Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Trump will win because of Bill Clinton's Affairs

By bringing up Bill Clinton's affairs day in and day out, Trump will erode Hillary's lead among women.

Hillary not only enabled Bill's womanizing, but destroyed some of these women's lives.

Especially IF (and I saw IF) Trump pays all of these women to campaign for him. Can you imagine him paying Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Junanita Broderick, Kathleen Wiley a million dollars to go out and not only campaign with him, but speak to women's groups all over America.

If Trump does that, he'll win,

by Anonymousreply 520January 17, 2020 3:29 AM

Most people didn't give a shit when it was happening, what makes you think they will care now? Plus, hasn't Trump cheated on his wives? I think this will backfire.

by Anonymousreply 1May 8, 2016 1:29 PM

Trump cheated on all three of his wives. He even brought Marla Maples on a ski trip that henand Ivana were on and it sparked the showdown between all three on a mountainside. There are pictures.

His new wife is a rumored call girl and has nude photos and a lesbian photo spread that is pretty easy to find on the intertubes.

If anything, this shows just how out of touch with reality Don the Con really is.

by Anonymousreply 2May 8, 2016 1:30 PM

This is about Hillary and her judgement

by Anonymousreply 3May 8, 2016 1:31 PM

Yes, let the thrice-married womanizer trot out all the women who slept with the other candidate's husband. That will surely win him the election.

by Anonymousreply 4May 8, 2016 1:32 PM

[quote]This is about Hillary and her on-going questionable judgement.

Fixed.

by Anonymousreply 5May 8, 2016 1:39 PM

I think women will turn their back on her, but not because of Bill. She's got the balls to talk about equal pay for equal work when the Clinton foundation has a 38% pay disparity. Any woman is going to know she is saying exactly what she believes will get her elected with little execution.

by Anonymousreply 6May 8, 2016 1:41 PM

Bullshit. Women sympathize because many of them understand what it is to be married to an asshole. They sure as hell aren't going to vote for the actual asshole who calls women ugly and fat.

by Anonymousreply 7May 8, 2016 1:44 PM

Eleanor Mondale got sick around the time Hillary started her March to the White House.

by Anonymousreply 8May 8, 2016 1:45 PM

It's not just that there were affairs and that one of them was practically rape (between the leader of the free world and an intern) that became an embarrassingly inane and puritanical national distraction, it's that Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY the lives of all of the women Bill Clinton either fucked, harrassed or molested.

I don't know why women support her but they shouldn't if they're reminded of all this muck. The thing is people are so stupid and tribal these days. They would rather take the psycho enabler of the blue tribe than the alternative. Sure. Let's all hold our noses and elect this disgusting mega-rich crime family into the White House.

by Anonymousreply 9May 8, 2016 1:45 PM

It's hard to say, R9 - are you Revolution Messaging or Koch Bros.? Hmm.

by Anonymousreply 10May 8, 2016 1:47 PM

The more Trump brings this up, the more women will hate him. His numbers are hustorically low with women for a reason.

by Anonymousreply 11May 8, 2016 1:51 PM

^historically

by Anonymousreply 12May 8, 2016 1:52 PM

Trump will not dare bring up cheating if he knows what's good for him.

by Anonymousreply 13May 8, 2016 1:56 PM

[quote]Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY the lives of all of the women Bill Clinton either fucked, harrassed or molested.

Specifically, what did she do?

by Anonymousreply 14May 8, 2016 2:02 PM

R9 You are the biggest cunt EVER!

A grease is too good for you, you rancid pus filled cunt.

Trump RAPED Ivana you fucking moron!

There is NOTHING that tops that idiot.

by Anonymousreply 15May 8, 2016 2:02 PM

"Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY the lives of all of the women"

Advancing a right-wing narrative based on fiction. Monica Lewinsky is Bill's most famous mistress and she's doing quite well for herself.

by Anonymousreply 16May 8, 2016 2:22 PM

Um, I seem to recall Monica gushingly recalling her affair with Bill Clinton to Barbara Walters. You cant reinvent that situation and now claim it was rape. He cheated on Hillary with an intern all too happy to be the other woman, thinking she'd be more than that. That isn't rape. Idiots.

by Anonymousreply 17May 8, 2016 2:25 PM

My mom holds it against her in the sense that she feels Hillary has absolutely no self respect, and should have left him at that point when he had humiliated her to the extent that peasants in third-world villages were laughing about Monica. No, it wasn't rape, but in any other situation, a boss found having sex with an intern like that would have been fired.

by Anonymousreply 18May 8, 2016 2:27 PM

And Monica wasn't young enough where you might say it was statutory rape.

by Anonymousreply 19May 8, 2016 2:28 PM

[quote]but in any other situation, a boss found having sex with an intern like that would have been fired.

On what planet, sunshine? That kind of shit goes on all the time.

by Anonymousreply 20May 8, 2016 2:33 PM

[quote]My mom holds it against her in the sense that she feels Hillary has absolutely no self respect, and should have left him at that point when he had humiliated her

The Hillbots and fan gurls prefer to ignore just how many female voters have this exact thought in mind.

by Anonymousreply 21May 8, 2016 2:36 PM

The Devine - Weaver - Goodman daily Vomitorium presents:

by Anonymousreply 22May 8, 2016 2:37 PM

Monica Lewinsky was "raped"?

Do any of you millennial morons ever look up any actual articles that were written THEN about what happened? Monica's first long term boyfriend was her married high school teacher. She knew he was married and didn't care. She was fucking him right up to the time she went to Washington. She told a girlfriend she was going to Washington to get her "Presidential knee pads." Her words, not mine. Then she said she wore thong underwear and bent down so Clinton could see the thong strap above her pants waistband. Clinton figured out pretty quickly what was going on and took advantage if it. He's a man. How many straight men would turn down free blow jobs? Like, none.

They had an affair. Supposedly he never fucked her because he thought that was a worse form of cheating than just getting blow jobs, because it wasn't penetrative sex. But he told her he wished he could divorce and be with her and I think that's probably true.

She said she wanted to be able to tell her grandchildren she had an affair with a President. Obviously she didn't think she'd be attacked and dragged through the mud by Republicans for decades. She thought by now it'd all be over and she'd be happily married to someone else.

if Trunp wants to drag these women through the mud to bash Clinton, he's going to enrage every woman who thinks they should be left the fuck alone. Especially Lewinsky, who's never been wrapped too tight, ever. Now she's involved in stopping bullying. Good for her, but that doesn't mean it's okay to bully her endlessly because she fucked some guy when she was a dumb twenty-three year old.

Young women have affairs with married guys and get over it. The fact she hasn't, and the idea she supposedly can never marry or hold a job, is ridiculous. Kim Kardashian and Pamela Anderson married and they had sex tapes out there. I'm sure at the time, they were embarrassed too. Then they got over it and moved on.

Juanita Broderrick went to a Clinton rally three weeks after the "rape," to support Clinton. She bragged to her girlfriend at the time that she fucked Clinton as if she were happy about it. She never called the police. Later, she decided it was "rape." I have no idea if it was or not, and neither does anybody else, because she's told different stories in every direction and she never pressed charges. Who knows. But you can't just make unsubstantiated claims, never press charges or go to court, offer no evidence and assume everyone's supposed to believe you when there's no proof. One way or the other, she lied. Which way? Nobody knows. That doesn't give her the right to try to ruin some public figure's life in the court of public opinion.

The truth is Clinton fucked around a lot. He was charming and women were throwing themselves at him everywhere he went. I'm tired of hearing how every women who ever fucked him is some kind of helpless victim, a frail flower that got her clothes ripped off. Bullshit. Groupies followed him everywhere. He was like a rock star. This revisionist history, that none of these women wanted to fuck him and he just went around raping women constantly is like hearing George Orwell's "Big Lie" from the book "1984": if you say it long enough, people will believe it no matter how ludicrous it is.

If you want to lie, say Clinton is Satan or something that can't be proven. Anybody that was alive then knows this is the most ridiculous lie imaginable.

by Anonymousreply 23May 8, 2016 2:39 PM

OP, this isn't 1950. The women who condemn Hillary because of Bill's affairs weren't planning to vote for Hillary anyway. Trump has a disapproval rate among women of over 70 percent. He's earned women hating him, and we do.

by Anonymousreply 24May 8, 2016 2:42 PM

When the whole "Naughty President Bill sleeping with other women" thing happened, most women sympathized with Hillary for her unenviable public humiliation. For whatever reason, she forgave him for his trangressions. They're still a couple after all of the shit hit the fan. I don't agree with her decision to stay with him but I do admire her loyalty, forgiveness and strength of character to do so. Not many women could move on the way she has.

If Trump brings up all of this old news, it will only remind people of what a scumbag he really is. Bill isn't running for President. Hillary is the candidate. His strategy is flawed when he himself is an adulterer. I don't see how Hillary can be blamed for her husband's behavior. Oh wait, she's a woman and a woman can be blamed for everything.

by Anonymousreply 25May 8, 2016 2:42 PM

[quote] Bill isn't running for President. Hillary is the candidate.

But this goes to the type of company she keeps. She is on the side of an alleged rapist, instead of a rape victim?

In terms of Donald, Ivana says Donald never raped her.

Monica didn't claim Bill raped her. It was Juanita Broderick who said Bill raped her. At that Hillary threatened her if she dared go public with her story.

by Anonymousreply 26May 8, 2016 2:58 PM

R25 hit the nail on the head: women are blamed for everything. Hillary isn't the one that fucked these women. After all the chasing tail Clinton did, she gets a pass by me if she had an affair or two herself. Who in their right mind thinks she is the worst transgressor here? Not me.

She's got more guts than I do, staying with a guy like that. So she took her marriage vows seriously. That's not a crime. Every woman I know who stayed with a guy until death do us part was cheated on. Women make a decision: are you staying with this tomcat no matter what, or are you getting a divorce? Because if you want a husband when you're old and sick you're turning your head the other way. That's just a fact of life for women.

Why doesn't anybody ever blame these guys that can't keep their pants on? People demand some middle aged woman give up her family, companionship in retirement and old age, and every other damn thing she's worked for her whole life, and for what? The women I know that stuck it out had a husband at their deathbed. The others that didn't, were living alone with a bunch of cats in their old age, with their kids in the other side of the country ignoring them. Alone.

Hillary's always been able to think about the long term. I think that's what she's been doing here all along. Why shouldn't she get something out of their marriage, he sure got his money's worth. She's loyal as hell.

Women backstab other women. They try to steal each others' husbands and put down the women whose husbands they're trying to steal. They tell themselves the wife is ugly and old and doesn't "deserve" her own husband any more. They try to humiliate the wife and run her out of her own home she's worked so hard for. Hillary didn't fall for that. Good for her. She got what she wanted out of it, and no other woman ran her out of her own marriage. Or as Dear Abby used to say to cheated-on wives: are you better off with him or without him?

Trump's dumped a couple of women. Marla Maples is broke. Ivana didn't get treated very well either. I bet if Maples could still be there living the high life she would be. He's no hero himself.

by Anonymousreply 27May 8, 2016 2:58 PM

He'll figure out a way to make it more unseemly than his divorces / affairs.

E.g., Trump Cigar, anyone?

by Anonymousreply 28May 8, 2016 3:00 PM

Trump might of had affairs, but Bill's record?

#1 - Raped one woman (Juanita Broderick)

#2 - Groped one woman (Kathleen Wylie)

#3 - Sexually harassed one woman (Paula Jones)

Yet Hillary sides with her husband, and does everything possible to discredit these women?

The question is why isn't Hillary on the side of sexually assaulted women? But on the side of the perp (Bill Clinton)

Why isn't she on the side of victims?

by Anonymousreply 29May 8, 2016 3:01 PM

Plus this is NOT about Bill and his cheating. This is about why Hillary is NOT on the side of sexual assault victims.

by Anonymousreply 30May 8, 2016 3:02 PM

Do they have any fucking clue how many women have been cheated on? You attack Hillary on this issue, you attack them.

by Anonymousreply 31May 8, 2016 3:03 PM

For whatever reason the Monica scandal only boosted the Clinton's ratings. So bring on round 2, and let Hillary ride it right into the White House!

by Anonymousreply 32May 8, 2016 3:04 PM

"Women backstab other women. They try to steal each others' husbands and put down the women whose husbands they're trying to steal. They tell themselves the wife is ugly and old and doesn't "deserve" her own husband any more. They try to humiliate the wife and run her out of her own home she's worked so hard for."

Poor husbands, innocent little lambs they are. No way they could be self-centered lying manipulators with only their own best interests at heart.

by Anonymousreply 33May 8, 2016 3:05 PM

R30, Bill committed sexual battery = Obama is a Kenyan. Good luck with that.

Same old, same old from the Republican party. Can we expect the same of Trump's economic policies? Let's revisit 2008...

by Anonymousreply 34May 8, 2016 3:06 PM

[quote] Do they have any fucking clue how many women have been cheated on? You attack Hillary on this issue, you attack them.

Again this is NOT about cheating, This is about why Hillary is not on the side of sexual assault victims.

by Anonymousreply 35May 8, 2016 3:06 PM

Bill Clinton's approval rating is very high so there is no logic that Hillary should be crucified for the actions of a beloved ex president.

by Anonymousreply 36May 8, 2016 3:07 PM

She isn't on the side of these women because number one, they were celebrity fuckers and everyone knows that celebrity fuckers are often nut jobs that lie to get attention. Clinton fucked anything in a skirt. Some of these women were trying to sell their story to get money.

Number two, they didn't press charges. If they had proof or really wanted justice, they would have pressed charges. But they did sell their stories to the Enquirer and got paid. Broderick's probably been supported by the Republican party for the last twenty years. If she wanted Clinton punished, why not call the cops? She wanted money, not Clinton in jail.

Hillary probably figures these women are blackmailers trying to break up her family. She's a lawyer. She knows they have these things called police if you're really serious. She thinks they're full of shit.

If they weren't, why didn't they lawyer up? Why not sue in civil court? They may have well consulted lawyers, those would be the ambulance chasers' dream cases. Lots of notoriety for the lawyers, Republican lawyers would have had a field day. They would have taken the cases for free, or been paid by the RNC. But the accusations went nowhere. Because they had nothing.

When every woman in America is trying to fuck your husband, some of them are crazy.

by Anonymousreply 37May 8, 2016 3:10 PM

Nice try, BernOuts.

Thread Closed.

by Anonymousreply 38May 8, 2016 3:11 PM

"Why wasn't Hillary nicer to the women who fucked her husband? This will cost her the election!"

Keep running with this one, Bernie fans.

by Anonymousreply 39May 8, 2016 3:12 PM

Trump will lose because of TRUMP'S affairs

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40May 8, 2016 3:13 PM

If Hil was a Republican, the moral majority nut jobs would be praising her for staying with a husband who has, as they would put it, on occasion been known to stray from the scared marital bond. Proof religious people are bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 41May 8, 2016 3:17 PM

Trump is an adulterer. He started seeing Marla Maples before he divorced Ivana. He is married to a woman who was a high-priced Russian escort.

What exactly will he have to say about Bill Clinton?

by Anonymousreply 42May 8, 2016 3:17 PM

R35 = stupid man who can't get it through his head: some women are lying liars who lie, and other women have no sympathy for them. None. And we can tell when some woman is running a scam. Men can't, because they're too busy trying to get some from an already proven whore.

It's stupid, dumb ass men who fall for these stories. Do you have any idea how many married women have to fight tooth and nail to keep their husbands from blowing the retirement money, and their careers, on some bimbo that can't keep her legs closed? Young women want older men because they have MONEY. Sometimes power. Those are the only reasons. Old men think young women think they're so handsome and sexy. They don't. They think they're dumb, easily led sheep carrying moneybags. Wake up.

by Anonymousreply 43May 8, 2016 3:18 PM

Oh dear .... someone bring me up to speed on this now.

Am I supposed to be concerned about this ? Or am I supposed to be worried about this one ??

See ya'll at Hillary's inauguration in January 2017 !!

by Anonymousreply 44May 8, 2016 3:26 PM

People don't like Bill -- they just remember the money and jobs and relative freedom they had when he was president.

People know the difference between Hillary and Bill -- she is the nepotism and other such values that mean there are no long jobs and money and relative freedom.

by Anonymousreply 45May 8, 2016 3:26 PM

[quote]If they had proof or really wanted justice, they would have pressed charges.

I agree with most of what you're saying but no, they wouldn't have pressed charges. Almost no woman would press charges against a president of the United States. There are too many bad examples of what happened to women who tried to press charges against less powerful men.

That said, no, Hillary has not done "everything her power" to destroy women Bill slept with. If anything, Lewinsky (and even Tripp) have been dragging Hillary off and on in the press for years, which is absolute bullshit. I can see Lewinsky not wanting to press charges but to completely absolve Bill of his responsibility and instead shade Hillary once every few years? That's crap. And NO, I will not hold that against Hillary. No one in their right mind would.

by Anonymousreply 46May 8, 2016 3:32 PM

[quote]This is about Hillary and her judgement (sic)

You could also argue that HRC was willing to do the hard work to keep the family together and sacrifice her own happiness vs. Trump who thinks with his dick and threw aside several wives when he got bored with them.

Which do you think women most often side with - the woman or the cheater?

[quote]After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman.

by Anonymousreply 47May 8, 2016 3:34 PM

This moldy chestnut. For all I know, Bill and Hillary had/have an arrangement. Maybe she just didn't care that he screwed around, only that he got caught. Theirs is a marriage of the minds, not the loins, perhaps. They built an empire instead of a shitty house in the suburbs. People just can't stand the fact that a woman might possibly want more than monogamy. It threatens men and blows tiny little conventional minds.

by Anonymousreply 48May 8, 2016 3:37 PM

I applaud Hillary for working hard to keep her family and business life together in light of Bill's transgressions. And please, Bill didn't have to rape anyone. Those hos were willing participants. As far as destroying the women involved with her husband what would we have her do during that emotional time? Invite them for tea? If you have ever been cheated on you would understand.

by Anonymousreply 49May 8, 2016 3:43 PM

I laughed when Hillary's book came out and she wrote about when she found out about Bill's affair with one of his women. Hill wrote how she kept asking herself, "why Bill, why ? How you do this to me, to us ?"

What a crock of shit. She's no dope. She's known all along exactly what & who he's been with. Doubts anyone ?

(And) what's so laughable is that she's allegedly the 'Gal For Women' Rights' and yet she turned a complete blind eye while her husband was fucking & therefore USING WOMEN at every goddamn opportunity.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50May 8, 2016 3:49 PM

That kind of hypocrisy would blow up in his face. His stupid fans would eat it up and yet everybody else would be put off by it and use it as one of many excuses to vote against him.

The ones who are pissed enough about Trump to actually move their asses and vote will be the ones who decide who wins POTUS and he fuels their fire with more and more of his shenanigans until election day. Because that's Trump, he can't stop being a jerk and being in everyone's face thanks to his obsessive need to see his own ugly mug in the media.

by Anonymousreply 51May 8, 2016 3:56 PM

Women's rights are about a whole hell of a lot more than keeping your husband from cheating. She sided with her husband. That's the most admirable thing she could do and it's the hardest in that situation. Those women have other people who can support them in their time of need. There's no reason they should seek or have support from the wife for her husband's transgressions. Sorry miss but she's got problems of her own.

by Anonymousreply 52May 8, 2016 4:00 PM

Her anthem ?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53May 8, 2016 4:03 PM

Bill and Hillary made a deal. She wouldn't leave him if he gave unconditional support to her post-First Lady political ambitions. They never had a traditional for-love marriage but his getting caught with Lewinsky sealed the deal. She turns a blind eye in exchange for his political support.

As for Trump, his affairs ended in divorces. Which is normal. Unlike the grotesque political fuckery of the Clintons.

by Anonymousreply 54May 8, 2016 4:15 PM

R54 is right. The Clintons are creepy reptilian junkies for power and money.

by Anonymousreply 55May 8, 2016 4:21 PM

That's the problem; divorce has become normal. But trying to work through the shit storm is the right thing to do.

by Anonymousreply 56May 8, 2016 4:28 PM

[quote] If Trump does that,

IF? He's already getting started. He was on some news show this morning dragging Bill Clinton through the mud. And knowing how shameless Trump is when it comes to attacking opponents, there is no low he won't sink to.

by Anonymousreply 57May 8, 2016 4:29 PM

Trump had so many affairs of his own

by Anonymousreply 58May 8, 2016 4:36 PM

Sexual assault is a social problem impacting women at epidemic levels. The need is urgent. Women have now eclipsed men as being more likely to be victimized by violent crime as rates of sexual assault remain the same, while all other forms have decreased. This is unheard of. We must demand change around our social and legal systems that reinforce rape myths, myths like women lie about their assaults to “get back at” men.

