Politics Hillary Clinton Chose to Shield a Top Adviser Accused of Harassment in 2008

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Look over there, something shiny!

(you're focused on hairspray and his head?)
Click to expand...
no...I'm focused on someone thinking Trump is ethical and keeping Hillary as a news item a year after she fell from politics in disgrace.....her work for women's rights is pretty far ahead of Trump's anti abortion lobby..and yeah....I find men who spend an hour sculpting their quaff in the morning to be absolutely ridiculous...you wanted to look for something shiny.....hence the Trump hair snark....I don't know....maybe you have the same hairdo...triggered?
 
riverman said:
no...I'm focused on someone thinking Trump is ethical and keeping Hillary as a news item a year after she fell from politics in disgrace.....her work for women's rights is pretty far ahead of Trump's anti abortion lobby..and yeah....I find men who spend an hour sculpting their quaff in the morning to be absolutely ridiculous...you wanted to look for something shiny.....hence the Trump hair snark....I don't know....maybe you have the same hairdo...triggered?
Click to expand...

Who says Trump is ethical?

You're again distracting from the point at hand. The woman who played the woman card protected an advisor who harassed women on her own campaign (as well as her husband all along).
 
Denny Crane said:
Who says Trump is ethical?

You're again distracting from the point at hand. The woman who played the woman card protected an advisor who harassed women on her own campaign (as well as her husband all along).
Click to expand...
Like every person in the public eye who hires an advisor is supposed to know his private life....she's apologized since for being clueless....Oprah was really close to Harvey Weinstein....she's always championing women's issues....I clearly said...double standard in politics and celebrity are a given....these folks have always put their own public image and advancement ahead of the dirt on the rug...if you really hate this woman so much...you should actually do something about it....in court..you've convicted her without a trial repeatedly.
 
riverman said:
Like every person in the public eye who hires an advisor is supposed to know his private life....she's apologized since for being clueless....Oprah was really close to Harvey Weinstein....she's always championing women's issues....I clearly said...double standard in politics and celebrity are a given....these folks have always put their own public image and advancement ahead of the dirt on the rug...if you really hate this woman so much...you should actually do something about it....in court
Click to expand...

She knew and covered it up. Just like she did for her husband for years. The way she treated the brave women who came out against her husband's awful behavior isn't exactly worthy of the woman card, either.
 
Hillary Clinton ran on a platform. Unfortunately it got less coverage than Trump's pussy grabbing, BENGHAZI!!!!! or Bill Clinton, but it is what she ran on. I know it's real hard for some people to comprehend a woman can have a thought out political platform. I know you think she just ran on possessing a vagina. Because you know, no one here is a sexist....
 
Is it not an application of Occam's Razor to say that, in the popularity contest known as the Presidential election, your candidate lost?

Ardent, aging feminists and the LGBT movement are the base of Hillary's power, and they are (if ever they weren't) fringe elements of today's society. Even the power of the minority bloc that votes (D) without regard to platforms or issues was not behind her in force. So you can say that her platform was overrun by what you consider misogyny, but in reality even people that normally gravitate toward that platform (which I'll grossly label as "big government, social safety net, erosion of 'family values'") didn't vote for her.

