but it is simply too early to tell what effects it will have in the long run.

I really don't see a problem. Older men, younger women - that's not unusual. It's certainly not criminal. This whole woman card business is annoying. It marginalizes the legitimate differences between men and women.


There was only the one rape allegation and it is unclear what actually happened, except that he wasn't charged.



The only thing I see is a powerful man who likes sex. Not a rapist.

Bill Clinton is sort of a sleazy creep at times--but, unfortunately, many people who have done good things are sleazy creeps at times.

She has shown that she is willing to change what she believes in for political expediency, she's the type of politician that takes 5 polls and has focus groups before ever opening her mouth up on any issue. We saw this with her reversal on TPP, the Keystone Pipeline XL, gay marriage, Iraq, whatever. She was one of the worst Secretary of States ever, she has no political accomplishments to her name, all she can do is ride the coattails of her rapist husband. I don't get it, I really don't.

MOST politicians change their positions for purposes of expediency. It's part of the game.