We must believe women when they come forward to discuss their abuse.

It's a shame DL has turned their backs on sexual assault victims

by Anonymousreply 59May 8, 2016 4:43 PM

[quote] please, Bill didn't have to rape anyone. Those hos were willing participants. As far as destroying the women involved with her husband what would we have her do during that emotional time? Invite them for tea? If you have ever been cheated on you would understand.

80 to 90 per cent of sexual assaults occur in relationships.

They occur by someone we have feelings for. Therefore exhibiting a lack of resistance during the assault, dismissive reactions to the event afterwards, and a desire to maintain contact and continue a relationship with the perpetrator -- these are common and understandable responses to a trauma.

by Anonymousreply 60May 8, 2016 4:47 PM

Hillary will play this Trump douche like a fiddle. She knows how to ride him hard that he will moo like a cow. Nobody cares about Monica Lewinsky. All it will accomplish is that Hillary can go "remember the guys who went after my husband scolding him for being a cheater while they had their cheating affairs on their own? Here are their names and with who they were cheating with, oh and how about Donald and his own indescretions? Here's a Best Of! And there's plenty more where that came from" Trump plays right into her hand making the GOP look like he degenerate hypocrites they are and it's all thanks to Trump.

by Anonymousreply 61May 8, 2016 4:48 PM

They're both pigs, but I don't believe Trump ever raped Ivana and I don't believe Clinton ever raped anyone. All this adultery business needs to stay out of the election because it makes both candidates look bad.

by Anonymousreply 62May 8, 2016 4:49 PM

[quote]All of this adultery business needs to stay out of the election

Are you kidding ? They'll USE any & everything at their disposal !!

by Anonymousreply 63May 8, 2016 4:51 PM

Trump trying to trash Hillary with Bill's affairs is the pot calling the kettle black. He'll get nowhere. The more he shoots off his mouth, the lower his numbers will go. There is a hardcore extreme right in the US at maximum 25%. Centrist Hillary will get the rest of them, misogynistic though they might be. Trump's incompetence will become more and more obvious when the media stops giving him a free ride (don't think they'll ever stop giving Bernie a free ride).

by Anonymousreply 64May 8, 2016 4:55 PM

How stupid are you, OP. Very. Because her approval rating climbed after she "stood by her man."

by Anonymousreply 65May 8, 2016 4:55 PM

The American electorate has proven time and time again that we do not give a flying fuck about Bill Clinton's infidelities. He survived impeachment and left office with a huge approval rating that has only grown since then. He is still the most popular of all of the ex-presidents, both at home and abroad. Bill Clinton is loved.

We have also proven that we admire and respect Hillary Clinton. Only total fucking morons blame Hillary for Bill's fucking around. Only people grasping at straws make Hillary's staunch defense of her family into a liability. It's desperate and pathetic and it won't work.

We don't care about Bill Clinton's wandering dick and we don't care what Hillary chose to do about it. We like the Clintons.

[quote] People don't like Bill -- they just remember the money and jobs and relative freedom they had when he was president.

R45, that's what people who have never met Bill Clinton say. Anyone who has actually met him knows that he's a force of nature that *everyone* likes. He's loved around the world. Do foreigners give a fuck about the "relative freedom they had when he was president" or the money or the jobs? He's admired as a former President by Americans because he was so smart, so strong, so able to deal with the Rethuglicans in Congress (who were dicks then, too) and because he did such a fine job in office.

You and Trump won't get very far attacking Hillary and you certainly won't get anywhere attacking Bill. We don't care about Monica or that skank Paula Jones or any of the other silly accusers of Bill Clinton. They've been whining and moaning and cashing Rethuglican checks for years. We just don't care about them nor do we believe their accusations against President Clinton and the (then) First Lady.

We knew Bill fucked around before we elected him the first time. We knew Hillary put up with it before we elected him the first time. If we didn't give a fuck about it 20 years ago, what makes you think we'll give a fuck about it now? (Hint: We don't and we won't.)

But by all means, please move forward with your plan to alienate even more women. That's worked so well for you in the past and it will backfire on anyone who continues to try it.

by Anonymousreply 66May 8, 2016 5:07 PM

Rape and harassment does not equal womanizing.

by Anonymousreply 67May 8, 2016 5:11 PM

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

by Anonymousreply 68May 8, 2016 5:14 PM

Only right-wing morons believe that Bill Clinton ever raped or harassed anyone.

Normal people see him for what he is - a married guy with a wandering dick, like millions of others.

Liars, right-wing puppets and political opportunists should never be believed by anyone. The vast majority of the American people saw right through them and still do, just like Hillary did.

by Anonymousreply 69May 8, 2016 5:16 PM

Who is this obsessive poster? I guess it's time to block him.

by Anonymousreply 70May 8, 2016 5:19 PM

I think the fact that Hillary is blatantly corrupt will hurt her more than anything.

by Anonymousreply 71May 8, 2016 5:19 PM

"Admire and respect" Hillary? That describes her groupies, the rest us will (grudgingly) go along.

by Anonymousreply 72May 8, 2016 5:22 PM

If corruption's the issue then Trump has no chance. Everyone in New York knows he's a lying, cheating, corrupt swine.

He's a reality game show host/phony real estate "developer"/fake "college" scammer/guy who wants to fuck his daughter - and says so on tv.

Hillary could be Dr. No and she'd still beat that scumbag.

by Anonymousreply 73May 8, 2016 5:23 PM

[quote] Only right-wing morons believe that Bill Clinton ever raped or harassed anyone.

He has had countless accusations of sexual harassment over the years. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

by Anonymousreply 74May 8, 2016 5:23 PM

Will Trump bring up the rape that forced Clinton to leave Oxford?

by Anonymousreply 75May 8, 2016 5:24 PM

Trump pays for it. Clinton just takes it from women whether they like it or not. Who do you think is worse?

by Anonymousreply 76May 8, 2016 5:26 PM

No, R72, Hillary Clinton has been on the Most Admired Women in the World list consistently for the past 20 years.

It's not fan girls, there aren't enough fan girls around the world to pull off that trick. It's just normal people who see her much differently than you do. Bitter, hateful idiots on the extreme left and average right pretend that Hillary Clinton is some kind of anti-christ. The rest of us admire, respect and like her. We've always liked her. YOU don't like her but that's irrelevant. We're going to elect her President of the United States anyway.

Sucks to be you. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 77May 8, 2016 5:28 PM

What rape, lying sleaze ball at r75? Clinton was never forced to leave Oxford.

by Anonymousreply 78May 8, 2016 5:29 PM

He was expelled from Oxford because of case of rape. I love though how the British at the time were so polite. He was "invited to withdraw".

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

by Anonymousreply 79May 8, 2016 5:29 PM

I hate both candidates, but will hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Shame on the DLers condoning sexual assault. I expect better from gay men.

by Anonymousreply 80May 8, 2016 5:30 PM

Little Jew r78. Little little Jew.

Tick tick tick.

by Anonymousreply 81May 8, 2016 5:31 PM

Prove the Oxford rape accusation or shut the fuck up about it.

You can't prove it because it's a lie.

Shut the fuck up.

by Anonymousreply 82May 8, 2016 5:37 PM

Oh oh -- R82's circumcision scare has done burst again.

by Anonymousreply 83May 8, 2016 5:38 PM

R83's lack of facility with the English language is on display again today.

I'm sure his German is better.

by Anonymousreply 84May 8, 2016 5:40 PM

[quote]The rest of us admire, respect and like her. We've always liked her. YOU don't like her but that's irrelevant. We're going to elect her President of the United States anyway.

Meanwhile here on earth, she lost to an unknown like Obama even though she had everything handed to her. She barely squeaked by an elderly Jewish socialist to get the nomination and will be lucky to beat a brash carnival barker like Trump. But according to freaks like you, she is as popular as homecoming queen. Not only do people not like her, more importantly they don't trust her. And with good reason. She is an inveterate liar and will drag the country through hell with her lies.

by Anonymousreply 85May 8, 2016 5:44 PM

Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86May 8, 2016 5:47 PM

Uh-huh, well that's fucking fascinating R85.

We don't care what you think of her. We don't care how many dumb Fixed News lies you believe about her and we remain unmoved by your constant trolling of the Datalounge.

We're going to make her the next President of the United States. Every time some freak attacks her, it only makes us like her more. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 87May 8, 2016 5:48 PM

Deal with what, R87? I'm voting for Hillary because she's the only viable alternative. I'm not enthusiastic about it. And, outside of DL, I really don't know any other people who are thrilled with her either.

by Anonymousreply 88May 8, 2016 5:51 PM

This is why hillary must wear a blue dress to the inauguration...with a nice pearl broach.

by Anonymousreply 89May 8, 2016 5:56 PM

That's bizarre, R88, I know a ton of people who are thrilled to bits with Hillary and her candidacy. It was hard for us to choose between Hillary and Barack in 2008, we liked them both. We're happy to give Hillary her chance now, she's more than earned it.

I think she'll do a great job as POTUS, much better than that clown Trump. I don't know why anyone would bother wasting the energy to hate her when there are so many more deserving targets for their bile and she's such a fundamentally decent human being.

This Hillary Hate campaign is weird and I pretty much blow off anyone who falls for it. It's too stupid to be indulged.

by Anonymousreply 90May 8, 2016 5:57 PM

They haven't even opened the book yet on Trump! That should make some XXX summer reading!

by Anonymousreply 91May 8, 2016 6:19 PM

Trump is going to put the clintons under a microscope like they have never seen. This is going to be a shit show of an election.

by Anonymousreply 92May 8, 2016 6:29 PM

If Hillary is going to give her husband a pass for his history of sexual assaults over the years, then it is an Election issue. She cannot say she is on the side of women, when she herself has helped cover-up multiple sexual assaults committed by her husband over the years.

I think this time the media will pick up on these stories, This is not one woman we are talking about, but multiple women.

If Bill Cosby can be held accountable, then Bill should be held to same standard. & Hillary is just as guilty for perpetuating a cover-up.

by Anonymousreply 93May 8, 2016 7:10 PM

[quote] This Hillary Hate campaign is weird and I pretty much blow off anyone who falls for it. It's too stupid to be indulged.

Why aren't you on the side of victims of sexual assault?

by Anonymousreply 94May 8, 2016 7:10 PM

I'm not on the side of liars, fantasists and puppet-women who are paid by Rethuglicans to attack an American president, R94.

Anyone who is enough of a dumb cunt to fall for their bullshit deserves to be mocked and scorned.

Why are you on the side of liars, traitors and whores?

by Anonymousreply 95May 8, 2016 8:31 PM

Women will turn against Hillary because her husband hashed affairs? Yeah sure

by Anonymousreply 96May 8, 2016 8:34 PM

[quote] If Hillary is going to give her husband a pass for his history of sexual assaults over the years, then it is an Election issue.

Nope.

[quote] She cannot say she is on the side of women, when she herself has helped cover-up multiple sexual assaults committed by her husband over the years.

You are stating this as fact - these facts are not in evidence. There are no charges, no trials, no convictions for these sexual assaults you claim took place. You have nothing but gossip and lies. Fine for the datalounge but completely useless as a campaign issue.

Hillary Clinton has always been on the side of women. Glen Beck's lies don't change that, no matter how many brain dead people he can convince.

[quote] I think this time the media will pick up on these stories, This is not one woman we are talking about, but multiple women.

Are you retarded? This non-story has been covered since the first time Bill Clinton ran for the nomination. He fucks around, we know. We decided we didn't care and elected him POTUS twice. We decided we didn't care that Hillary knew and stood by him, we elected her to the Senate twice and confirmed her as Secretary of State for four years. You may care and other stupid people may care but the majority of the electorate has already proven that we don't give a fuck.

[quote] If Bill Cosby can be held accountable, then Bill should be held to same standard. & Hillary is just as guilty for perpetuating a cover-up.

Oh. You're insane. Okay, sorry, I didn't pick up on that right away. I should have known anyone with an on-going obsession with the Clinton Penis was batshit crazy. Good luck.

by Anonymousreply 97May 8, 2016 8:40 PM

R97, why are people like you so rabidly in favor of the clintons? Why shouldn't Bill Clinton vpbelieve held to the same standards as Cosby? Oh yeah, Cosby is black and Clinton in white.

by Anonymousreply 98May 8, 2016 8:48 PM

^^ be held

by Anonymousreply 99May 8, 2016 8:49 PM

[quote] This non-story has been covered since the first time Bill Clinton ran for the nomination.

It was only one woman, Gennifer Flowers. And it was just an affair.

But now we have rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment. These are sex crimes.

As R98 says Clinton gets a free pass but Cosby doesn't?

Again why is DL not on the side of victims of sexual assault. These are crimes against women.

by Anonymousreply 100May 8, 2016 8:54 PM

Again we are NOT talking about affairs.

These are crimes against women, sexual assaults.

Why is it that Bill Cosby gets rakes over the coals, but Clinton gets a free ride?

by Anonymousreply 101May 8, 2016 8:55 PM

Because Clinton is white and self-anointed political aristocracy.

by Anonymousreply 102May 8, 2016 8:57 PM

Women are callously violated by police and it's there we must start to demand changes to our legal system. Our legal system is racist, sexist and colonial. We need to demand justice for all women and an end to the systemic sexual abuses that we know are rampant in the system.

Yet DL is okay with sexual assault against women, with their blind support of Clinton. WTF!?

by Anonymousreply 103May 8, 2016 8:57 PM

They are complete hypocrites. Their idea of supporting women is being for the killing of unborn children, but when it comes to sexual assault, all of a sudden each and every one of Clinton's accusers are liars and hos.

by Anonymousreply 104May 8, 2016 8:58 PM

Young gaylings -- you should have been there in the 90s when there were still old-fashioned feminist leaders around and they all abandoned the values they had dictated to the rest of the women to defend Bill Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 105May 8, 2016 9:06 PM

The issues is not that Clinton had affairs. Trump has had affairs as well,

But Clinton has sexual assaulted women, so how can you defend Hillary to stand up for women, when she condones that type of behavior.

We are talking about SEX CRIMES against women!

by Anonymousreply 106May 8, 2016 9:08 PM

F104 fuck off you asshole freeper.

The GOP and their then patron Richard Scaife spent hundreds of millions of dollars investigating every minute of every day Bill and Hillary Clinton have been on this planet and found zilch. The "accusers" were all paid by the GOP: ugly, aging groupies who chased old Bill and apparently got the brush-off. He had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. How is she different from the others? She was young and hot. Lewinsky's fat but she was pretty and God knows she was pushy.

by Anonymousreply 107May 8, 2016 9:09 PM

R107 we are talking about affairs but crimes against women. That is the issue.

BTW Kathleen Wiley was NOT paid by the GOP, she is a democrat.

by Anonymousreply 108May 8, 2016 9:10 PM

[quote]But Clinton has sexual assaulted women, so how can you defend Hillary to stand up for women, when she condones that type of behavior.

Because people are fucking complicated.

And she doesn't "condone" this type of behavior, for Christ's sake. Save the vitriol for the people that actually perpetuate these crimes and the culture of misogyny-- MEN.

by Anonymousreply 109May 8, 2016 9:13 PM

[quote] she doesn't "condone" this type of behavior

When she sets up a war room devoted to "bimbo eruptions" in the 1992 election, she does condone Clinton's sex crimes against women.

by Anonymousreply 110May 8, 2016 9:17 PM

You have to realize, these are paid trolls sitting in a room for Trump! DL will have to create some type of policy - they will be doing this for six months!

It's already known that they have been unleashed! They want to uncover IVANA'S BRUTAL RAPE!

by Anonymousreply 111May 8, 2016 9:17 PM

Kathleen Willey (who is a DEMOCRAT) and SEXUALLY ASSAULTED by Bill Clinton says of Hillary

Kathleen Willey, one of the women caught in the cross-fire of alleged sexual harassment by former President Bill Clinton and what she characterizes as acts of intimidation to silence her, told Aaron Klein’s Investigative Radio Sunday she expects a “scandal a day” with Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency and proclaimed she has no accomplishments worthy of being considered for her run for the office.

As to Mrs. Clinton’s announcement emphasizing herself as a champion of women and the downtrodden, Willey called it “a joke.”

“What has she done, what has she accomplished to run for president, to become the president of the United States?” Willey asked. “I can’t find, for the life of me, one thing. And if I could find one thing, I would acknowledge that fact. But I haven’t seen one single accomplishment that would give her the credentials to be president of the United States.”

As to Mrs. Clinton’s focus on her womanhood, Willey said: “Well, that’s a joke, if that’s her one credential for running for president, then why don’t I run. I’m a woman. It makes absolutely no sense. … There are a lot more women out there way more qualified than she. The only thing Hillary has been successful on is riding in on the coattails of other men – like Obama and her husband. That’s it.”

by Anonymousreply 112May 8, 2016 9:18 PM

Did Donald Trump sexually molest his daughter? His remark certainly was evocative.

What does the DL say?

by Anonymousreply 113May 8, 2016 9:18 PM

[quote] You have to realize, these are paid trolls sitting in a room for Trump!

Sexual assault against women is not trollish behavior. Why do you give Clinton a free pass for crimes against women, yet rake Cosby over the coals?

by Anonymousreply 114May 8, 2016 9:19 PM

r9, you are stupid.

by Anonymousreply 115May 8, 2016 9:24 PM

R114 look dingbat these allegations date back to the impeachment. Let's discuss the women Trump has raped in the last 20 years shall we?

Here's a pic of the woman Clinton allegedly raped. Yeah, pushing 50, fat, she was irresistible I guess? Give me a break, this fat old cow was desperate for attention.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 116May 8, 2016 9:26 PM

[quote] Let's discuss the women Trump has raped in the last 20 years shall we?

OK you start

by Anonymousreply 117May 8, 2016 9:27 PM

Ah, yes; your "Mom," r18. Yes, it would have been SO much better had HRC divorced Bill, split up Chelsea's home, been unforgiving.

I forgot that divorce and single parenthood are Conservative Republican values.

by Anonymousreply 118May 8, 2016 9:28 PM

The Clinton story is old and hackneyed, while the Trump story will be fresh and juicy!!!

by Anonymousreply 119May 8, 2016 9:30 PM

[quote] The Clinton story is old and hackneyed

Would you say the same about Cosby past sexual assaults against women?

by Anonymousreply 120May 8, 2016 9:32 PM

r29, none of them under oath.

by Anonymousreply 121May 8, 2016 9:33 PM

have you read IVANA'S book - it's frightening-

by Anonymousreply 122May 8, 2016 9:35 PM

r45, "people don't like Bill." Are you insane??

by Anonymousreply 123May 8, 2016 9:35 PM

R29 in the Paula Jones deposition he was caught LYING under oath

R122 Ivana released this statement

"I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit," explained the socialite, who was married to the businessman from 1977 to 1992.

So please what other rapes or sexual assaults have been linked to Trump

by Anonymousreply 124May 8, 2016 9:36 PM

Oh my God, you don't think they offered her a half a zillion for that - I'll go with the original horror story!

by Anonymousreply 125May 8, 2016 9:38 PM

[quote] Why is it that Bill Cosby gets rakes over the coals, but Clinton gets a free ride?

Well, ya know, it might be because Cosby drugged and raped dozens of women and Bill Clinton didn't. Then, too, there's the fact that Bill Clinton's not running for president, Hillary is, and while Bill might have stuck his dick in a few questionable places, Hillary didn't.

by Anonymousreply 126May 8, 2016 9:39 PM

[quote] You have to realize, these are paid trolls sitting in a room for Trump! DL will have to create some type of policy - they will be doing this for six months!

Do you really think you person running for office is going to pay people to troll DL? What would be the point given its dwindling population?

by Anonymousreply 127May 8, 2016 9:40 PM

R126 sex without consent is rape 1, drugged or not. That is the law.

by Anonymousreply 128May 8, 2016 9:40 PM

Upon the completion of his Rhodes Scholarship, Clinton entered Yale Law School,....

by Anonymousreply 129May 8, 2016 9:43 PM

r120, your lameness is off the charts.

First of all, the manifold allegations about Cosby are not old news from last century.

Secondly, he has been sued, deposed, and is awaiting further jurisprudence. Accusers are willing to speak under oath.

Finally, apples, oranges.

by Anonymousreply 130May 8, 2016 9:47 PM

r98 and r102 (same?), you are not only stupid; you must be about what? Twelve?

CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Do you have ANY idea of who Kenneth Starr is??

by Anonymousreply 131May 8, 2016 9:51 PM

Did you ever hear Trump talk about women on the Howard Stern show, it's truly mind blowing!

by Anonymousreply 132May 8, 2016 9:53 PM

Ms. Willey chose not to place her story under oath. That's all I need to know.

by Anonymousreply 133May 8, 2016 9:53 PM

OP, you have the right idea.

Trump knows all of her weak points and will hammer them.

Trump has destroyed the GOP, so there is one bright point.

by Anonymousreply 134May 8, 2016 9:53 PM

I don't believe for a second that Trump raped any women. This is just another sad lie that libtards are trying to peddle now that they have been backed into a corner over Bill's assault charges. They can't deny the truth, so they just make up lies about Trump.

by Anonymousreply 135May 8, 2016 9:57 PM

completion of his Rhodes Scholarship doesn't mean he finished the program at Oxford. The rapist was expelled. Then at Yale he was again accused of rape. That's the one he was nearly prosecuted on. Unfortunately, as it was in those days, the parents of the victim were able to talk the DA out of it. Get it through you heads. Clinton was expelled from Oxford for sexual misconduct. He didn't finish.

by Anonymousreply 136May 8, 2016 10:00 PM

As long as some Clinton-haters are cherry-picking from Larry Elder's website, here's the opening they ignore:

Donald Trump's ex-wife, Ivana, recently denied a 30-year-old allegation that Donald Trump raped her. The allegation, according to the New York Daily News, stems from the book "The Last Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump" by Harry Hurt III.

The News wrote: "Hurt's 1993 book ... cited a divorce deposition, in which Ivana Trump claimed her then-husband sexually attacked her. ... In a rage, Trump allegedly tore out clumps of his wife's hair, the book claimed, and ripped off her clothes and assaulted her. 'According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, 'he raped me.' ...

"Ivana Trump herself, in a statement that ended up on the first page of the book, admitted to there having been an ugly night between herself and Trump in 1989, but said she hadn't used the word 'rape' in her deposition literally." ~~~~~~~

How conveeenient, Ivana, now.

by Anonymousreply 137May 8, 2016 10:01 PM

R137 Ivana released this statement

"I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally WITHOUT merit," explained the socialite, who was married to the businessman from 1977 to 1992.

by Anonymousreply 138May 8, 2016 10:03 PM

Cosby--multiple accusations under oath and corroborative reports at the time the rapes occurred. Victims have never changed their stories. No political enemies.

Clinton--conflicting accounts years after the alleged events. Only substantiated sexual encounters were clearly consensual. Well-funded political enemies.

Basically, there's evidence that stands up in court with Cosby (including his damned statements under oath) and there isn't with Clinton.

As for Trump's attacks on Hillary--he's whining that she wasn't nice to the women who screwed around with her husband. Hello? Talk about blaming the victim. Not the way to win the women vote.

by Anonymousreply 139May 8, 2016 10:03 PM

I am the beloved woman here. Hey Bern Bros, don't forget to send your $27 this month. We're winning.

by Anonymousreply 140May 8, 2016 10:04 PM

[quote] Clinton--conflicting accounts years after the alleged events. Only substantiated sexual encounters were clearly consensual. Well-funded political enemies.

Except that Kathleen Willey is not part of the GOP machine.

by Anonymousreply 141May 8, 2016 10:07 PM

Trump should see these with Hillary's image on it. That's really what she's been for bill her whole adult life. Following him around. Cleaning up his mess.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 142May 8, 2016 10:08 PM

That Trump rape of Ivana sounds BRUTAL! This is news to me!

by Anonymousreply 143May 8, 2016 10:10 PM

[quote] Clinton--conflicting accounts years after the alleged events. Only substantiated sexual encounters were clearly consensual. Well-funded political enemies.

80 to 90 per cent of sexual assaults occur in relationships.

They occur by someone we have feelings for. Therefore exhibiting a lack of resistance during the assault, dismissive reactions to the event afterwards, and a desire to maintain contact and continue a relationship with the perpetrator -- these are common and understandable responses to a trauma.

by Anonymousreply 144May 8, 2016 10:10 PM

R143 Ivana says it never happened

by Anonymousreply 145May 8, 2016 10:10 PM

Trump should remind Hillary that if she had any self-respect she would've dumped Bill. But political ambition fogged her brain.

by Anonymousreply 146May 8, 2016 10:12 PM

This sounds like it came from the masturbatory fantasies of a mythical, magical, unicorn... or someone who has had issues after having to sniff pooey shoes.

by Anonymousreply 147May 8, 2016 10:15 PM

I want a rally led by Sarah Paline, woman to woman, bringing out Bills victims and letting them speak.

by Anonymousreply 148May 8, 2016 10:15 PM

Yes, r138 and r143; that is why I add the "How conveeeenient." Gee, why would Ivana now wish to deny something unflattering at best, criminal at worst, about The Donald? And why believe her unconditionally?

As for Clinton and "caught lying under oath" (which included the infamous "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" testimony about Monica during the Paula Jones suit----About which BC was grammatically, not just technically, correct, for his interrogator had placed L'affaire Monica in the present tense), it will be recalled that the Senate acquitted President Clinton of perjury. Now, I realize that OJ was acquitted , too, and maybe the IQ's of both groups of adjudicators are similar, but I don't think so.

From one analysis: "The bottom line is that the definition crafted by the Jones’ team was deeply flawed, and allowed Clinton to make legally accurate answers in spite of what actually happened."

But it's much easier to toss around allegations as proven criminal acts and opinions as settled jurisprudence than it is to slog through facts, legalisms, and history.

by Anonymousreply 149May 8, 2016 10:21 PM

R149 yet he paid off Paula Jones instead to taking it to court.

by Anonymousreply 150May 8, 2016 10:22 PM

Palin Family Values, r148? Bwahahahaha!

by Anonymousreply 151May 8, 2016 10:22 PM

Kirstie Alley just endorsed Donald Trump in part because of Clinton's sexual assault against women are going unchecked.

Kirstie is standing by sexual assault victims, why isn't DL doing the same?

by Anonymousreply 152May 8, 2016 10:25 PM

Because, r152, your average DLer lacks critical thinking skills and will do anything the Clinton overloads tell them to do.

by Anonymousreply 153May 8, 2016 10:27 PM

Yep. Ivana AND Juanita would NEVER lie. And we would know this how Carnac?

Drudge must be down...AGAIN. That thing is a fucking TROLL who discards and assaults women at the drop of a hat. How many idiots are there to defend his violent and outrageous behavior?

by Anonymousreply 154May 8, 2016 10:28 PM

r136, there is neither merit nor proof to your Oxford crap. Merely citing a few Right-Wing websites ALSO lacking in anything other than bold declarations masquerading as actual Oxfordian academic records is yet another 21st Century example of what the 19th Century Mark Twain said:

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

by Anonymousreply 155May 8, 2016 10:30 PM

My favorite part of Bill's predator history, well if one can have a favorite, is the Paula Jones settlement. HILLARY CASHED IN HER SAVINGS TO PAY HER. Most expensive cumrag in history.

by Anonymousreply 156May 8, 2016 10:30 PM

No sane person cares about this. Trump is a self-confessed adulterer. Hillary will tell him where to stick it.

by Anonymousreply 157May 8, 2016 10:31 PM

[quote] Trump is a self-confessed adulterer.

But at least he is not like Bill who has a history of sexually assaulting women.

by Anonymousreply 158May 8, 2016 10:31 PM

People will eventually stop listening to Trump. He doesn't have everyone's attention, mostly the media's which magnifies his reach. People have bigger concerns then where Bill Clinton put his dick 25 years ago. There's no way you'll convince women that Trump is better for women than Hillary but, nice try.

by Anonymousreply 159May 8, 2016 10:33 PM

"Scientologist Backs Trump." Yippee, r152!

by Anonymousreply 160May 8, 2016 10:33 PM

Is Bill a deadbeat dad too? I thought Hillary cared about the children.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 161May 8, 2016 10:35 PM

r158 skipped Vocabulary class in Grade Two when the lesson was the "A" words "accusation" and "actuality."

by Anonymousreply 162May 8, 2016 10:36 PM

R158, nobody credible every accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. Yes, he likely tried it on with several women but even Paula Jones testified that, once in the Governer's hotel room, he put his penis away when she declined to reciprocate his sexual advances.

Women who willingly go to men's hotel rooms and later feign outrage at sexual advances are just being coy. Hotel rooms with strange men in them are for fucking. Any fool knows that. Even a troll like you.

by Anonymousreply 163May 8, 2016 10:40 PM

Tell that to all the creepy women coming after Bill Cosby. "I thought we were just going to discuss my career..."

by Anonymousreply 164May 8, 2016 10:44 PM

R144

Which would make the alleged assaults of Willey and Broaddrick less not more likely then.

The problem with both Willey and Broaddrick's accusations is that nothing at the time of the alleged events proves that they actually happened. Willey sent Clinton multiple letters and telephone messages desiring further contact after the alleged groping supposedly occurred.

She also liked to the FBI about a former boyfriend. In other words, unreliable witness.

Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser shortly after the alleged rape. She did have a couple of people who said they saw signs of Broaddrick being distraught and attacked--but she didn't accuse Clinton of rape until 20 years later--at a time when Bill Clinton was very much under attack by the right. With that kind of time lapse, any accusation was going to be unprovable.

The Broaddrick accusation was followed, by the way, of one of Clinton fathering a black child. Unfortunately for the GOP, DNA testing did that one in.

Of the two, the Broaddrick one is the more troubling one, but given the sheer amount of crap thrown at Bill Clinton by the GOP slime machine, there needs to be some real evidence and there just isn't.

But you know what is without a doubt? That Hillary wasn't there for any of these alleged events.

by Anonymousreply 165May 8, 2016 10:44 PM

This line of messaging will do Trump no favours. He's already proven the only paper he reads is The National Enquirer, he made a fool out of himself becoming the figurehead for the birther movement, slinging innuendo and unsubstantiated reich-wing propaganda against the Clintons will only be seen as an invasion of their privacy. Bill Clinton is not the only man who ever had an affair and Hillary is not the only long-suffering wife. Trump would do better to brush up on his foreign policy because when this gets old in a few days time he'll still be a no-nothing idiot.

by Anonymousreply 166May 8, 2016 10:52 PM

R164, Bill Cosby allegedly drugged women. No one has ever made that accusation of Bill Clinton. You don't see the difference because you're an idiot which is why you should vote for Trump. Do make alternative plans for Inauguration Day though.

by Anonymousreply 167May 8, 2016 10:54 PM

No R167 they don't see a difference because their mind has been fogged by having to inhale Poo Shoes, therefore this person hates Clinton, loves, Trump, and constantly defends Cosby.

by Anonymousreply 168May 8, 2016 10:56 PM

Saw an interview today with Trump and George Stephanapoulos and he bought up Bill Clinton affairs and how Hillary allegedly went after all his women. He tsk tsked about how could Hillary call herself a feminist when Bill Clinton was so awful with women and how she enabled him. So if you're wondering if he's going there then the answer is yes, he's definitely going there.

This will be old hat for a lot of people except Millennials. I think this is step two in Donald's quest for the Bernie bros vote since they seem aligned in their hatred of Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 169May 8, 2016 11:02 PM

Unless she can find a definitive, once is enough way to shut this down, I think it runs the risk of people being turned off by the tawdry. The only question is, which one of them wears it? Could be her, as part of the Clinton package, could be the asshole Trump for starting it. I don't think it will get legs but if it does am not entirely sure who it hurts.

by Anonymousreply 170May 8, 2016 11:02 PM

Watching Trump on Meet The Press, he's a narcissistic retard.

by Anonymousreply 171May 8, 2016 11:04 PM

Trump has had innumerable affairs

by Anonymousreply 172May 8, 2016 11:31 PM

Plus he has a trophy bride. How is he going to win any frau over 45?

by Anonymousreply 173May 8, 2016 11:32 PM

And she could be a Russian spy for all anyone knows.

by Anonymousreply 174May 8, 2016 11:33 PM

Trump has carried water for the crime families in New York for years. Maybe he is just Putin's puppet.

by Anonymousreply 175May 8, 2016 11:33 PM

Except she's not Russian, r174.

by Anonymousreply 176May 8, 2016 11:34 PM

Paula Jones has a lot of credibility.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 177May 8, 2016 11:41 PM

Is this the Dredge that goes on at Drudge?

by Anonymousreply 178May 8, 2016 11:48 PM

[quote] Maybe he is just Putin's puppet.

If he isn't now he will be if elected. He worships Putin.

by Anonymousreply 179May 8, 2016 11:54 PM

Melania's dad was a Communist Party official.

by Anonymousreply 180May 9, 2016 12:00 AM

For someone like him that's kink.

by Anonymousreply 181May 9, 2016 12:05 AM

Bill Clinton cost poor Linda Tripp her job at the White House.

by Anonymousreply 182May 9, 2016 12:05 AM

Know many female Bernie supporters who will not vote for Hillary, and how she handled her husband's many affairs is one of the main reasons. We all know that Alpha men who have power, money, status, fame, and aren't totally ugly trolls almost all have affairs. Some marital arrangements are even more or less "open" especially if there are long work-related separations.

If Hillary had responded to her husband's affairs like Huma Abeddin, in other words publicly pretend it didn't happen and confront him privately, temporarily separation if politically possible, women voters would not be upset. She didn't. There are too many stories of Hillary threatening and harassing Bill's mistresses. Since most of the women were of relatively high status, beauty queens and professionals outside of Monica, it's not very believable they're all seeking financial settlements. So many have accused Bill of sexual assault only to then be confronted by Hillary.

I don't like Trump's behavior any better but he's always portrayed himself as a playboy. Anyone who married him would have known the situation in advance. Ivana has completely dropped the rape charges. Few mistresses have so far accused Trump of sexual assault.. Sure he probably paid everyone off. Are there any unsettled legal cases for sexual abuse like there are with Bill Clinton? Hillary is not seen as ever taking the women's side. Alone it may not mean much but with many other points it's an issue.

Still want better choices for POTUS, younger and more "moral."

by Anonymousreply 183May 9, 2016 12:14 AM

Anyone who doesn't bother voting needs to sit down and shut up.

by Anonymousreply 184May 9, 2016 12:16 AM

Right. Women are going to vote for a man who determines a woman's worth solely on how "hot" she is., and has made so many misogynist statements, it's hard to keep count. LOL. Dream on, OP.

by Anonymousreply 185May 9, 2016 12:19 AM

*misogynistic

by Anonymousreply 186May 9, 2016 12:19 AM

Linda Tripp deserved to lose her job, R182. That cunt destroyed Monica Lewinsky's life.

by Anonymousreply 187May 9, 2016 12:21 AM

Monica opened her mouth, her vag, and her mouth again. You can't save people from themselves.

by Anonymousreply 188May 9, 2016 12:29 AM

R184, One can always vote but leave the choice for POTUS blank. There are usually important propositions to support, as well as lesser offices to consider. When I stated that many who dislike the choices for POTUS will stay home, as many have done in the past, that's how they're articulating their opinions. They're not ignoring the election by any means.

by Anonymousreply 189May 9, 2016 12:38 AM

But none of that was Linda Tripp's business. Nor Ken Starr's, r188. It was a personal matter between Lewinsky and Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 190May 9, 2016 12:39 AM

Then she shouldn't have told Linda. Is that hard to follow?

by Anonymousreply 191May 9, 2016 12:41 AM

OP's an idiot and no one is buying its thesis.

by Anonymousreply 192May 9, 2016 12:44 AM

Whatever happened to fat fuckface Linda Tripp? John Goodman actually flattered her when he played her on SNL.

by Anonymousreply 193May 9, 2016 12:46 AM

I love the Hillary gals. They're as imperious as they're queen. They type like they need a fainting couch when you call the cunt out on her mendacity.

by Anonymousreply 194May 9, 2016 12:47 AM

Linda Tripp was sure she was going to get a great job in Dubya's administration in thanks for all her shit stirring. Unfortunately for her, people around Dubya recalled how much shit Tripp had stirred about George HW and Jennifer Fitzgerald.

by Anonymousreply 195May 9, 2016 12:52 AM

R183,

No, there aren't "too many stories" of Hillary harrassing her husband's ex-girlfriends. This is the old GOP shtick--throw out a bunch of accusations and hope one of them somewhere sticks. Now it's the old Rove playbook tactic--slime Hillary Clinton for being a stoic wife who kept her marriage vows even though her husband couldn't keep his. It's also a deeply sexist approach--Hillary's not responsible for Bill's behavior--or of the women who didn't respect her marriage enough to stay out of hotel rooms with her husband.

by Anonymousreply 196May 9, 2016 12:55 AM

Trump is a wannabe Russian oligarch.

He wants to be Putin

by Anonymousreply 197May 9, 2016 12:58 AM

2/3 of the responses here are one person responding to themself.

by Anonymousreply 198May 9, 2016 1:01 AM

Ah yes, a happy family putting on the show of unity. When Hillary finally got over her bruised ego, she was clear-eyed enough to shift ALL the blame to Lewinsky and the "right wing conspiracy."

Sound judgment indeed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 199May 9, 2016 1:05 AM

R198- if that's the case, one punch of the "ignore" button would reveal it.

Some of us hate HRC for her bullshit and also hate Trump. I could never vote for either- evil is evil.

by Anonymousreply 200May 9, 2016 1:13 AM

Yes, it would totally reveal it, especially when someone's insane and uses multiple browsers.

by Anonymousreply 201May 9, 2016 1:15 AM

R199 - so what were you a fly on the wall in the White House.

Really how do you know the intimate details of the Clinton family?

by Anonymousreply 202May 9, 2016 1:19 AM

Wait, OP. Seriously? A man who had affairs is going to use affairs to defeat a woman who didn't have affairs?

Trump, who treats women like its the 1950s until they anger him, then he talks about blood spilling out of their cunts -- he's going to bring women over to his side?

by Anonymousreply 203May 9, 2016 1:19 AM

R35: Again this is NOT about cheating, This is about why Hillary is not on the side of sexual assault victims.

Hillary is sticking by her husband. She should. That's her commitment. There are other people who can side with the alleged sexual assault victims.

by Anonymousreply 204May 9, 2016 1:23 AM

So opportunistic sluts who want to fuck politicians are now victims of sexual assault?

Okay.

by Anonymousreply 205May 9, 2016 1:26 AM

That you r205 -- that was very Jewish of you.

by Anonymousreply 206May 9, 2016 1:28 AM

i hope you're trying to be funny r206.

How's life in Switzerland?

by Anonymousreply 207May 9, 2016 1:30 AM

R199

Actually, at the time that photo was taken, it was quite clear that Hillary was seriously pissed at Bill and that Chelsea was trying to keep her parents connected.

And there was, indeed, a vast right-wing conspiracy out to destroy Bill Clinton--which is why a lot of people, like me, considered his thing with Monica Lewinsky to be stupidly reckless. It wasn't exactly news that the GOP would do what they could to hang him--so fooling around with ML was basically giving them rope.

Meanwhile, those same Republicans were hiding their own shenanigans--like Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert.

by Anonymousreply 208May 9, 2016 1:30 AM

R203, Trump is an expert at projection. Look at "Low-Energy Jeb". Yet, Trump was the biggest whiner, complaining that the debate was too long and too hot.

by Anonymousreply 209May 9, 2016 1:32 AM

Dear R204,

He made a complete mockery of those wedding vows. As they are not Roman Catholic, she is free to leave him. To those who say "But, it's Their relationship!" - the world has been put through all of their dysfunction.

by Anonymousreply 210May 9, 2016 1:33 AM

Hillary calls herself a feminist and champion for women. She is no different than someone like Jerry Sandusky's wife. So why doesn't she go back to the kitchen where she belongs, bake cookies and quit wasting the American people's time on her ego trip. No one would ever accept a male leader putting his personal commitments before his commitments to the country.

by Anonymousreply 211May 9, 2016 1:33 AM

[quote] So opportunistic sluts who want to fuck politicians are now victims of sexual assault?

If we're talking about opportunistic sluts, then Hilary is the first in line. She got everywhere in life because of who she slept with.

by Anonymousreply 212May 9, 2016 1:35 AM

Loretta Lynn died(?) before anyone had the chance to point out that Hillary stood by her man after all.

by Anonymousreply 213May 9, 2016 1:37 AM

R208, also House Speaker Bob Livingston. He served a single day before resigning. It happens that he was having an affair, at the same time the hypocrite was trying to bring down Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 214May 9, 2016 1:37 AM

Putin wouldn't have anything to do with Donald Trump. He knows he's a loser. Putin is AA Alpha. Trump isn't even JV.

by Anonymousreply 215May 9, 2016 1:46 AM

Allegations are not the same as convictions. Has Bill Clinton been convicted of assault?

by Anonymousreply 216May 9, 2016 1:49 AM

Trump blamed the women for Bill Clinton's cheating.

by Anonymousreply 217May 9, 2016 1:49 AM

[quote] the world has been put through all of their dysfunction.