It would be hypocritical to beat around the bush on my position. I, for one, cannot forgive Benghazi, because I know enough about it and because I live with repercussions of it. And not just what she (as SecState) did or didn't do. Mistakes get made, decisions go awry, good process turns out badly, whatever. But she (and the President) refused to acknowledge the mistake. They thought they could just keep snowing over the 320M serfs and continue on their way. They offered up a YouTube video, instead of their apologies for poor decision-making. And because of it, whatever "platform" she said she stood for is built on a lie. For some people it will be her lies about her email server. For some it will be her lies about Whitewater and/or Bill's shenanigans and her empowerment of them. For some it will be her insistence that the VA does good work For some it's just that she's a generally shitty person who generally treats people shittily. It doesn't matter if she wanted to do the exact same things Trump was doing, she's a proven liar while in government office and in the White House. If you (as a Democratic voter, not crandc) wanted "the Platform", Hillary didn't have to be the candidate, and likely wasn't the best choice for the nomination. But if you wanted "I'm with Her" as the First Woman President, then it had to be.
And the fact that her platform was very similar to the one I've fundamentally disagreed with for 20 years probably doesn't help her (or your) cause. It was a losing platform for Gore, it was a losing platform for Kerry. When Obama won it (and ditched the mainstream elements of it for his Obamatopian view of it) it basically confirmed for me (I won't speak for the masses) that the party whose leadership was Obama, Pelosi and the like; passing things like ACA, the TPP attempt and the "Stimulus"; messing up one Surge in AFG and pulling out of another one in Iraq; giving Iran literally billions of cold, hard cash and releasing 5 really bad dudes to get one terrorist sympathizing deserter back to the US; placing "activist judges" on the Supreme Court--not because they have vaginas, mind you, but because they (incorrectly, as can be told by anyone who passed a civics class) say that courts are where law is made; not living up to agreements with allies or promises to the people to close GTMO and bring the troops home from the Middle East and give them adequate care for getting dinged up overseas...you're right. Instead of having to answer for the folly of the platform, it is easier to explain it away with "racist" and "misogynistic". Especially when the vocal minority of the party is teaching and promoting things like:
I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority."... We (Snopes) asked the DNC whether they could confirm the authenticity of the email. In a statement, National Press Secretary Michael Tyler appeared to offer tacit confirmation that the email was sent, but reflected Leader’s views and not the DNC’s. "The email in question was not authorized by the DNC nor was it authorized by senior leadership. All hiring decisions at the DNC are made consistent with the DNC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and hiring an inclusive and talented staff that reflects the coalition of the Democratic Party, because our diversity is our greatest strength."
Click to expand...
I disagree fundamentally. I don't want a diverse team made up of equal amounts of smart people and stupid people. I don't want a team equally diverse in talent for the position and not-talented. I don't want a team equally mixed between lazy members and hardworking members. In my worldview, mission accomplishment is the goal, and our greatest strength is that we have a single-minded focus that the team works hard to accomplish the mission, and that we take care of our team.

The fact that she barely beat out a Old Cisgender White Male who happens to be a vocal and committed socialist for the nomination (of the Party of Diversity!) should tell you that Hillary isn't popular because she isn't popular. She was losing by 10 points to Giuliani when he collapsed in the Senate race. She lost to Obama. She almost lost to Sanders. She lost to Trump. Maybe it's because of her vagina. Maybe it's because of what's between her ears and what comes out of her mouth. :dunno: But it wasn't because she was "running on a platform". She was running as "I'm Hillary Clinton, First Woman President, dammit!" and trying to get her feminist and LGBT base to vote her in. It barely worked against a Jewish Old White Socialist and didn't against the first viable black candidate nor the most vilified candidate (on either side) in decades.
 
crandc said:
Hillary Clinton ran on a platform. Unfortunately it got less coverage than Trump's pussy grabbing, BENGHAZI!!!!! or Bill Clinton, but it is what she ran on. I know it's real hard for some people to comprehend a woman can have a thought out political platform. I know you think she just ran on possessing a vagina. Because you know, no one here is a sexist....
Click to expand...

She had a platform. An ever changing one due to her primary opponent. He kept her right where she should be, to the left of her platform. And she most CERTAINLY ran on having a Vagina.

Madeline Albright saying: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Basically saying vote for Hillary because... Team vagina...

Over and over again, I had to listen to her bloviate about being the first woman president. It was tiring.

Now, I did vote for a woman. It just wasn't Hillary.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Is it not an application of Occam's Razor to say that, in the popularity contest known as the Presidential election, your candidate lost?
Click to expand...

No. If you are talking popularity contest, she won that one. It was the one that matters, the electoral college, that she lost.

It would be hypocritical to beat around the bush on my position.
Click to expand...

He didn't win the popularity contest either. It's a trend.

I don't want a diverse team made up of equal amounts of smart people and stupid people. I don't want a team equally diverse in talent for the position and not-talented. I don't want a team equally mixed between lazy members and hardworking members. In my worldview, mission accomplishment is the goal
Click to expand...

Well, then I guess congratulations are in order. The current team in office is almost 100% stupid, not-talented, and lazy. Mission accomplished.

barfo
 
riverman said:
having never had a female president any woman candidate is going to do that....what's the problem with it? It's like saying Obama ran on the "black" card...sounds like middle aged white men labeling to me.
Click to expand...