Why is that? Who brought it to the world? Do we need to know the intimate details?Why do you need to know the intimate details of someone else's marriage?

[quote] She is no different than someone like Jerry Sandusky's wife.

Jerry Sandusky broke the law by having sex with children. You are a nut.

by Anonymousreply 218May 9, 2016 1:49 AM

Trump raped his wife

by Anonymousreply 219May 9, 2016 1:57 AM

Putin will play Trump like a violin. Will someone please tell me how to work trolldar so that I can tell whether it's just one person on this thread repeating right-wing rumors and making these batshit claims that Clinton's attitude toward her husband's affairs should make people vote for Trump? I know DL has been invaded by freepers, etc. etc., but I still find it hard to believe that more than one person on this site could be stupid enough to vote for someone as cronyistic, bigoted, careless with large sums of money, and dangerously naive about foreign affairs as Donald Trump.

by Anonymousreply 220May 9, 2016 1:59 AM

Freepers, no gay man on here gives a flying fuck if Bill C nailed half the US Women's Soccer Team. Who the fuck is paying you people to spam this board? They're wasting their money.

by Anonymousreply 221May 9, 2016 2:17 AM

Hating the Clintons does not equal freeper.

by Anonymousreply 222May 9, 2016 2:20 AM

R220-

The last orange button, with the circle/slash, will hide all posts by a single person.

Once you use it, you will see dozens of anti-HRC posts by various posters.

Trump is arrogant and ignorant, but Hillary is evil and conniving.

They are, in other words, perfect political avatars for our government!!!

by Anonymousreply 223May 9, 2016 2:30 AM

Many people adore Bill Clinton. I believe this will backfire, and come off as bullying and petty. As someone said up post, most people didn't give AF about this when it was happening. The economy was in amazing shape, which is what we cared about. No one cared Bill had a fatso suck him off. Monica was shunned for be a fat opportunistic slob then, same now.

by Anonymousreply 224May 9, 2016 2:36 AM

R213, meet Tammy Wynette.

by Anonymousreply 225May 9, 2016 2:48 AM

The irony in all of this is that Hillary Clinton couldn't care less who Bill was sticking it into. Does anyone actually believe that Bill & Hill have had sex since the 1970's? Hillary probably rolled the cigar that Bill stuck up Monica's twat...SHE DOESN'T CARE. And THAT is what might be her downfall. Her ambition, and her willingness to look the other way at anything that might get in the way of her attaining HER goals, is what many people find offensive about her.

Hillary has always been a tough cookie, but back in 2008 when she ran against Obama, there was at least some softness to her at the time, some genuine personality. Now, in 2016, the best way I can describe her is hardened, robotic, phony. And defeated. She was being heckled in LA at a rally the other day and left the "stage" after less than a minute. Trump would NEVER let a heckler stop him from speaking. I find myself feeling sorry for her lately.

by Anonymousreply 226May 9, 2016 2:59 AM

It is strange; but, I think Bill Clinton has no impact on Hillary Clinton’s electability.

We are in a period in which the Democratic Party can deliver more truly progressive policies. (It is the topic of realigning period. Bill was the only Democrat, with more than one term, when the Republicans won seven of ten elections between 1968–2004. For a Hillary presidency, she would win the third consecutive term for a Democrat — and the first, in 2008 for Barack Obama, was the beginning of a realigning period for the party.

by Anonymousreply 227May 9, 2016 3:22 AM

[quote]“What has she done, what has she accomplished to run for president, to become the president of the United States?” Willey asked. “I can’t find, for the life of me, one thing. And if I could find one thing, I would acknowledge that fact. But I haven’t seen one single accomplishment that would give her the credentials to be president of the United States.

Kathleen Wlley sounds like an idiot. A bitter, spiteful idiot, and a "frau" (to use that overused word), to be honest. "“I can’t find, for the life of me, one thing." Well, darling, other people have done the "finding" for you, so there's no need to strain your little brain.

by Anonymousreply 228May 9, 2016 4:54 AM

Bill got a lot of sympathy before and would again, as people considered what his situation must be like.

by Anonymousreply 229May 9, 2016 5:06 AM

The problem with the snarky, smarmy troll who posts BernBros will vote for Trump is twofold.

1. Half the millennials DON'T vote. THAT will won't change November 8th.

B. 92% of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS regardless of who they voted for in the primaries have said they will vote for HRC if she is the nominee.

by Anonymousreply 230May 9, 2016 5:55 AM

[quote] Hating the Clintons does not equal freeper

It does when the only alternative is a republican. It defines freeper, freeper.

by Anonymousreply 231May 9, 2016 6:31 AM

Again you guys keep equating an affair with sexual assault.

Again ONCE AND FOR ALL

This is not about Clinton's affairs, This is about his history of VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

That is the ISSUE

by Anonymousreply 232May 9, 2016 2:06 PM

[quote] Allegations are not the same as convictions. Has Bill Clinton been convicted of assault?

He paid off Paula Jones before it could get to a court room.

by Anonymousreply 233May 9, 2016 2:07 PM

The sympathy that Bill recieved in the 90s was either from the self-serving with an agenda. but (mostly) people who were suffering from Newt and Company fatigue. The saw how the Right operated and didn't like it. A few years later, when W took the election thanks to SCOTUS, many hoped he'd be more even handed like Dad, but it was all those 90s Reich people to the nth power, and the game felt lost for the first time.

The second time, when it was really lost, was 2006 when the Dems were put back into Congressional majority and Pelosi took impeachment off the table, and 2008 when Obama was elected and immediately did a 180 from Hope and Change and basically capitulated to the GOP even before he was inaugurated.

by Anonymousreply 234May 9, 2016 2:20 PM

R9, it's clear that you have an agenda. She is not her husband and the fact that you blame her and not him, while letting Trump slide says you are either a Trumper or a Bernbot.

by Anonymousreply 235May 9, 2016 3:26 PM

I agree with you, R25. I realized when reading your post, though, that when Trump brings it up, the MSM will follow her all over, throwing it in her face. They'll constantly be trying to trap her into some kind of soundbite. Fortunately, she's too smart for them, but it will be ugly nonetheless.

by Anonymousreply 236May 9, 2016 3:32 PM

[quote]This is not about Clinton's affairs, This is about his history of VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

He has NO history of violence of against women, certainly no history that's ever been proved, anyway, and in any case, Hillary is not responsible for some nebulous, rumored actions Bill might have committed.

by Anonymousreply 237May 9, 2016 3:41 PM

[quote] He has NO history of violence of against women

rape, assault, sexual harassment you don't call that violence against women?

by Anonymousreply 238May 9, 2016 3:47 PM

[quote] Hillary is not responsible for some nebulous, rumored actions Bill might have committed.

If it was a GOP woman running for office, and all these allegations came out against her husband, you can bet DL would be the first ppl to demand she step down.

Why double standard for a DEM woman running for office?

by Anonymousreply 239May 9, 2016 3:48 PM

R239 I'm sorry. Did you get lost on your way navigating the inter webs? You are on a site for gay men. Do you think we give a fuck who has got a sidepiece (except for the prurient fun value)? We don't. Maybe try The MarySue or Jezebel or....?

by Anonymousreply 240May 9, 2016 4:21 PM

you don't know shit, R183 and you don't get to dictate women's personal lives. Vote for whomever you want to, but you don't know a lot of women who feel the way you describe, liar.

by Anonymousreply 241May 9, 2016 4:24 PM

[quote] Do you think we give a fuck who has got a sidepiece (except for the prurient fun value)?

So you don't care about violence against women?

by Anonymousreply 242May 9, 2016 4:25 PM

The race will tighten-up at some point, and it'll look like he might have a chance. The media wants a horse-race, it always happens, and Trump is a master at getting media attention. But it's likely he'll never lead, and not only will he lose, it'll be a landslide, with down-ticket Dems doing well too. An entertaining show with a happy ending, and maybe Warren for Vice, taking over herself someday.

by Anonymousreply 243May 9, 2016 4:35 PM

Freeper at R232, it's about Clinton v Trump, not spouses. If you can find anywhere that Hillary has been charged with sexual assault, by all means, bring it up. Otherwise, STFU.

by Anonymousreply 244May 9, 2016 4:37 PM

R244 you wouldn't say that if it was GOP running for office with a spouse that has a history of violence against women.

by Anonymousreply 245May 9, 2016 4:38 PM

[quote]rape, assault, sexual harassment you don't call that violence against women

BC has never been charged with raping or assaulting anyone, nor has anyone even made a *credible* accusation against him. In all likelihood, the worst he's guilty of is exercising incredibly poor judgment about when, where, and with whom to engage in *consensual* sexual activities. And again, that's not Hillary's fault or responsibility.

by Anonymousreply 246May 9, 2016 4:39 PM

[quote] BC has never been charged with raping or assaulting anyone

Yet Bill paid off Paula Jones before the case ever got to court.

by Anonymousreply 247May 9, 2016 4:42 PM

[quote] nor has anyone even made a *credible* accusation against him.

Blame the victim while the prep gets off scot-free.

by Anonymousreply 248May 9, 2016 4:43 PM

I think the republicans who have searched for the women BC supposedly assaulted, then paid them, then paid to ensure that their allegations reached front page status are the ones actually guilty of violence against women.

If a republican isn't throwing $$$ at women so they will accuse Bill Clinton of something, then that is no true republican.

by Anonymousreply 249May 9, 2016 4:44 PM

R249 except that Kathleen Willey has no ties to the GOP and never a dime off her story. & she is a DEM

Why are you attacking victims of sexual assault?

by Anonymousreply 250May 9, 2016 4:46 PM

[quote] Blame the victim while the prep gets off scot-free.

Victim of false allegations?

by Anonymousreply 251May 9, 2016 4:47 PM

Bill's a womanizer, but like r246 says, there's nothing proven beyond that. And he's not running, so it's irrelevant. Trump is running and he's a classic womanizer, so into objectifying them, he runs his own beauty contest. And I thought that recent rape accusation against Trump was bullshit, so it's not a double standard.

by Anonymousreply 252May 9, 2016 4:47 PM

[quote] And he's not running, so it's irrelevant.

Right and if it was GOP candidate with a spouse that had a history of violence against women, you'd be singing a diff tune.

by Anonymousreply 253May 9, 2016 4:51 PM

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;

In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;

In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student 'came on' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;

From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."

Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.

by Anonymousreply 254May 9, 2016 5:00 PM

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

by Anonymousreply 255May 9, 2016 5:01 PM

Wow R254 and R255 - Hillary Clinton did all that?

No? Oh, I see: She's an "enabler".

by Anonymousreply 256May 9, 2016 5:03 PM

R256 if it was a GOP female candidate with a male spouse who had just one of the above allegations attached to him you would be singing a different tune, and you know it,

by Anonymousreply 257May 9, 2016 5:04 PM

R256 just admitted he doesn't care about violence against women. Sad.

by Anonymousreply 258May 9, 2016 5:06 PM

All right who is the psycho spamming this thread claiming the gay men of the DL will be outraged that Bill Clinton gets a lot of pussy?

Fuck off, you fucking freeper. You're obviously insane.

by Anonymousreply 259May 9, 2016 5:07 PM

R259 this is not about affairs, but violence against women. Why don't you care when women are violently attacked?

by Anonymousreply 260May 9, 2016 5:08 PM

R253 - had Clarence Thomas been a Democrat, Anita Hill's story would have been passed off as "troubling". No, sorry but I'm not a Freeper, as I think he's totally incompetent in the job.

Ask for Hillary, this stuff really does apply to her as she's mixed up in it, even though he was the one having the actual sexual activity. To the extent that she's a victim, it speaks to her unstable masochistic state. Or, that she's calculating and knew about it, but didn't care because anything is okay as long as she's involved in their professional advancement.

The bottom line is that she tries to have it both ways regarding his presidency, which just isn't fair. She owns all the mess, as well as any popularity.

by Anonymousreply 261May 9, 2016 5:12 PM

R257, R260 - you sound like broken record...repeating the same tune over and over again. I don't know what your agenda is but you don't seem to be convincing anyone that "Trump will win because of Bill Clinton's Affairs".

Let me repeat the obvious:

1) Hillary is NOT Bill.

2) Hillary is NOT responsible for her husbands behavior.

3) Bill is NOT running for President in 2016.

by Anonymousreply 262May 9, 2016 5:13 PM

R262 & you completely IGNORE the fact that if it was a GOP female candidate with a male spouse who had just one of the above allegations attached to him you would be singing a different tune, and you know it,

by Anonymousreply 263May 9, 2016 5:14 PM

If Sarah Palin was running for office and her husband Todd was accused of Rape by a government employee now way would DL say

1) Sarah is NOT Todd..

2) Sarah is NOT responsible for her husbands behavior.

3) Todd is NOT running for office

NO WAY would any DLers come to Sarah's defense if it would come to Todd having a history with violence against women. And you DLers know that.

by Anonymousreply 264May 9, 2016 5:20 PM

Hillary Clinton does not have a history of violence against women.

Considering Palin's positions on women's issues it is fair to say she has a history of violence against women.

by Anonymousreply 265May 9, 2016 5:24 PM

Hillary is with women in general on the issues ("Deal Me In! "). Women she perceives as being in the way of her goals ... not so much.

by Anonymousreply 266May 9, 2016 5:27 PM

r253, I already said I don't believe the rape allegation against Trump. He's a douchebag, not a rapist. He's always had hot blondes attracted to his $$$$.

by Anonymousreply 267May 9, 2016 5:29 PM

How did Hilary ruin these people's lives? Her husband is the one who cheated. I have no idea why women's groups would dislike her because her husband cheated. That doesn't make much sense...

by Anonymousreply 268May 9, 2016 5:34 PM

FF the homophobe ar r260

by Anonymousreply 269May 9, 2016 5:37 PM

[quote]NO WAY would any DLers come to Sarah's defense if it would come to Todd having a history with violence against women.

I'd never support Sarah Palin for dogcatcher, let alone a higher office. But would I hold it against her that there were a bunch of 25- to 40-year-old, often anonymous, always unproven, allegations of sexual misconduct against her husband, some of which happened before the Palins were even married, all of which Sarah may have had no knowledge of at the time? No. That would be irrelevant to her qualifications, or lack thereof, for office.

by Anonymousreply 270May 9, 2016 5:37 PM

the big theme for the nut jobs is"violence against women"- because there is NO history of it it, they feel auto repeat will create it. He does have s history of affairs, but that, for whatever reason, hasn't touched his ratings!

Americans have enough of our own affairs!

by Anonymousreply 271May 9, 2016 5:46 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 272May 9, 2016 6:25 PM

[quote] This is about his history of VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Keep running with that one, Freeper. It sounds like a real winner.

by Anonymousreply 273May 9, 2016 6:35 PM

[quote] R239: If it was a GOP woman running for office, and all these allegations came out against her husband, you can bet DL would be the first ppl to demand she step down...Why double standard for a DEM woman running for office?

R239, you've created a hypothetical situation, and a hypothetical response from hypothetical DL people. Then you condem these hypothetical DL people for their hypothetical response. You're being a little ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 274May 9, 2016 6:35 PM

Judging by the responses here it should come as no surprise that victims of sexual assault don't come forward. The perp is never put on trial, the victim is.

by Anonymousreply 275May 9, 2016 6:38 PM

R245: you wouldn't say that if it was GOP running for office with a spouse that has a history of violence against women.

R245, you have no idea how someone would react to the hypothetical situation you raise. Also, Clinton does not have a history of violence against woman.

by Anonymousreply 276May 9, 2016 6:39 PM

R272 we are talking about violence against women

R245 read R254 & R255 then add Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones & Juanita Broderick. If you don't call that history, is it any wonder why women don't come forward after being sexually assaulted.

by Anonymousreply 277May 9, 2016 6:41 PM

[quote] you wouldn't say that if it was GOP running for office with a spouse that has a history of violence against women.

Yeah I would, and so would you.

by Anonymousreply 278May 9, 2016 6:41 PM

[quote] R264: NO WAY would any DLers come to Sarah's defense if it would come to Todd having a history with violence against women. And you DLers know that.

R264, this is just more hypotheticals. And now it's getting boring. And you have no idea what other posters think, feel, or might write about your hypotheticals.

by Anonymousreply 279May 9, 2016 6:47 PM

The simp and the blimp.

by Anonymousreply 280May 9, 2016 6:49 PM

[quote] this is just more hypotheticals.

Isn't that what DL is for?

by Anonymousreply 281May 9, 2016 6:49 PM

@NBCLA 19 minutes ago

Chris Christie to lead Donald Trump Oval Office team

by Anonymousreply 282May 9, 2016 6:52 PM

No, R281. DL is for eviscerating people who create hypothetical situations for comment, especially when these situations has been loaded like a cowardly push-poll.

by Anonymousreply 283May 9, 2016 6:55 PM

R283 you must be new here at DL

by Anonymousreply 284May 9, 2016 6:56 PM

The Republicans are trying to use these women to push their misogynistic agenda! That's the only violence against women I see!

by Anonymousreply 285May 9, 2016 6:56 PM

R284, you forgot to eviscerate R283. Or was that your best shot?

by Anonymousreply 286May 9, 2016 6:59 PM

Only an estimated 2 to 8 percent of sex assault accusations are false, according to a survey of the literature published by the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. The victims felt as if they were being treated like suspects, and it affected the choices they made. Surveyed about why they didn’t want to pursue a report, most victims said they worried that no one would believe them.

Like DL

by Anonymousreply 287May 9, 2016 7:01 PM

R286 I think you have your narratives mixed up.

by Anonymousreply 288May 9, 2016 7:01 PM

Bill Clinton had affairs, not sexual assaults! Do you think all hookups are assaults - GO AND ARREST THE WHOLE WORLD!

by Anonymousreply 289May 9, 2016 7:04 PM

The "feud" between Trump ans the Clinton's is so fake.

When Bill Clinton called Donald Trump and told him he should run for President:

[In Bill Clinton Voice]:

Bill: When you run for president, I want you to be real hard on Hillary so the public believes she's a tough leader. That she can handle herself against men and that she's not weak. I want people to think she's got a huge cock and balls inbetween her legs. That she has a BBC. I want people to think that she's trans. Yeah, that's right. Like a big black cocked transwoman. If you could be real tough, that's be great. Go all out. Talk about my love of pussy. Thanks, Donald. Talk to ya the next time we golf".

by Anonymousreply 290May 9, 2016 7:06 PM

[quote] Bill Clinton had affairs, not sexual assaults!

read R254 & R255

by Anonymousreply 291May 9, 2016 7:06 PM

R291 You're last century's news

by Anonymousreply 292May 9, 2016 7:09 PM

[quote] You're last century's news

Would you say that about Bill Cosby's victims? That they are so last century?

by Anonymousreply 293May 9, 2016 7:14 PM

[quote]Only an estimated 2 to 8 percent of sex assault accusations are false,

Yeah, and guess what? I'd bet anything that a disproportionate number of those false accusations are levied against wealthy or powerful men, especially when the man in question is a notorious horndog with numerous well-known (consensual) extramarital dalliances.

by Anonymousreply 294May 9, 2016 7:15 PM

But if you apply the 2 to 8% against Clinton, it means the other allegations against him must be true!

by Anonymousreply 295May 9, 2016 7:18 PM

There are so many things going against Hillary. Constant flip-flops to cater to her audience. Violating espionage laws with setting up her own private server, Her lack of real accomplishments as SoS. Compulsive lies. Then finally there's Bill.

by Anonymousreply 296May 9, 2016 7:19 PM

Congress and a special prosecutor spent tens of millions of our tax dollars on investigation of the Clintons. The special prosecutor investigated one trumped-up charge after another, on both Clintons. All the prosecutor eventually found was that Bill is a hound dog, and he lied about it. This was after years of fishing for illegality. This only ended with Clinton's failed impeachment, and the resignation of two Republican Speakers of the House in quick succession, due to their own affairs.

At the next election, the Republicans were expected to win, but instead lost by a great margin, because the public was disgusted with the Republican power-grab and their behavior in general.

Now, the Republicans are trying to do the same thing again with Benghazi, which has become the longest investigation in history and cost more than $5 million. Longer than the Kennedy assassination; Pearl Harbor, Katrina, and Watergate!

If Turnip can't control himself, and we know he can't, Hillary will gain votes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 297May 9, 2016 7:26 PM

R297 that investigation was on the Clinton's Whitewater dealings, not about sexual assault allegations.

by Anonymousreply 298May 9, 2016 7:29 PM

I've come to this place where I feel there's no lower form of life on Earth than that of a Clinton apologist. People here screamed about what a monster Cosby's wife is, but label it "misogyny" when someone says Clinton is not guiltless? PLEASE. She's the one who claimed Lewinsky was a liar, and called her a "narcissistic loony tune". Some feminist.

Trump is a piece of garbage and so are the Clintons. Ruthlessly ambitious, conniving, willing to do any despicable thing to make money. They're all birds of a feather. She's scariest of all, because she's the smarter and more guileful version of Trump. She'd be America's Margaret Thatcher, possibly worse.

i could see hoe right-wing warmongers could support her, but not Democrats. I guess it shows how successful the "Reagan Revolution" was at turning a significant number of Democrats into ersatz Republicans. In the meantime, I wish a viable liberal Democrat had come forward to challenge our Maggie. Sanders is a real FDR Democrat, and he has a good heart, but I can't see him taking on the Repukes if he won't get tough with Maggie Clinton. We're really just fucked.

As for Bill...scum of the Earth. A rapist, no doubt. They'd better hope that Trump doesn't start bringing up the Epstein scandal in the general election, because that will affect her.

by Anonymousreply 299May 9, 2016 7:31 PM

[quote] R296: ...Violating espionage laws with setting up her own private server, ...

Hillary's private server was legal and had precedence. Colin Powel had the same set-up. There's nothing illegal about that. Also, there's no evidence that any classified info was sent by Hillary that violated any espionage laws.

This is just more trumped-up charges. There's no illegality here, toots. Move along!

by Anonymousreply 300May 9, 2016 7:33 PM

I am LOVING this new Trump supporter tactic of screaming at Clinton supporters for being rape apologists! That seems like it will be very effective! It doesn't smell desperate AT ALL!

by Anonymousreply 301May 9, 2016 7:38 PM

[quote] R298: ...that investigation was on the Clinton's Whitewater dealings, not about sexual assault allegations...

That investigation started with Whitewater. After finding nothing there, they investigated the Clinton's firing of travel office employees early in their first term. They found nothing. Then they investigated Vince Foster's suicide on the possibility that Hillary was having an affair with him and had him killed, or killed him, herself! Then, they moved on and on and on. It was a witch hunt. That engendered sympathy from the voters.

by Anonymousreply 302May 9, 2016 7:39 PM

R302 but they never dug deep into Clinton's past sexual assault history.

by Anonymousreply 303May 9, 2016 7:40 PM

R303, I don't believe you are correct. The various hearings eventually denegrated into the whole "Monica L. in the blue dress" matter. So, they did investigated Clinton's past affairs. Believe me, if Ken Starr thought he could nail Clinton based on Clinton's affairs, he would have done so. It was a real witch hunt.

by Anonymousreply 304May 9, 2016 7:47 PM

R304 Attorney General Janet Reno only gave Ken Starr permission to pursue Monica. All other women were considered out of scope of the investigation.

by Anonymousreply 305May 9, 2016 7:49 PM

Talk about trolling, jesus fucking christ. I am starting to believe that Revolution Messaging or whatever the fuck they are and freepers are truly spending time going to a gay website to bring up bullshit charges against Bill Clinton. As if this junk is going to affect HRC. The woman won a Senate seat in NYC even though every one and their mother has been hearing about the same made up shit for years.

Point is, Americans truly do not give one fuck about Clinton's many fucks. And btw I have friends who met BC back in the day and they all said the same thing, that the man was super sexually charismatic. Apparently his intelligence and ability to make a person feel as if he is speaking to them as a special person made them wish they could drop their underwear.

We'll be a laughingstock again if Trump brings up this crap. Americans don't care and foreigners wonder why the heck Republicans are obsessed with other men's cocks. Maybe they need to focus on their own penises.

by Anonymousreply 306May 9, 2016 7:59 PM

[quote] Apparently his intelligence and ability to make a person feel as if he is speaking to them as a special person made them wish they could drop their underwear.

So again the women are to blame for being sexually assaulted?

by Anonymousreply 307May 9, 2016 8:01 PM

we shall see what happens...and what is found. interesting election to be sure.

by Anonymousreply 308May 9, 2016 8:04 PM

R301 And there you are...Clinton apologist. Honey, I praised Sanders for being an FDR Democrat...you took from THAT remark that I'm a Trump supporter?

Deflect, deflect. as I said, Trump and the Clintons are all grotesque. We needed a viable liberal Democrat, a real Democrat. Not America's Margaret Thatcher.

by Anonymousreply 309May 9, 2016 8:15 PM

R306 DITTO. God, you Hilbots are every bit as clueless as you were in 2008. Seriously. She wasn't even that bad, back then. The fact that I loathe right-wingers in either party doesn't make me a GOP troll, dumbass.

by Anonymousreply 310May 9, 2016 8:18 PM

There seems to be some strange idea that if one doesn't like Clinton, one is a "Right Wing Troll". I find her horrible as a politician, although she seems like a likeable person as Hillary, the individual. That having been said, she's clearly better than any Republican. I know you folks don't get this, but I have little enthusiasm for her.

by Anonymousreply 311May 9, 2016 8:45 PM

R311, you're fine. You get a pass.

by Anonymousreply 312May 9, 2016 8:49 PM

[quote]That having been said, she's clearly better than any Republican. I know you folks don't get this, but I have little enthusiasm for her.

Completely agree. I'm not enthusiastic about HRC but will of course vote for her over Trump. ( And I'm okay with her beating Sanders for the Dem nomination, too; like his ideas, but he's not a practical choice.) My lack of enthusiasm for her, however, has nothing to do with Bill and his sexual peccadilloes, for which Hillary obviously bears no responsibility.

by Anonymousreply 313May 9, 2016 8:51 PM

Hillary loves pussy not cock. Are you surprised she seems to have no probs with him getting strange on the side? Donald Trump is not only incredibly stupid but he's also a rapist. So American must decide between a lesbian and a rapist!

by Anonymousreply 314May 9, 2016 9:25 PM

There is a tiny minority of voters who are obsessed with Bill Ckinton's cock. The vast majority only care if they've got a job or not, and whether we're going to war.

Today they were saying in CNN that Trump wants to default on all our loans, declare bankruptcy for the U.S. and settle for pennies in the dollar, ruining our credit for all time. Then he wants to print money to pay what little debt he agrees to pay.

The Weimar Republic did that once. It cost a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. People burned money to keep warm because it was cheaper than wood. And then that nice Mr Hitler got them back on their feet.

by Anonymousreply 315May 9, 2016 9:41 PM

DL does not condone or approve of sexual assault or violence against women. DL also doesn't approve or condone women who raise the ugly specter of sexual assault by selling thier story to whomever bids for it, whether it be the media or opposing party. Women who report rape, sexual assault or violence through the proper channels get my respect. Reporting it any other way is just an unproven, unsubstantiated allegation.

by Anonymousreply 316May 9, 2016 9:42 PM

I see the strawman cometh.

Mary! Who will think of the poor womens! The freepers' newfound concern for women is so touching.

by Anonymousreply 317May 9, 2016 9:51 PM

Funny thing is that today's feminist would consider Lewinsky a rape victim. A man in a position of authority using his power to coerce a considerably younger female subordinate into having "sexual relations" would be considered an act of rape (not simply an affair), making Bill Clinton a rapist. Even if Lewinsky willingly engaged in a sex act with Bill, it would have been under duress considering the imbalance of power. Interestingly, the same people who attacked Camille Cosby and considered her an enabler and a trader are now willing to give Hillary a pass. Trump would be a fool not to exploit the obvious hypocrisy here. He could cause a lot of damage if he really goes there in the way that he should.

by Anonymousreply 318May 9, 2016 10:37 PM

I'm beginning to think our little Trump supporter has a crush on Bill Clinton, by the way he's obsessing over his sexual history.

Bringing it up once is a curiosity, bringing it up twice is a bit odd, bringing it up 75 times in one thread even though the vast majority of respondents are laughing you off makes you either a creep or a paid shill.

by Anonymousreply 319May 9, 2016 10:42 PM

[quote]makes you either a creep or a paid shill.

Everyone is not jewish, r319 -- everyone is not a creep or does things only for money.

by Anonymousreply 320May 9, 2016 10:44 PM

Bill isn't Chelsea's father. He's sterile.

Ivana retracted the rape story, but I'm sure Trumps done the same or worse with other women.

All kinds of shit is going to come out in this election.

by Anonymousreply 321May 9, 2016 10:49 PM

Those of you who obsess over Bill Cosby's sexual history have a huge crush on him otherwise you'd never mention it. Brilliant logic there.

by Anonymousreply 322May 9, 2016 10:50 PM

R318, you forget that Lewinsky was as much a predator as Bill. She had a history of chasing married men, was in a long term relationship with a marriedaschool teacher and aggressively pursued Clinton in order to get her "Presidential Kneepads". I hope like hell neo feminists doesn't include protecting pieces of shit like Lewinsky. To say that she was raped demeans acual rape victims.

Also, to compare Clinton to Cosby is strwman. More thqn a few of Cosby's accusers filed charges. Cosby has his own sworn deposition that was damning. All Clinton has is a few admitted affairs and unsubstantiated accusations from women who sold their story to the media.

by Anonymousreply 323May 9, 2016 10:54 PM

I just hope she strokes out soon and spares us all this Clinton rehash. They're both disgusting pigs.

by Anonymousreply 324May 9, 2016 10:59 PM

[quote]Those of you who obsess over Bill Cosby's sexual history have a huge crush on him otherwise you'd never mention it. Brilliant logic there.

You don't seem very bright.

by Anonymousreply 325May 9, 2016 11:06 PM

The Bernie troll has become the Trump Troll- everyone here is giving excellent arguments for Hillary and Bill vs. the same unrelenting voice!

by Anonymousreply 326May 9, 2016 11:09 PM

You would be considered a rape apologists and a victim blamer, r323, if this situation didn't involve the Clintons. A porn star can willingly fuck a guy on camera after accusing him of rape and still be considered a rape victim. By today's standards Lewinsky is a victim of rape and Bill is a rapist with several accusers (feminists would say that we are to believe them without question). Donald has a goldmine if he is really willing to go where he needs to go. When you build your house on faulty identity politics logic don't be surprised when it crumbles.

by Anonymousreply 327May 9, 2016 11:09 PM

Who the fuck is this insane freeper on here? Fuck off. How do you flag an asshole troll so her posts disappear? If she can post on here 900X times, she must be spamming the whole fucking board, typing with one hand as she fantasizes about being raped by Bill Clinton's celebrated penis.

Shit, I just thought... Bernie's rape fantasy novella... could it be... it's Bernie and not a freeper who is working on his fan fiction about being raped by Bill? #FeeltheBill

by Anonymousreply 328May 9, 2016 11:12 PM

It doesn't surprise me that you can't explain why r325. Especially since you're the same person who can't understand why we are discussing Bill Clinton's sexual history in a thread about Bill Clinton's sexual history. You sound like a mighty sharp knife.

by Anonymousreply 329May 9, 2016 11:13 PM

Check your post, r329....

by Anonymousreply 330May 9, 2016 11:19 PM

I don't think anything in r329 quite makes sense. It's like he's worn down his ball bearings or something.

by Anonymousreply 331May 9, 2016 11:32 PM

In other words, I stumped you, r331. It wasn't hard since you have no logic or reasoning skills to speak of. "Why are we discussing the thread topic?!" says r331. Keep eating those Ls doll. My point stands so I have no need to go on.

by Anonymousreply 332May 9, 2016 11:45 PM

If Hillary divorced Bill after leaving the White House and starting her first term as senator, I would respect her. She cheated herself.

by Anonymousreply 333May 10, 2016 12:05 AM

R333 mind your own fucking business. Obviously you can't get laid yourself so you're obsessing about other people's sex lives.

by Anonymousreply 334May 10, 2016 12:13 AM

[quote] R318: A man in a position of authority using his power to coerce a considerably younger female subordinate into having "sexual relations" would be considered an act of rape (not simply an affair)...

We have no evidence that Bill Clinton used his "position of power" to coerce anyone to do anything. No evidence there was any coercion at all. Monica was a woman, capable of making her own decisions. She chose poorly, case closed.

by Anonymousreply 335May 10, 2016 12:15 AM

R332- I wonder why Bernie bombed so completely! I've never seen such a disastrous flameout! He just didn't have what it takes!

by Anonymousreply 336May 10, 2016 12:19 AM

R327, nope. Nobody's "word" is absolute, and if neo feminists are saying I should take a woman at her word because she's a woman and she said so...well then, fuck the neo feminists.

by Anonymousreply 337May 10, 2016 12:20 AM

r318, "coerce"?! You know nothing of how it transpired. ZEE-RO.

by Anonymousreply 338May 10, 2016 12:20 AM

The obsessive anti-Clinton troll carries a distinct odor of Poo Shoes.

by Anonymousreply 339May 10, 2016 12:26 AM

[quote]In other words, I stumped you, [R331]. It wasn't hard since you have no logic or reasoning skills to speak of. "Why are we discussing the thread topic?!" says [R331]. Keep eating those Ls doll. My point stands so I have no need to go on.

If you say so, dear, but you've got me confused with someone else.

by Anonymousreply 340May 10, 2016 12:26 AM

In fact, r318, Monica pleaded to see Bill one more time, after he had essentially dumped her. Her begging was tape-recorded.

by Anonymousreply 341May 10, 2016 12:31 AM

Show us the police reports that these "victims" of sexual assault filed at the time of the alleged attacks.

There aren't any. They don't exist. No charges, no arrests, no trials, no nothing. There has only been a civil suit from an ugly, attention-whoring slut (Jones) who was paid by the Rethuglicans.

This is just the latest talking point from right-wing pig fuckers. There's no need to take it seriously.

by Anonymousreply 342May 10, 2016 12:36 AM

I'm not going to get involved in the political discussion, but I will say that it is interesting to see DL's feminists completely change direction when it comes to rape culture and rape allegations. This sharp change has definitely been noted.

by Anonymousreply 343May 10, 2016 12:39 AM

Exactly R343

by Anonymousreply 344May 10, 2016 12:43 AM

DL feminists???

by Anonymousreply 345May 10, 2016 12:45 AM

When someone files actual rape or sexual assault charges, R343 and R344, then we'll talk about it. All you're doing is spreading scurrilous gossip.

by Anonymousreply 346May 10, 2016 12:47 AM

R346 Paula Jones, but then Clinton paid her off before it ever got to a courtroom.

by Anonymousreply 347May 10, 2016 12:48 AM

All you're doing is spreading scurrilous gossip. <<

I'm shocked... SHOCKED!

by Anonymousreply 348May 10, 2016 12:49 AM

[quote] When someone files actual rape or sexual assault charges

Just reading the push-back on this thread, is it any wonder why women don't come forward with complaints of sexual assault against them. They have already been victimized, and just get re-victimized all over again. Exhibit A - the commentary on this board,

by Anonymousreply 349May 10, 2016 12:51 AM

Paula Jones filed charges with the police at the time she alleges he attacked her?

I've never heard that before. Please provide a link, R347.

by Anonymousreply 350May 10, 2016 12:53 AM

[quote] When someone files actual rape or sexual assault charges

She filed sexual assault charges in civil court. Clinton paid her off before it reached a courthouse.

by Anonymousreply 351May 10, 2016 12:55 AM

R349 Especially when they can be sure their story will be used by political profiteers who COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT THEM!

by Anonymousreply 352May 10, 2016 12:55 AM

Nothing is funnier than the sudden, long lost love for bill's hookups! What have you done in the intervening decades- cried your eyes out for these ladies?

Offered them $, jobs, support! Well I didn't think so!

by Anonymousreply 353May 10, 2016 12:59 AM

R349, it's the women that DON'T come forward that DL has no regard for. The women that DO come forward we don't have issue with. Do you understand the difference between coming forward and not coming forward? Cause it doesn't seem like you do. Almost makes me think Trump has found DL and is making his case directly.

by Anonymousreply 354May 10, 2016 1:02 AM

[quote] The women that DO come forward we don't have issue with.

Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Junatita Broderick all came forward and just read the comments about them in this thread.

by Anonymousreply 355May 10, 2016 1:07 AM

Going to the press or selling your story to the highest bidder is not coming forward, R355.

by Anonymousreply 356May 10, 2016 1:11 AM

R356 none of them got paid for their story.

by Anonymousreply 357May 10, 2016 1:13 AM

Twitter doesn't count either R355.

by Anonymousreply 358May 10, 2016 1:13 AM

Anyone can file a civil suit over anything, R351. The fact that Jones did so isn't evidence of anything untoward having taken place.

I think I'll file a civil suit against R351. In it, I'll claim that she deliberately clogged the toilet at the Bellagio and caused my beautiful new shoes to be ruined.

by Anonymousreply 359May 10, 2016 1:15 AM

How does it feel to be new women's rights activists - we sure haven't seen any of you before - we will never use the word opportunists- we will just accept your long hours of volunteer work!

What an earnest and commuted group has befallen us!

by Anonymousreply 360May 10, 2016 1:15 AM

R359 then why did Clinton pay her off?

again none of the women made much money off their story.

Juanita Broderick never made a dime, and she has given very few interviews (only 2).

Kathleen Willey self-published a book, and never got paid for any interview. Hardly rolling in the dough.

Paula Jones got No Excuses Jeans endorsement deal, so she was the only one to make some money. But not a whole lot.

by Anonymousreply 361May 10, 2016 1:18 AM

Haha I never knew Paula Jones endorsed No Excuses Jeans. So did Marla Maples!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 362May 10, 2016 1:29 AM

None of them filed charges with the police when these events supposedly took place, R361, nor at any time afterwards. Not one.

There is no record with the police. There is no evidence that any rape or sexual assault happened to any of them.

You must be one of those people who continues to accuse the Duke lacrosse players of rape, another case based on unproven allegation.

by Anonymousreply 363May 10, 2016 1:37 AM

Hills was completely on board with Sidney Blumenthal's strategy of making Monica Lewinsky look like a deranged, psychopathic liar. Annnnnnd the dress showed up.

Had that stained dress never appeared, Clinton would still to this day be denying the affair, and they'd still be trying to paint Lewinsky as a nut, like they do to Juanita Broderick and any number who women who have stepped forward.

I hate Trump, I'm scared of him. But I can't bring myself to actually vote for Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 364May 10, 2016 1:43 AM

If it weren't for POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY- the pro Trump posters would side swipe these women on the side of a road if they were crawling away from a real rape!

by Anonymousreply 365May 10, 2016 1:43 AM

The Republicans always crack me up when they pretend they give a shit about women.

That moron Bush II used it to justify going into Afghanistan and Iraq. Suddenly we had an ethical obligation to save those women from the Taliban. So funny.

by Anonymousreply 366May 10, 2016 1:51 AM

R365 I'm not pro-Trump, but I can't bring myself to vote for Clinton.

Dr. Jill Stein gets my vote.

by Anonymousreply 367May 10, 2016 1:57 AM

R362, if you didn't know public figures and corporations "pay people off" all the time, also known as "settling out of court," to save time, money and embarrassment, you're an idiot. It's a way to settle and MOVE ON. Most of the time, people suing public figures are doing it to settle out of court, not to drag a court case on and on for years at great expense and with their life constantly in limbo for years on end. People sue public figures because they're reasonably certain to get a settlement for at least some money, even if their case isn't good.

People suing public figures for accusations of improper behavior want money. The end. There's nothing else they can get but money. They're only in it for the money. What do you want them to get, blood?

I'm not saying some people don't deserve money. People that sue Ford about their airbags being defective deserve money. But those people also know its highly unlikely they're ever going to see a day in a courtroom. Public people and entities pay people off to save money and time, period. It is not an admission of guilt. It usually costs a lot more to go to court than to settle out of court.

In case you didn't know, civil court is where you go to get money. Criminal court is where you go to get justice. Two completely different courts, judges, laws and types of trials. Nobody's going to sue anybody so they can be put in jail. The bar for proof is lower in civil court too.

by Anonymousreply 368May 10, 2016 1:58 AM

Hillary Clinton sucks.

by Anonymousreply 369May 10, 2016 2:00 AM

Then you are helping Mr. Trump, R367. Every vote that should go to Clinton that gets diverted to Jill Stein (or any other candidate) is the best possible way that you can do your part to put Donald Trump in the White House.