I guess if you have never DONE ANYTHING GOOD FOR AMERICA, running on accidents of birth are all you've got.

Can't imagine why anyone would vote for someone on that basis.
 
dviss1 said:
Play the video and you will get context and understand that Hillary wasn't pandering to blacks like @MARIS61 says.
Click to expand...

Please do watch the video.

Then name all the Caucasian women in their 70's who talk that way.
 
crandc said:
Trump supporters say he was divinely chosen and sent by god, so they have to support everything he does. If they can't, they simply say it never happened, you know, fake news.

I merely thought Hillary Clinton would be a good President, so I can criticize her when she was wrong. She was wrong.

The offender did not get off scot-free, true. And she did not blame the woman or make her continue working with the abuser. But by keeping him on and maintaining public silence, she allowed him to keep a "good name" he did not deserve. And maybe he continued abusing women, just more discreetly.

Why am I not surprised the abuser was "faith" coordinator? Us ordinary sinners might figure we are responsible for our behavior, but those who claim god's authority are immune from responsibility. God took care of it for them.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah Christians are terrible people. Nice cop out to defend that shitbag corrupt Clinton. When all these fake ass celebrities and liberal non-profits (non-profit my ass) raise 1/1000th of the aid that churches in this country do every year then come on back and whine about the evil christians.
 
crandc said:
Hillary Clinton ran on a platform. Unfortunately it got less coverage than Trump's pussy grabbing, BENGHAZI!!!!! or Bill Clinton, but it is what she ran on. I know it's real hard for some people to comprehend a woman can have a thought out political platform. I know you think she just ran on possessing a vagina. Because you know, no one here is a sexist....
Click to expand...

She also was outed in her own emails and speeches saying she didn't believe in her platform. That there are things she says in public and things she actually believes. Who knows what she actually believes?

This was her position right up until she read the polling data on how LGBT would vote:



"I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."
 
Last edited:
barfo said:
Well, then I guess congratulations are in order. The current team in office is almost 100% stupid, not-talented, and lazy. Mission accomplished.
barfo
Click to expand...
See, that's what I mean. For as much as you revile them, the National Security team, led by Gen Mattis, are doing good things. Somehow the tax bill got drafted and, even more astounding, made it through Congress. The budget may or may not get there. I understand if someone doesn't like the legislation (I get it, I didn't like ACA), but you can't deny that a) he's doing what he said he wanted to do and b) doesn't care if people don't like it. And he doesn't, by and large, have to rely upon Executive Orders to do so.
 
BrianFromWA said:
See, that's what I mean. For as much as you revile them, the National Security team, led by Gen Mattis, are doing good things.
Click to expand...

Ok... I have no reason to criticize Mattis. But there are a lot more people in Trump's adminstration than Mattis.

And he doesn't, by and large, have to rely upon Executive Orders to do so.
Click to expand...

Other than the tax bill, everything he's done has been by executive orders. Well, maybe a couple of post offices got named, but the tax bill is the only major legislation. So I'm not sure what you mean...

barfo
 
barfo said:
Other than the tax bill, everything he's done has been by executive orders. Well, maybe a couple of post offices got named, but the tax bill is the only major legislation. So I'm not sure what you mean...

barfo
Click to expand...

When you're wrong, you're wrong.

Going to triple down on that?
 
Denny Crane said:
When you're wrong, you're wrong.

Going to triple down on that?
Click to expand...

Oh, wait, I forgot one major legislative accomplishment - the Russia sanctions. My bad.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Oh, wait, I forgot one major legislative accomplishment - the Russia sanctions. My bad.

barfo
Click to expand...

So you did choose to triple down.

Going to go for quadruple down?
 
I'll give you a clue. Most of what he's accomplished had nothing to do with executive orders.

Pulling out of the Paris Climate scam wasn't an executive order. Not signing TPP is another example.

Your unelected (but appointed) government appointees trimming the federal registry of thousands of regulations isn't an executive order (nor were the implementation of those regulations by Obama's people).

Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to SCOTUS. That was a huge thing and done by vote of congress.

He's had more judges confirmed (also congressional votes) to the federal bench than any president in history (or maybe since FDR).

&c
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top