Congratulations, dear.

by Anonymousreply 370May 10, 2016 2:00 AM

Oh look! Our Clinton hating freeper R320 who suddenly has uncharacteristic sympathy with female victims of rape because of so called age old rumors about Bill Clinton that have never been proven is also an anti-Semite as well, what a surprise!

Get lost you fucking freeper hater.

by Anonymousreply 371May 10, 2016 2:03 AM

Has Bernie Sanders transitioned into Jill Stein- or is this Jane's Kabalah name?

by Anonymousreply 372May 10, 2016 2:06 AM

Jill Stein is a loser who always runs and loses on the Green party ticket.

Bernie or Busters who say they won't vote for HIllary, say they will vote for her and her pointless campaign.

I think they might accomplish more if they committed suicide but that's just me.

by Anonymousreply 373May 10, 2016 2:16 AM

Jill Stein puts up endless lists of her utopic positions on her platform. Unfortunately, she couldn't get a single one through Congress. Basically she and Bernie are snake oil salesmen.

by Anonymousreply 374May 10, 2016 2:42 AM

It also abounds in the numerous refugee threads, R317.

by Anonymousreply 375May 10, 2016 3:40 AM

I see r296 is itching for a humongous grease fire.

Keep it up cunt. You'll get one soon enough.

by Anonymousreply 376May 10, 2016 9:20 AM

I see r296 is itching for a humongous grease fire.

Keep it up cunt. You'll get one soon enough.

by Anonymousreply 377May 10, 2016 9:20 AM

I see r296 is itching for a humongous grease fire.

Keep it up cunt. You'll get one soon enough.

by Anonymousreply 378May 10, 2016 9:20 AM

[quote]The obsessive anti-Clinton troll carries a distinct odor of Poo Shoes.

I think you're right. The single-minded obsession and total lack of evidence for its constantly repeated assertions sure smells like her.

by Anonymousreply 379May 10, 2016 2:05 PM

trump might win because of trump. don't ever doubt the stupidity of the american masses. EVER.

by Anonymousreply 380May 10, 2016 2:19 PM

So if a rape victim never filed charges, she is never to be believed. So forget the #IBelieveSurvivors hashtag cause they never filed charges.

OK got it. Don't file charges, she is a liar.

by Anonymousreply 381May 10, 2016 2:36 PM

[quote] and total lack of evidence for its constantly repeated assertions sure smells like her.

So according to your logic all the women who claim Jian Ghomeshi assaulted them (and didn't file charges) are total liars. There are at least o dozen of them.

So they are all liars, right?

by Anonymousreply 382May 10, 2016 2:38 PM

Oh shut up R381.

Of course you are right. We all hate survivors of rape. We hate women. We TOTALLY support violence against women. We think all rape accusers are liars.

We bow to your superior insight.

by Anonymousreply 383May 10, 2016 2:39 PM

It's been estimated that one in four North American women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. Yet, for every 1,000 incidents of sexual assault, only 33 are ever reported to the police, which many would agree is a startlingly low number.

Even more disturbing is that only three cases ever result in a conviction. This means that, for every 1,000 sexual assault cases, 997 assailants are acquitted and allowed to walk freely out the courtroom.

But according to R379 because some of these women didn't press charges, they are all liars. OK got it.

R383 wants to have it both ways. Believe survivors of sexual assault, even if they don't press charges. But any woman who accuses Clinton of assault are all liars.

by Anonymousreply 384May 10, 2016 2:41 PM

What are you talking about R384. I AGREED with you. You are superior in every way.

Please go away now.

by Anonymousreply 385May 10, 2016 2:44 PM

R385 u are only one person. Unfortunately the commentary on this board is NOT to believe survivors of sexual assault. And people wonder why women don't press charges, look at the commentary here.

by Anonymousreply 386May 10, 2016 2:48 PM

Paula Jones got a nose job paid for by a contributor. She also posed for Penthouse. That's good money. This is not a person that had a problem making money out of her notoriety. She sued Clinton for emotional distress (because he showed her his penis), but the case was dismissed because she could not show how she was "harmed." Harmed is a civil court legal term. It means, you were harmed financially or in business or some other way that can be compensated by money. Jones didn't claim she was raped. Jones made money from her notoriety so she couldn't prove she lost out.

Gennifer Flowers sold her story to the Star. She was a struggling actress at the time that had posed for Penthouse. Afterwards, she wrote a book claiming she was naive. She may have been, but a nude model and actress is already putting herself in risky situations. She got a few more roles, but her career never really took off. She used her notoriety to play herself in roles. She lives in Las Vegas now and writes a column occasionally.

Wikipedia: "Until Hurricane Katrina, [Flowers] ran a cabaret called the Kelsto Club in a former bordello in New Orleans' French Quarter. Gennifer made her NY theatre debut in 2004, briefly as a replacement in the Off-Broadway hit Boobs! The Musical."

Juanita Brodderick's Wikipedia page states: rumors circulated about Broaddrick's allegations for many years, but she refused to speak to the media and, as "Jane Doe #5," filed an affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating that the rumors were unfounded. In an interview with Dateline NBC, that aired on February 24, 1999, Broaddrick claimed she had indeed been raped by Clinton. [She says after the alleged rape]: Broadrrick says she did not tell her then-husband, Gary Hickey, about the incident, and told him she accidentally injured her lip. He told NBC he did not remember the injury or her excuse.

At the time, she was having an affair with her eventual second husband, David Broaddrick. He says he noticed her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her when he asked about it. Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers’ sister. Rogers and Darden hated Clinton because he commuted the sentence of the man that killed their father.

Rather than going to the police, Broaddrick went to a Republican operative to report this information. Broaddrick's husband said he would ask Clinton "for a couple of big favors."

Was she raped? Maybe. Or maybe she had rough sex when she wasn't expecting it and had a mark on her lip that had to be explained to two different men she was sleeping with. In those days people's standards about date rape were different than they are now. It was a higher bar than it would be today, people are much more educated about date rape than in those days. Date rape was virtually unprovable in court back then, plus Broaderrick had signed an affidavit saying she was not raped. She had introduced reasonable doubt into the case herself.

This woman was married, having an affair, then going to a hotel room with yet another man. Then her second husband stated he would try to get an advantage from the situation, presumably by blackmail. She didn't call the police. She would not have been able to prove that case whether Clinton was famous or not, especially in those days.

Trump claims Hillary "destroyed" these women's lives. How? Whose lives were destroyed exactly? You could argue Lewinsky had a very hard time of it, though she is far from destroyed. She went to Oxford University, had a handbag business that failed. That has nothing to do with Hillary. Businesses fail all the time. Now she is a public speaker. Hardly "destroyed."

If anyone "destroyed" Lewinsky, that would be Linda Tripp, then Ken Starr. If Tripp had minded her own business, Lewinsky wouldn't have been dragged through the mud for years. But Tripp was a Republican operative.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 387May 10, 2016 2:48 PM

R387 read R254 & R255

by Anonymousreply 388May 10, 2016 2:50 PM

[quote]OK got it. Don't file charges, she is a liar.

More like, "meet some po' hillbilly at school/work; say nothing against him for the next 20 to 30 years; decide when is POTUS and embroiled in a sex scandal that it's time to come forward with a story about how he assaulted you lo those many years ago" = "yeah, your story's questionable"—and again, has jackshit to do with the guy's wife's qualifications to be president.

by Anonymousreply 389May 10, 2016 2:51 PM

[quote] Trump claims Hillary "destroyed" these women's lives. How?

Hillary set up a "Bimbo" office as part of the war room devoted to discrediting any woman that came forward with allegations of sexual assault.

by Anonymousreply 390May 10, 2016 2:51 PM

[quote] More like, "meet some po' hillbilly at school/work; say nothing against him for the next 20 to 30 years; decide when is POTUS and embroiled in a sex scandal that it's time to come forward with a story about how he assaulted you lo those many years ago" = "yeah, your story's questionable"—and again, has jackshit to do with the guy's wife's qualifications to be president.

Some of us seem to be so quick to judge women for not stepping forward and reporting their assaults in a timely manner, yet we discount the fact that, for many of these women, their automatic coping mechanism has been to suppress or even deny their traumas had ever happened.

And it's only many years later, when they are sitting in their psychotherapist's office, dealing with severe anxiety or debilitating depression, or trying to overcome somatic body memories such as chronic migraines, stomach aches or sleep disorders, when the truth of their traumatic personal history comes out, layer by layer.

The truth always eventually comes out.

by Anonymousreply 391May 10, 2016 2:52 PM

You can't accuse someone of a felony and not allow the accused their day in court. So are they ALL liars if they don't press charges. Well, we will never know because no evidence has been presented.

Sorry, women aren't a protected class. They can't just accuse and run. And if anything the last few years have taught us is that SOME women do lie about rape...UVA, Duke La Crosse, Tawana Brawley and I could go on.

by Anonymousreply 392May 10, 2016 2:58 PM

R392 the women that accused Bill Cosby, the ones that DID NOT press charges. Are they not to be believed?

by Anonymousreply 393May 10, 2016 3:01 PM

[quote]And it's only many years later, when that cute guy they slept with once in grad school is now the most powerful man in the free world and has a well-known problem keeping it in his pants that they think, "hey, maybe there's an opportunity for me here." The truth always eventually comes out.

Fixed that for ya, r391.

And again—Bill Clinton is not running for President. If either of the current candidates for President ever sexually assaulted somebody, Hillary was not that candidate. If your vote for POTUS is based largely on "who's least likely to have sexually assaulted/harassed a women in his/her lifetime" or "who's most likely to support laws that protect women," your vote had better be for Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 394May 10, 2016 3:02 PM

[quote] "who's most likely to support laws that protect women," your vote had better be for Hillary.

Despite setting up a "Bimbo" office to discredit any and all women who come forward with allegations of sexual assault by her husband.

by Anonymousreply 395May 10, 2016 3:04 PM

[quote]Despite setting up a "Bimbo" office to discredit any and all women who come forward with allegations of sexual assault by her husband.

Let's see some evidence to support that assertion.

And, yes, frankly—regardless of Hillary's behavior toward a few specific individual women who made accusations against Bill, she is far more likely than Donald " the women get it better than we do, guys" Trump to promote laws protecting women in general. You are a moron if you think otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 396May 10, 2016 3:09 PM

Seriously, R393, I do have my doubts about some of them. In a case like Cosby it is very easy for people to jump on the bandwagon whether it be for 15 minutes of fame or money. Can you tell me which ones are telling the truth and which ones may be on the bann?

Let me guess, you believe (and probably still belueve) the "Jackie" at UVA gang rape story despite the glaring holes and the fact that it has been proven not to be true. Can you tell me why she made up a horrific story? And can you say that no women ever lie about being raped.

by Anonymousreply 397May 10, 2016 3:11 PM

[quote] Let's see some evidence to support that assertion.

Go rent the DVD War Room

by Anonymousreply 398May 10, 2016 3:14 PM

Again, how did Hillary "destroy their lives"? Are any of them destroyed? Does anybody know?

As far as Clinton having allegedly raped other women, do you really think the Arkansas State Troopers, or Clinton, were telling Hillary, "Hi honey, I raped another one today"? Why? If anything, Clinton was trying to keep it from her.

Hillary was a lawyer. She was said by Clinton's campaign manager to be deeply involved in his campaigns. When these incidents came to light, they couldn't be hidden from her. It was said by those in the campaign that she focused on the immediate task of managing the scandal, and compartmentalized what it meant to her emotionally. She had a young child at home and wanted to keep her family together. She did.

Men don't understand this apparently, but this type of behavior has been going on with politicians and other wealthy men's wives for centuries. Until recently it was kept carefully hidden and people didn't hear about it. Women know about this stuff. They've all sat around the kitchen table with their friends while they debated whether they should stay with a philandering husband. It all comes down to money and whether the kids can be shielded from it, because women are taught that kids will suffer without their father's presence. Men teach women that women and children can't live happy lives without them. It isn't true, but there's been little societal support for that idea until very recently, just the last few years.

I think we all know Clinton is a sex addict who ruined his marriage. But further, this guy got a pass because he was a man and the good ol' boys club was full of other men doing the same thing, only more discreetly. This is why we need more women in high office. Because when it's all men, it's always going to be okay. When there are women there to question it, maybe it will change.

You can argue that Hillary's not the right woman (because she doesn't understand how destructive this behavior is? I doubt that), but this election, there are two choices, Hillary and Trump. Not Trump and Miss Perfect in Every Way.

The main reason we don't have more female candidates is that they have to be perfect, while men can do this and be elected President twice, by people who know all about it and don't care. Because he's a man, so it's all okay.

by Anonymousreply 399May 10, 2016 3:15 PM

[quote] Again, how did Hillary "destroy their lives"? Are any of them destroyed? Does anybody know?

She set up a special unit in the war room labeled "The Bimbo Eruptions" to smear all these women that came forward

In the 1992 presidential race, she encouraged efforts to push back against press inquiries into Bill Clinton’s infidelities and her own financial dealings, and cooperated with a campaign-within-a-campaign in Little Rock, along with Betsey Wright, her husband’s top aide, according to an account provided to journalist Carl Bernstein. The unit, known inside the Clinton campaign as the “Defense Department,” collected 2,000 boxes full of personal papers and correspondence and became a prototype of sorts for Clinton’s fortress-like approach to press relations from then on.

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 400May 10, 2016 3:20 PM

Nothing like women scorned after smeared by Hillary and her "Bimbo" team. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick will all be campaigning this fall to make sure Hillary is NOT elected President. She destroyed their lives, no it is payback time. Karma is a bitch.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 401May 10, 2016 3:22 PM

Again, how are their lives destroyed? Are they destroyed? You can't answer. At least the ones we know about are married (or have been) with kids, and seem to be doing okay.

The truth is, if those women do appear, it will be because they are very highly paid by Trump or the RNC. Not because they are destroyed. They are middle class women and getting a couple hundred thousand a speech would be good money to them.

by Anonymousreply 402May 10, 2016 3:34 PM

Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC

When the Internet’s legions of Hillary hecklers steal away to chat rooms and Facebook pages to vent grievances about Clinton, express revulsion toward Clinton and launch attacks on Clinton, they now may find themselves in a surprising place – confronted by a multimillion dollar super PAC working with Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.

In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online.

The plan comes as Clinton operatives grapple with the reality that her supporters just aren’t as engaged and aggressive online as are her detractors inside and outside the Democratic Party.

The lack of engagement is one of Clinton’s bigger tactical vulnerabilities, particularly when compared with rivals like Donald Trump, whose viral social media attacks are legion, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is backed by a passionate army of media-savvy millennials.

@kthalps

At least #BernieBros are committed enough to troll for free. @HillaryClinton needs to buy hers #barrierbreakers2016

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 403May 10, 2016 3:38 PM

Donald Trump named Clarence Thomas as his favorite Supreme Court Justice, so he really doesn't have a problem with men who abuse women.

by Anonymousreply 404May 10, 2016 4:16 PM

Bernie has paid Revolution Messages over $23 million so far to troll message boards, R403. Are you toting this little nugget out about Clinton because you are making a pointless agrument?

The "Bimbo War Room" was aptly named. They were bimbos who willingly fucked a married man and wanted something in return. There is nothing that indicates that any of these women were raped.

by Anonymousreply 405May 10, 2016 4:18 PM

I think it made her seem like the ultimate Career Politician as "Primary Colors" stated so clearly, as well; she cared less about her own dignity than of her future political aspirations. Which makes one think she is cold and shut down and capable of anything in the name of her self interest. I think this shit means more than people want to admit. I sure don't look at her the same way I did Bill.

by Anonymousreply 406May 10, 2016 4:45 PM

This is exactly what people mean by "double standard." She is a ruthless politician? What do you think Bill is, Betty Crocker?

Bill is a serial adulterer at the very least. That's not in dispute. But he's the nice one? She's "hard"? He was President? Do you think he's a nice fluffy pushover? That's his persona, not who he really is. He's a ruthless politician too.

What really gets me about this is that she's running for President. You think she's not supposed to be tough and hard and cynical? Then what is she supposed to be? Mother Theresa? She's not running for Mommy.

It never occurs to anyone that having someone who's tough for President is good, because she's a woman. Why do you think people want Trump? Because he's tough and hard and ruthless and will intimidate our enemies, foreign and domestic. That's exactly why people are voting for him. They don't want a pushover. But if she has the same characteristics, she's a monster.

by Anonymousreply 407May 10, 2016 4:54 PM

So, R406, you are saying that she should have put her own career aspirations on hold or permanently in a drawer because her husband is a serial cheater. She's a career woman, who raised a daughter who also did well for herself. Get over it.

by Anonymousreply 408May 10, 2016 4:58 PM

But we have moved beyond serial cheating. We are talking about covering up sexual assault, which is what Hillary did with her "Bimbo" brigade.

I doesn't bother people she dug up all kinds of dirt to discredit women who were sexually assaulted and raped by her husband?

by Anonymousreply 409May 10, 2016 5:07 PM

R409, your theory about these women being sexually assaulted was debunked up thread by a poster who went though each and every accusation along with their blackmail requests.

Face it. Some women do lie, especially when the there is something to gain.

by Anonymousreply 410May 10, 2016 5:14 PM

r343, WTH are you on about? Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED based on the one filed allegation; he did not escape scot-free. That he is still beloved by many Americans illustrates the hatred many of us have for those Puritans who need to discover every detail of sexual encounters, for justice, wink, wink.

Did Clinton rape or sexually assault others? Bring on the lawsuits.

BTW: Often overlooked in the Jones-Lewinsky-Clinton Epic, is WHY Paula Jones initiated her legal journey: In an article in "The American Spectator" about Clinton's alleged sexual escapades as Arkansas Governor, the author identified one sexual companion as "Paula." Jones decided that was too specific to her, as she had told her family, friends, and fiancée of the governor's alleged behaviors, and THUS, to regain her good reputation she sued BC for sexual harassment.

In their legal work, her lawyers learned about Monica Lewinsky. Prosecutor Kenneth Starr decided that Clinton hadn't told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in being questioned about these women, and so Starr pursued perjury charges.

The Jones lawyers agreed to a narrow definition of "sexual relations" that inexplicably, for it was to Clinton's advantage, omitted oral sex.

Thus and therefore, the Impeachment inquiry died a-borning.

And yes, Clinton settled out of court with PJ for $850,000. De jure, there was no admission, no apology. De facto, what you will.

by Anonymousreply 411May 10, 2016 5:15 PM

One more point: The women accusing Cosby (or the man next door) of sexual assault seek personal justice. They are not alleging, and cannot be accused of doing so, in order to affect politics, which is to say, the nation's future. .

Those accusing Bill Clinton and by association Hillary Clinton ARE so attempting.. Clearly, with certain accusers STILL refusing to file lawsuits but will speak only NOT under oath are not seeking any true justice; they can be and should be seen as seeking only to derail the electoral process.

Are these women (Juanita, Kathleen, et al.) telling the truth? Whatever they believe happened, they are not willing to swear by it.

by Anonymousreply 412May 10, 2016 5:30 PM

I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away. — Juanita Broaddrick

by Anonymousreply 413May 10, 2016 5:44 PM

btw Juanita Broderick voted for Obama, so she is not being used by the GOP

by Anonymousreply 414May 10, 2016 5:45 PM

Juanita Brodderick's Wikipedia page states: rumors circulated about Broaddrick's allegations for many years, but she refused to speak to the media and, as "Jane Doe #5," filed an affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating that the rumors were unfounded. In an interview with Dateline NBC, that aired on February 24, 1999, Broaddrick claimed she had indeed been raped by Clinton. [She says after the alleged rape]: Broadrrick says she did not tell her then-husband, Gary Hickey, about the incident, and told him she accidentally injured her lip. He told NBC he did not remember the injury or her excuse.

At the time, she was having an affair with her eventual second husband, David Broaddrick. He says he noticed her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her when he asked about it. Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers’ sister. Rogers and Darden hated Clinton because he commuted the sentence of the man that killed their father.

Rather than going to the police, Broaddrick went to a Republican operative to report this information. Broaddrick's husband said he would ask Clinton "for a couple of big favors."

by Anonymousreply 415May 10, 2016 5:47 PM

Since the 1992 campaign, journalists had chased after Mrs. Broaddrick, a resistant quarry if ever there was one. With the advent of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, the chase took on a new level of intensity. A Fox News crew pursued her down the highway, as she tried to outrace them at 90 miles an hour. Time magazine reporters trying to get to her pretended they were covering a local tennis benefit. The Broaddricks’ phone rang incessantly with requests for interviews, all of them refused until one weekend last January.

Mrs. Broaddrick finally agreed to see NBC’s Lisa Myers, who had already done a brief report on her in March and who had been calling her regularly for nearly a year. Within a day, Ms. Myers and a crew were on their way, even as an ABC producer was on the phone asking if Mrs. Broaddrick would come to New York to meet with Barbara Walters. Too late—nor was she about to vault from home, where she was surrounded by all that gave comfort and warmth, to go rushing to New York to talk about this with a stranger. It was hard enough with a reporter familiar to her.

“I just don’t think anyone would have believed me,” she told Myers.

Interview below

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 416May 10, 2016 5:52 PM

If only, Lisa Myers, a TV REPORTER, could have interviewed her under oath. Was she afraid Barbra Walters was going to administer an oath and hold her to her word as if it were something like, say, testimony? Would Barbra ask her about what favors the guy she cheated on her first husband with was asking the Clintons for? How come she went to the Republicans and not the police? Why she either lied to Paula Jones' attorney with her deposition saying the rumors were unfounded or Lisa Myers by saying she was raped.

Would a deposition be administeredunder oath? So then she perjured herself then when she said the rumors were unfounded...wow, R416!

by Anonymousreply 417May 10, 2016 6:30 PM

Dennis Hastert can rape teenage boys yet Republican idiots like the OP will focus in on a blowjob in 1996 to scuttle a presidential campaign.

by Anonymousreply 418May 10, 2016 6:39 PM

R417 usually posters here at DL say Barbra Walters is a lousy interviewer who throws softball questions.

R418 we are talking about sexual assault. But I guess you don't #IStandByVictims

by Anonymousreply 419May 10, 2016 6:40 PM

The thing about Barbra Walters was sarcasm, R419. Cause it doesn't matter, in a deposition during the Paula Jones suit, Broaddrick said the rumors of her rape were unfounded. Depositions are administered under oath. So are you saying she lied under oath about the rape?

by Anonymousreply 420May 10, 2016 6:44 PM

[quote] So are you saying she lied under oath about the rape?

It is called shaming the victim.

Some of us seem to be so quick to judge women for not stepping forward and reporting their assaults in a timely manner, yet we discount the fact that, for many of these women, their automatic coping mechanism has been to suppress or even deny their traumas had ever happened.

And it's only many years later, when they are sitting in their psychotherapist's office, dealing with severe anxiety or debilitating depression, or trying to overcome somatic body memories such as chronic migraines, stomach aches or sleep disorders, when the truth of their traumatic personal history comes out, layer by layer.

The truth always eventually comes out.

by Anonymousreply 421May 10, 2016 6:51 PM

No, R408, but she would've won much more respect had she ended the marriage, continued her career and helped raise the daughter. The "stand by your man" thing, especially since it looks designed to keep him as an accessory to her own career, doesn't play so well in this arena. I'd respect her so much more if she'd gone out on her own and done it all on her own merits -- instead of as a modern day version of Lurleen Wallace.

by Anonymousreply 422May 10, 2016 6:54 PM

Under oath, r413; under oath.

Then get back to us.

by Anonymousreply 423May 10, 2016 6:55 PM

r422, You and your ilk are outright lunatics or liars or both. All a divorce would have engendered was NOT "respect" but cries of "No family values!"

Moreover, "respect" from whom? Republicans? Hahahaha! Her current status as probable Democratic nominee fro President of the United States is evidence enough that HRC has the respect of those she wants it from.

by Anonymousreply 424May 10, 2016 7:01 PM

We'll see, R424. Don't forget what the fucking topic of this thread is.

by Anonymousreply 425May 10, 2016 7:08 PM

[quote] Don't forget what the fucking topic of this thread is.

Yes it is about sexual assault and sex crimes against women.

by Anonymousreply 426May 10, 2016 7:09 PM

So, R421, questioning what someone said under oath -- in this case that rumors of a rape were unfounded -- is called "shaming the victim" according to you. According to her own sworn statement, Broaddrick wasn't a victim, so who am I shaming?

by Anonymousreply 427May 10, 2016 7:09 PM

[quote] According to her own sworn statement, Broaddrick wasn't a victim

it's only many years later, when they are sitting in their psychotherapist's office, dealing with severe anxiety or debilitating depression, or trying to overcome somatic body memories such as chronic migraines, stomach aches or sleep disorders, when the truth of their traumatic personal history comes out, layer by layer.

by Anonymousreply 428May 10, 2016 7:33 PM

It's HER truth! Her TRUTH!

by Anonymousreply 429May 10, 2016 7:35 PM

Or the simple answer was she was lying to the press but told the truth under oath, R428. The deposition WAS years later. It's a bit hard to explain under oath why you were trying to extort political favors out of the situation.

But thank you for stopping by DL Mr. Trump. Hope you enjoyed playing. Better luck next election.

by Anonymousreply 430May 10, 2016 7:50 PM

[quote]it's only many years later, when they are sitting in their psychotherapist's office, dealing with severe anxiety or debilitating depression, or trying to overcome somatic body memories such as chronic migraines, stomach aches or sleep disorders, when the truth of their traumatic personal history comes out, layer by layer.

MARY, please. The woman swore an affidavit almost TWENTY YEARS after Clinton allegedly raped her stating that he'd in fact never made any sexual advances toward her. She decided he'd raped her after all only when the Lewinsky scandal broke and Clinton looked like a vulnerable target.

And whether Broadderick was raped or not, HILLARY Clinton assuredly was not the rapist.

by Anonymousreply 431May 10, 2016 7:51 PM

Bottom line:

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, not Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, are our major-party candidates for POTUS.

Hillary Clinton never raped, assaulted, or sexually harassed anyone. Donald Trump—who knows? I suspect we'll be finding out.

Hillary Clinton never went on Howard Stern to rate famous women on their fuck-ability and discuss all the chicks she's bagged; Donald Trump did so dozens of times.

Hillary Clinton has never publicly discussed her own daughter's hot body or suggested she'd probably want to fuck her daughter if they weren't related; Donald Trump has done so, and more than once.

Hillary Clinton wants to protect and advance the rights of American women; Donald Trump thinks women already have it better than men.

A vote for Trump is a vote against women—and everyone who GENUINELY cares about women's rights and well-being knows that. It's why 70% of female voters have a negative opinion of Trump. OP's "thesis" is preposterous.

by Anonymousreply 432May 10, 2016 8:03 PM

[quote] Hillary Clinton never raped, assaulted, or sexually harassed anyone

Guilt by association. Some people get thrown into jail for driving the get-a-way car or even taking a message from a drug dealer.

by Anonymousreply 433May 10, 2016 8:05 PM

R433, I am convinced you are retarded. Driving a getaway car is NOT guilt by association, It's GUILT. If you need anyone to explain this to you than you are a YUGE fucking moron, and not the plain old, regular fucking moron that I think you are.

by Anonymousreply 434May 10, 2016 8:12 PM

R434 what about just taking a telephone message? You know how many people have thrown into jail with long sentences for innocently taking a phone message? Not realizing it was for the trafficking of drugs?

by Anonymousreply 435May 10, 2016 8:18 PM

[quote] . Driving a getaway car is NOT guilt by association, It's GUILT.

So according to your logic when Hillary set up the "Bimbo" Brigade to discredit all those women, and drag their names through the mud, it is guilt.

Great that we agree!

by Anonymousreply 436May 10, 2016 8:20 PM

Great, r436, glad to see you have come around to understanding that these women WERE bimbos that deserved to be squashed. Extorting political favors money...they were hoes who knew what they were doing with a horn dog. .

by Anonymousreply 437May 10, 2016 8:23 PM

Are you retarded, r435? Bill Clinton has never been charged with, let alone convicted of, a sex crime, so Hillary's hardly going to be found guilty just for being his wife. Or for taking phone messages from his bimbos. Or whatever the hell it is that you're fumbling to say with that stupid analogy.

You queens can keep fucking this dog til Election Day arrives, but the fact is that Bill Clinton's sexual activities will have no bearing on the outcome of the election. Women's issues, however, likely will play a role--and not to the benefit of Donald Trump.

by Anonymousreply 438May 10, 2016 8:27 PM

[quote] Bill Clinton's sexual activities

Again not sexual activities, his history of sexual ASSAULT. there is a difference.

by Anonymousreply 439May 10, 2016 8:30 PM

Only the assault that happened in your mind, R439.

by Anonymousreply 440May 10, 2016 8:32 PM

Call it what you will, but again, it will have no bearing on the outcome of the election, r439.

by Anonymousreply 441May 10, 2016 8:33 PM

we will never see R440 use the hashtag #IBelieveVictims

by Anonymousreply 442May 10, 2016 8:33 PM

R441 why don't you support victims of sexual assault?

by Anonymousreply 443May 10, 2016 8:35 PM

No, R442, you won't. And if I am unfortunate to be sexually assaulted, I will handle it in the real world and not on the echo chamber that is twitter.

by Anonymousreply 444May 10, 2016 8:37 PM

[quote] [R441] why don't you support victims of sexual assault?

Why do you hate women, r443? Only someone who hates women would consider supporting a misogynist pig like Trump.

But it doesn't matter what you think of women or I think about sexual assault, the fact is that Clinton's cock and the places it's been will not affect the outcome of this election.

by Anonymousreply 445May 10, 2016 8:45 PM

[quote] the fact is that Clinton's cock and the places it's been will not affect the outcome of this election.

No Means NO

Sex without consent is Rape 1. End of story.

by Anonymousreply 446May 10, 2016 8:46 PM

Bitches, at some point you have to stop arguing with it. We've gone way past the point of establishing obsession and mania here.

by Anonymousreply 447May 10, 2016 8:52 PM

I've decided it's a parody troll. Nobody could be so fucking stupid as to post on a site for gay men expecting them to be feminists or to give a shit who Bill Clinton has fucked.

by Anonymousreply 448May 10, 2016 8:53 PM

[quote]Sex without consent is Rape 1. End of story.

Yup. And Clinton's cock still ain't going to have a thing to do with the outcome of the upcoming election, trollerina.

by Anonymousreply 449May 10, 2016 8:55 PM

Awwww, but I'm so bored, R447 and playing with trolls passes the time.

by Anonymousreply 450May 10, 2016 8:56 PM

R446 "Sex without consent is Rape 1."

Actually, no it isn't.

by Anonymousreply 451May 10, 2016 8:59 PM

[quote]But this goes to the type of company she keeps.

How about the company Trump keeps? Is anyone impressed with Trump's wives, including the current Eastern European sex worker wife? How about the wife he raped?

by Anonymousreply 452May 10, 2016 9:23 PM

R335, have you looked at Bill? He's not all that, has a small crooked penis, and a scorching case of herpes. If not for his position of power why would Monica have been with him?

by Anonymousreply 453May 10, 2016 9:27 PM

R452, how about the balls to bring your mistress (Marla Maples) on the same vaction that you are on with your wife (Ivana). All Clinton has to do is resurrect the photos of the big showdown on the Swiss mountain between Maples and Ivana after Ivana found out Donald packed the mistress.

by Anonymousreply 454May 10, 2016 9:34 PM

r429, I've started False Repressed Memories therapy. I'll get something on you yet!

by Anonymousreply 455May 11, 2016 5:39 AM

Have any of Bill Clinton's accusers been psychologically evaluated? If they were raped, why didn't they go to the police?

by Anonymousreply 456May 11, 2016 6:02 AM

r456 doesn't understand trauma.

by Anonymousreply 457May 11, 2016 6:04 AM

[quote] "Sex without consent is Rape 1." Actually, no it isn't.

Yes it is and any first year law student will tell you it is. That is the law.

by Anonymousreply 458May 11, 2016 2:54 PM

While 75 per cent of women believe most claims of sexual assault, only 59 per cent of men do. Men are also twice as likely to think sexual assault claims are false, though it’s a merciful two per cent.

Men are more likely to say sexual assault is not very or not at all common, at 22 per cent. A whopping 93 per cent of women, on the other hand, say it’s very or somewhat common. Men are more likely to say the issue is exaggerated by women’s groups, and less likely to say sexual assault is the fault of the perpetrator. The poll also suggests men are less likely to believe that perpetrators (men) might feel entitled to victims (women’s) bodies.

I don’t even need to extrapolate a probable cause for all this, because it’s also right there in the data: Women are more likely to say sexual assault has touched their life or that of someone they know, and they are more likely to say sexual assault is underreported.

It makes sense, though it’s lazy, that someone wouldn’t understand what they haven’t experienced: namely, the sexualization of yourself in very facet of life, for men’s and society’s sake. Women, on the other hand, experience sexual assault like the weather. It also explains very clearly how unwilling many men remain.

This pervasiveness of both sexism and disbelief in sexism has given us such gems as the “attention-seeking” woman who risks personal and professional backlash in order to press sexual-assault charges, and Conservative MP Michelle Rempel, whose pedestrian, even mundane account of sexual harassment went viral, as if it were new, racy, or surprising.

This disbelief also feeds the need to celebrate any evidence of belief. But men, more than women, don’t need applause: What they need is a little help getting this whole sexism thing.

by Anonymousreply 459May 11, 2016 2:58 PM

Back to the OP: NO.

What's Trump's argument? "Hey, Ivana DIVORCED me over my adultery! SHE was the real FEMINIST, not Enabler-in-Chief Hillary! And when I dumped Marla, SHE didn't fight it, unlike Married-At-All-Costs Hillary! Folks, look at my third wife. She's great, right? Not some old broad in a pantsuit!"

Is that what you're proposing as his "trump card," OP?

by Anonymousreply 460May 11, 2016 3:20 PM

R460 - 75 per cent of women believe most claims of sexual assault, only 59 per cent of men do. Men are also twice as likely to think sexual assault claims are false, though it’s a merciful two per cent.

by Anonymousreply 461May 11, 2016 3:24 PM

r461, Thanks for the non sequitur. Let me try again:

Trump's adulteries and multiple (and foreign) wives vs. Hillary's steadfastness and RE-HASHED, NOT NEWS, BT/DT, UNPROVEN allegations about her husband---it doesn't matter WHAT various percentages of the genders give credence to, in GENERAL---

If the OP thinks this approach will defeat HRC, I hope he will have a well-stocked liquor cabinet for the morning of November ninth.

by Anonymousreply 462May 11, 2016 3:37 PM

non sequitur? Again shows why men like you are also twice as likely to think sexual assault claims are false.

by Anonymousreply 463May 11, 2016 3:43 PM

R458, not it isn't and stop trying to argue the law with a lawyer. Sex assault crimes run a spectrum and you're perpetuating a sexist narrative that anything less than rape 1 isn't significant. Most if not all states require more than just non-consent for first degree rape. For example, in NY rape 1 requires force, or the person is rendered helpless (i.e. tied up) or the victim is a child under 13. Rape 2 is a victim under 15 if the per is more than 4 years older, or victim is incapable of consent (i.e. mentally disabled). Rape 3 is victim is incapable of consent (i.e. intoxicated), victim is under 17 if perp is over 21. "Sex without consent" in NY is deemed "sexual misconduct," which is an A misdemeanor.

by Anonymousreply 464May 11, 2016 3:52 PM

R464 then you better tell the show runners of Law & Order SVU because they continue to have their characters say "Sex without consent is Rape 1"

by Anonymousreply 465May 11, 2016 3:54 PM

You're learning law from a scripted drama? No wonder you keep saying stupid shit.

by Anonymousreply 466May 11, 2016 4:27 PM

R466 Again shows why men like you are also twice as likely to think sexual assault claims are false.

by Anonymousreply 467May 11, 2016 4:29 PM

Not a man, but keep trying. Maybe some stupid thing you say will actually be correct.

by Anonymousreply 468May 11, 2016 4:33 PM

Madeline Albright says there is a special place in hell for women like R466 who don't support other women

by Anonymousreply 469May 11, 2016 4:36 PM

Funny, I haven't said anything about the accusers. I've only corrected your completely wrong assertion about the law. You assume because I called you out for being wrong that I don't support victims of sexual assault? Again, stupid mistake on your part.

By the way, since we're talking about allegations against Clinton that mostly occurred in Arkansas, their rape statute requires force, a victim who is incapable of consent due to disability or physical helplessness or under 14.

Stop spreading misinformation. You're hurting victims by doing that.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 470May 11, 2016 4:42 PM

r463, I'm a Frau, and you didn't even read past the first line of my post. I addressed your assertions.

by Anonymousreply 471May 11, 2016 5:17 PM

The tide is turning (slowly) against Hillary

Dear Hillary: I'm a Sexual Assault Survivor, and I Can't Bring Myself to Vote For You

Dear Secretary Clinton,

First, I must congratulate you on your campaign. It’s now only a matter of time until you will be named the official party nominee, and, most likely, our first female president. You have fought vigorously for this moment, and have more than earned the reward. You are, in fact, the only candidate I could see myself supporting in this election. But I can’t vote for you—not yet—and I wanted to write you today in the hope that you might better understand who I am, and why many women like me feel the same way.

I am registered Democrat. An every-election voter. A mother. A wife. An atheist. A student. A photographer. I, like all of us, am a culmination of so many things. Yet the two that define me most are “feminist” and “survivor.” These identities, for me, cannot be separated. They are intertwined in a complicated yet empowering way. I am a survivor of child molestation by a family member, and later, I became an adult survivor of rape—twice. I was date raped in 1997, and in 2013 I was drugged and raped while working as a photographer at a wedding. He was a naval officer, and I’m sure you can imagine the difficult decision I faced when contemplating whether I should press charges. Ultimately, I didn’t. I sometimes hate myself for it, but I know I wouldn’t have survived the court-martial process and the assault on my character.

On November 22nd, you tweeted, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” You are so exactly right. According to a Stanford study, only about two percent of claims are false. Even so, we are dismissed, ridiculed, threatened, smeared, and made to feel that we are to blame. I don’t speak much of the date rape incident, but I am vocal about 2013. I, like many others, am often asked questions like, “what were you wearing?” and “how much did you have to drink?” These moments hurt, and it’s only the start of the long, painful, and embarrassing road ahead of us.

Your November tweet was moving, to say the least. However, I must ask why you continuously contributed to the problems we face. This may seem unfair, but I implore you to hear me out. Honestly, I do not blame you for your husband’s bad deeds, and I do not blame you for standing by him when his affairs with Monica Lewisnky and Paula Jones came to light during his impeachment trial. We love who we love, and you were a victim of his behavior. However, I do take issue with how you have yet to “believe and support” the multiple women who have alleged sexual misconduct and rape against Mr. Clinton.

Had this only been one accusation, I suppose you could say, “I know him too well.” I’d have understood. But we know there wasn’t just one allegation. There have been a string of accusations, and your handling of each one has shown a distinct lack of “belief and support.”

Juanita Broaddrick accused your husband of violent rape in a hotel room in 1978. Paula Jones was awarded an $850,000 settlement after accusing Mr. Clinton of sexual harassment. Kathleen Willey claims she was sexually assaulted during his first term as president. Then there’s the Monica Lewinsky affair, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

All of these women have something more in common than suffering abuse at the hands of your husband. That commonality is you, Secretary Clinton. Broaddrick wrote that you threatened her at a campaign event only weeks after the incident. When asked about this recently on the campaign trail, you called a survivor of rape “very rude.” Your instances of dismissive and/or aggressive behavior to these women became a pattern. Paula Jones was dismissed as trailer park trash by James Carville, one of your top strategists. Willey said of you, “she chooses to go after the women that he hooks up with, to ruin them again and again…”

by Anonymousreply 472May 11, 2016 5:39 PM

There’s no better example of that than Monica Lewinsky, who was disgustingly slut-shamed on the internet after the affair was revealed. You called her a “narcissistic looney toon” and refused to entertain the idea that maybe your husband had wielded power in an abusive way over a confused 24-year-old. Then you had the audacity to accuse her of not allowing Mr. Clinton to break it off. Ms. Lewinsky was harassed at the time, and continues to be harassed today. As she speaks out on this issue of cyber-bullying, she is flooded with hate speech from your supporters. Yet you remain silent. I understand that this woman has caused you pain—so has Bill, but you now defend him and idly sit by as this woman is endlessly tormented. Where is your compassion? Where is your sisterhood to women?

I understand that it’s easy to call these accusations a “vast right wing conspiracy,” or attribute the accusations to women looking for fame. That’s the easy way out. I’m sure you believe the Bill Cosby accusers, and if Cosby can be the monster he is, why can’t the same be true of Mr. Clinton? He is not above reproach, and again, I would remind you that 98 percent of claims are legitimate.

This….this is why I cannot vote for you. The survivor in me says “no, she’s not your ally,” and the feminist in me agrees. You are the most influential woman in America, perhaps in the world. Why won’t you live up to your words? Show us that we are not forgotten. Show us that the most powerful woman has our back, and that we deserve to have a voice. Believe in us, and believe them. They spoke out. They were the brave ones; be brave with us.

I end this in saying that I don’t consider you beyond redemption. I want to vote for you—I want to like you. I truly believe, politically speaking, there has never been any one person more qualified for the office. You may not see this as the one issue that should negate all those positives, but to some survivors, that’s exactly what it is.

There are days when the only thing that keeps me going is the understanding and support of the ladies in my life. These gestures are vital for us as we move from “victim” to “survivor.” So, please help us. Renounce the smear campaigns of the past, and tell your husband and the rest of us that you hear and believe his accusers. The moment that happens, you will have my unwavering support. Until then, I abstain from this election. Please know that I don’t mean that as a threat, but only to show how deeply this critical issue affects me. I know you’d like my support, Madam Secretary, but first I will need yours.

—Angel Morton

by Anonymousreply 473May 11, 2016 5:40 PM

Has Angel Morton also written an open letter to Trump, whose first wife accused him of rape and who is a big fan of Clarence Thomas? Or does Angel Morton not bother because it's obvious Trump doesn't actually give a shit about women who've been sexually assaulted?

by Anonymousreply 474May 11, 2016 6:26 PM

r474 has issued an edict

He cares nothing for Angel, either.

by Anonymousreply 475May 11, 2016 6:30 PM

R475, that would be she. And I would be more impressed with Angel if the open letter was to both candidates about how this is a shitty election for sexual assault survivors all around. See, pretending as OP does that Trump has some one-up on Clinton because of this issue is just a dead giveaway that you don't really care about this issue. Just like all those conservatives who suddenly pretended to care about men "wielding power in an abusive way" in the workplace when the Lewinsky scandal broke (even though Lewinsky never claimed Clinton victimized her) just a few short years after lying their asses off about Anita Hill.

by Anonymousreply 476May 11, 2016 6:37 PM

There is nothing worse than people who use others that DON'T consider themselves victims.

by Anonymousreply 477May 11, 2016 6:48 PM

There's nothing more empowering for a woman than insisting she's a victim even if she says otherwise.

In that spirit, I want to start a "Save Melania!" campaign.

by Anonymousreply 478May 11, 2016 6:54 PM

Do any of these outraged SJW actually care about what the laws are in these states where the alleged events occurred, the expiration of the statute of limitations without charges being filed, the complete lack of testimony under oath by anyone, or what the common beliefs were about rape at that time, not this time?

There's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That presumption does not apply to everyone in America except Bill Clinton.

Nor is there any reason why Trump should get an unquestioned pass on Ivana's rape story, when she gave evidence under penalty of perjury and the evidence is a court document. Yet we all know Trump will get a pass because he's a Republican and the media will refuse to confront him about it.

Whether Bill Clinton is a nice guy isn't the issue. He's not running. The issue is, a woman is getting bashed and attacked for "condoning rape" when there's no legal evidence there even was a rape.

Why isn't Ivana getting bashed and attacked for recanting? She let a rapist go unpunished and is lying to help a rapist get elected. Ivana gets a pass because she's seen as a sympathetic person. People like her better. That's all.

by Anonymousreply 479May 11, 2016 7:03 PM

Men are also less gullible and prefer tangible proof to believe anything. You folks (women?) who will just take any story as true are insane, especially in this day and age. Get this through your fucking two heads: People. Lie.

by Anonymousreply 480May 11, 2016 7:07 PM

[quote] See, pretending as OP does that Trump has some one-up on Clinton because of this issue is just a dead giveaway that you don't really care about this issue.

Exactly. If you really give a shit about sexual assault victims, to the extent that the issue plays a big role into your voting decisions, you might think, "I wish Hillary had been more sympathetic to Monica Lewinsky and called out Bill for exploiting an impressionable young intern," or "I wish Hillary would make some sort of public statement concerning the unproven allegations that Bill has assaulted a number of women." But you would never think, "I guess I'll vote for Trump instead of HRC because he seems so much more likely to stand up for and protect women." Please, Louise. Trump in fact seems far more likely Hillary or any other candidate in recent memory to have committed a rape or sexual assault himself.

by Anonymousreply 481May 11, 2016 7:19 PM

He is also the only candidate in recent memory to openly lust after his own daughter.

by Anonymousreply 482May 11, 2016 8:04 PM

You wish Hillary had shown some kind of disapproval at Bill's affairs? If only she had:

Seems first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton has a temper to match her hubby's. Wicked Washington whispers claim Hillary broke a lamp during a heated late night argument with the president. Not to worry: The lamp was in the family quarters, belonged to the Clintons and 'wasn't a priceless antique, or anything like that,' says a White House source.

According to WaPo, The Residence also references two other instances of things allegedly being thrown during the Clinton years — both of which were books. In one, a White House maid is said to have gone into the Clintons' bedroom not too long after news of Bill's affair came out and found blood all over the bed; the book says that Bill “insisted that he'd hurt himself running into the bathroom door in the middle of the night” and subsequently got stitches. In reference to that story, an anonymous worker told Brower, “We're pretty sure she clocked him with a book.” WaPo notes that news reports at the time contained nothing about the President having stitches — which doesn't necessarily mean he didn't have them, but “maybe he did, maybe he didn't” is not a solid “yes, he had them” or “no, he didn't have them.”

The other story described to Brower by a White House staffer involved Hillary allegedly pitching a copy of Leaves of Grass at Bill through the bedroom door. Whether or not it was supposed to be the copy Bill later gave to Monica Lewinsky remains to be seen. [Bill gave Hillary a copy of the book when they were courting as a romantic gift. Later, it became known he gave the same book to Lewinsky as a romantic gift. Apparently, Hillary tried to shove it up his ass].

Clinton himself also said publicly that Hillary had him sleeping on the couch for months.

by Anonymousreply 483May 11, 2016 9:41 PM

At the time, this stuff was reported and everybody knew. These revisionist ideas that Hillary wasn't hurt by what Bill did, or didn't care what he did, are a lie.

I'm getting really irritated by millennials who weren't around back then completely mis-characterizing everything that happened because they think bashing Hillary helps Bernie. History is history. You don't get to change it to bash a Presidential candidate.

This stuff was on TV and in the newspapers EVERY DAY. All day. It was like the OJ trial. Every time you turned on the TV it was there. Pretending nobody knew what was happening is ridiculous. Every fucking person on earth knew everything. They couldn't hide anything. Their kid knew everything. There was no escaping it.

Everywhere Hillary went, people were speculating about what she thought and how they were getting along. Whether they would divorce. What they told Chelsea. They had no privacy at all.

That bitch has to be made out of steel.

by Anonymousreply 484May 11, 2016 9:56 PM

Bill did not have "an affair" with PJ, nor did she allege so. I really hate when even well-intended and heart-felt complaints can't take care to get their own supporting details correct. And we all know who's in the details.

by Anonymousreply 485May 11, 2016 10:00 PM

To r473 and "Angel Morton":

"....Monica Lewinsky, who was disgustingly slut-shamed on the internet after the affair was revealed..."

Revealed by whom to the Great Unwashed? BY KENNETH STARR, nosing after and then publishing all the salacious details he could ferret out. So blame HIM for the subsequent treatment of Monica Lewinsky.

by Anonymousreply 486May 11, 2016 10:06 PM

If it isnt fair to hold Hillary accountable for her husband's doggery then Melania should be off limits. She was a model. Ever read anything about Terry Richardson? Every young model gets presented with choices that are not always in their best interests but they need the work. Trump didn't cheat on anyone with Melania. He was seeing another woman when he met her and he asked for her number and she refused to give it to him. She's educated and well spoken and she speaks two or three languages and she's been described as very smart. What she did in her youth should remain in the past. What Hillary needs to do is continually hit him on why he never, ever talks about anything of substance and to spell out what his foreign and domestic policies are. In detail. But of course he can't so he will hide behind obstinacy. Women will have her back. Even old hens liked me who love Bernie.

by Anonymousreply 487May 11, 2016 10:10 PM

I don't think Team HRC has uttered Word One about Melania. That was done by Republicans.

by Anonymousreply 488May 11, 2016 10:48 PM

Out in the real world Hillary isn't going to be able to flag people.

by Anonymousreply 489May 11, 2016 11:02 PM

Not yet, r488, but there are some shady characters in her campaign and they like to play dirty. That's why they're there. Don't act like you don't know that.

by Anonymousreply 490May 11, 2016 11:08 PM

In one, a White House maid is said to have gone into the Clintons' bedroom not too long after news of Bill's affair came out and found blood all over the bed.

by Anonymousreply 491May 11, 2016 11:13 PM

Hillary was furious not because he cheated, but like most political wives, because everyone found out. He risked all they (SHE) worked hard for just for a piece of ass. I bet Chelsea didn't speak to Bill for months as well. Imagine being a teenager (especially a girl) and having the whole world know your dad got a blow job from a 22 year old intern at home. That must be humiliating. They are very lucky Chelsea turned out well-at least to our knowledge. For all we know, she probably still isn't close to Bill. I always got the impression she is much closer to Hillary than she is to her dad.

by Anonymousreply 492May 11, 2016 11:21 PM

[quote]I bet Chelsea didn't speak to Bill for months as well.

Jesse Jackson bullied Chelsea into forgiving Bill, but the good Reverend later got busted for being a pig as well.

by Anonymousreply 493May 11, 2016 11:28 PM

Rapist trump will NEVER EVER BE KING OF AMERICA. NEVER EVER--we will elect a lizard person before this ever happens

by Anonymousreply 494May 12, 2016 1:05 AM

This isn’t about private affairs, the internal dynamic of the Clintons’ marriage or a wronged wife. No one cares about the Clintons’ marriage, least of all the Clintons. In addition to being vastly too byzantine to unravel, Bill’s philandering might affect what we think of him as a husband and father, but it doesn’t reflect one iota on Hillary Clinton.

But to say Hillary is an innocent victim would be incorrect. The overwhelming evidence is that her husband committed repeated predatory sexual acts, in some cases violently, Hillary knew that, and she helped him by muddying up his accusers.

The media worked hand-in-glove with the Clintons’ enablers, Betsy Wright and (future objective journalist) George Stephanopoulos, to conceal Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” — as the campaign called them — as long as they could. But when Paula Jones sued President Clinton for sexual harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his treatment of other women became relevant evidence in her case.

That’s when the floodgates opened.

Jones alleged that, when she was an employee of the state of Arkansas, Governor Clinton had state troopers bring her to his hotel room, where he proceeded to drop his pants and tell her to “kiss it” — then warned her that he knew her boss.

Either voluntarily or by legal compulsion, a slew of women attested to sexual encounters with Bill Clinton — Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Monica Lewinsky, and several dozen cocktail waitresses along the interstate corridor between Little Rock and Washington. Many more told their stories, but said they were afraid to use their names.

Highly credible women who don’t know one another have given convincing accounts of Clinton’s unwanted sexual attentions, from groping, to flashing to violent rape. Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegation convinced NBC News. It also convinced congressmen, who read her testimony, that they should reverse their positions and vote to impeach Clinton.

Hillary knew what her husband was doing and yet, over and over again, she helped him cover it up and destroy the women, portraying them as stalkers, blackmailers and loons. As one of Bill’s mistresses, former Miss Arkansas Sally Perdue, told the Daily Mail (U.K.), Hillary has a “vengeful, spiteful ugliness … And she’s championing women’s causes?”

This patron saint of victims made it her business to inflict more harm on Bill’s marks, specific examples of which will be covered in a future column.

Until then, know that when journalists talk about Bill Clinton’s “sexual peccadilloes” and refer to Hillary as a “victim,” that’s not remotely what it was. He was a sexual predator and she was his willing co-conspirator.

-Ann Coulter

by Anonymousreply 495May 12, 2016 1:36 AM

Oh, well, if Ann Coulter said it, it must be true.

by Anonymousreply 496May 12, 2016 1:44 AM

Bill and Hill are the most calculating, cutthroat political assassins in modern history. Trump is toast.

by Anonymousreply 497May 12, 2016 2:08 AM

[quote] Bill and Hill are the most calculating, cutthroat political assassins in modern history.

But they couldn't take out Obama

by Anonymousreply 498May 12, 2016 2:11 AM

LOL Bill can't even remember where he is anymore.

by Anonymousreply 499May 12, 2016 2:11 AM

Over a dozen women have accused Clinton of assault, rape, harassment, unwanted touching & they are all hos. Yet the women who accuse Cosby are to be believed.

by Anonymousreply 500May 12, 2016 1:07 PM

Ask Ann Coulter how "highly credible" is, then watch her contort herself into Kama Sutra-like positions to insist that Hill was a crazy lying hack while Jones and Broaddrick were unimpeachable.

by Anonymousreply 501May 12, 2016 1:14 PM

Sorry, that should read "Ask Ann Coulter how "highly credible" Anita Hill is."

by Anonymousreply 502May 12, 2016 1:16 PM

As Ronan Farrow wrote in his recent Op-Ed (

With sexual assault, anything's easier than facing it in full, saying all of it, facing all of the consequences

What makes powerful men so difficult to cover. The allegations were never backed by a criminal conviction. This is important. It should always be noted. But it is not an excuse for the press to silence victims, to never interrogate allegations. Indeed, it makes our role more important when the legal system so often fails the vulnerable as they face off against the powerful.

Very often, women with allegations do not or cannot bring charges. Very often, those who do come forward pay dearly, facing off against a justice system and a culture designed to take them to pieces. A reporter's role isn't to carry water for those women. But it is our obligation to include the facts, and to take them seriously. Sometimes, we're the only ones who can play that role.

Confronting a subject with allegations from women or children, not backed by a simple, dispositive legal ruling is hard. It means having those tough newsroom conversations, making the case for burning bridges with powerful public figures. It means going up against angry fans and angry publicists. There are more reporters than ever showing that courage, and more outlets supporting them. Many are of a new generation, freed from the years of access journalism that can accrete around older publications. BuzzFeed has done pioneering reporting on recent Hollywood sexual assault stories. It was Gawker that asked why allegations against Bill Cosby weren't taken more seriously.

That kind of silence isn't just wrong. It's dangerous. It sends a message to victims that it's not worth the anguish of coming forward. It sends a message about who we are as a society, what we'll overlook, who we'll ignore, who matters and who doesn't.

But there is more work to do to build a culture where women are no longer treated as if they are invisible. It's time to ask some hard questions.

Which begs the question why is DLers not on the side of sexual assault victims?

by Anonymousreply 503May 12, 2016 1:19 PM

[quote] Ask Ann Coulter how "highly credible" is, then watch her contort herself into Kama Sutra-like positions to insist that Hill was a crazy lying hack

Easy, Anita Hill followed Thomas to the second job after he had already allegedly harassed her, Later had personal contacts with Thomas, including giving him a ride to an airport—behavior which they said would be inexplicable if Hill's allegations were true

she had had two "inconsequential" phone conversations with Thomas, and had seen him personally on two occasions; once to get a job reference and the second time when he made a public appearance in Oklahoma where she was teaching.

by Anonymousreply 504May 12, 2016 1:25 PM

The OP's prognostication is this: That everything delineated in Ann Coulter's column---factual or not----will de-rail HRC and be THE cause of a Trump victory. THE cause.

Now, Trump might win, but that's a bet with money you can afford to lose. Nonetheless, let's play along and say Trump wins.

After Trump's talk of immigration, of jobs, of ISIS, of national security, would anyone really attempt to say his victory was "because of Bill Clinton's Affairs"?

by Anonymousreply 505May 12, 2016 1:34 PM

Daily Caller asks

"But as long as we’re asking hard questions, here’s one for Ronan Farrow:

Who are you supporting in the presidential election this November?

Does Ronan Farrow want such a man back in the White House? Is he willing to look the other way, as he says Hollywood and the media have looked the other way when it comes to his father? Can he really tell himself that the woman who’s been enabling Bill Clinton for decades is in no way responsible for anything he’s done?

tweeting in 2012

"“When you’re knocked down, get right back up.” – Hillary Clinton turns 65 today. I’ve never learned more from a boss"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 506May 12, 2016 1:35 PM

[quote] would anyone really attempt to say his victory was "because of Bill Clinton's Affairs"?

Once the allegations against Cosby picked up steam, it just snowballed. Cosby said he never saw anything like it. But it might not get to that because the media is reluctant to pursue these stories, no matter how many more women come forward.

Where is Gloria Allred in all of this?

by Anonymousreply 507May 12, 2016 1:37 PM

R504, oh you wanna play? Broaddrick swore under oath she was not raped by Clinton, and she attended a fundraiser for him and took a job from him after the alleged rape. She also accused her husband in their divorce of hitting her and causing her the lip injury she later said was from Clinton biting her. Kathleen Wiley lied to the FBI, bragged to Linda Tripp that she was having an affair with Clinton, and sent him multiple letters after the alleged assault asking for a job.

Anyone who says they don't believe Hill but do believe Clinton's accusers is just flashing their freeper card.

by Anonymousreply 508May 12, 2016 2:01 PM

r504:

Juanita: .....In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she was raped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations........Three weeks after the probable date of the rape, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser. (Slate, March, 1999)

Kathleen:  White House records show that after the alleged sexual incident, she called Clinton’s office several times asking to meet with him, and she sent him nine friendly letters, the most recent in November 1996. In one letter she said she was his “number one fan.” Willey also said in her deposition and on 60 Minutes that she had told Clinton about her family financial crisis the day of the alleged advance. But in a 1995 legal document regarding her debts, she said she “did not talk with anyone at the White House” that day about her financial problems. (The Nation, 1999)

Paula: Still living in Arkansas, Jones remarried in 2001, becoming Paula Jones McFadden. She currently works as a real-estate agent. After legal fees she only saw about $150,000 of the settlement cash, so in 2000 she posed nude for Penthouse magazine to "secure" a future for her children. In 2002, she lost a Celebrity Boxing match to Tonya Harding, and earlier this year she attempted to sell audio recordings of her discussions with Gennifer Flowers about their encounters with Clinton over the Internet for $1.99 each. (TIME, May, 2009)

by Anonymousreply 509May 12, 2016 2:44 PM

*Waves to r508, posting as I Googled.*

by Anonymousreply 510May 12, 2016 2:50 PM

r507, Are you in the Wayback Machine? There are no more women in the woodwork; they would have spoken when BILL was running for President.

And "the media is (sic) reluctant to pursue these stories"?????????

WTH were you BORN?!

by Anonymousreply 511May 12, 2016 2:54 PM

So where is Gloria Allred in all of this?

Oh wait, she is supporting Clinton as well.

by Anonymousreply 512May 12, 2016 2:56 PM

Gloria Allred supporting Clinton totally fixes all the Clinton accusers' credibility problems. #freeperlogic

by Anonymousreply 513May 12, 2016 3:05 PM

Gloria Allred is a lawyer. Have any of the women you have in mind retained her services, r507?

Oh, and BTW:

LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, April 28) -- Gloria Allred, a California lawyer who often injects herself into highly publicized cases, said Tuesday she will ask the appeals panel reviewing the Paula Jones suit against President Bill Clinton to allow her to file a "friend of the court" brief.

Jones vs. Clinton was dismissed on April 1 by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, but Jones has announced she would appeal her sexual harassment lawsuit to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wright ruled that Clinton's alleged conduct, even if true, did not constitute sexual assault.

Allred said her brief would focus on what a plaintiff must charge to meet the legal standard for sexual harassment. "In our opinion one act, if severe, is sufficient to constitute sexual harassment," Allred told reporters.

Allred said she has not contacted Jones or her attorneys and was not filing the brief "to help or hurt either of the parties."

She said she would file on behalf of the Women's Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund, a California non-profit organization.

by Anonymousreply 514May 12, 2016 3:22 PM

Gloria Allred? LOL! Biggest bullshit media whore in history. Any time sluts like Tiger Woods' alleged exes need some publicity, they run to Allred. She has ZERO credibility.

by Anonymousreply 515May 12, 2016 4:59 PM

No, r515, your use of "alleged" re: Tiger reflects YOUR credibility or lack thereof.

by Anonymousreply 516May 12, 2016 7:26 PM

Oh dear. Isn't it just awful when people did up stuff from the 90s?

by Anonymousreply 517May 15, 2016 1:14 AM

Isn't the statute of limitations over on Paula Jones?

by Anonymousreply 518May 20, 2016 4:15 PM

I believe that just about everything is over on Paula Jones.

by Anonymousreply 519May 20, 2016 4:19 PM

R230 The Bern Bros are awful.

by Anonymousreply 520January 17, 2020 3:29 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!