A Scandal A Day

[Seriously?]

Perhaps the idea that Bill Clinton is guilty of some degree of sexual assault and Hillary Clinton worked to discredit his victims is the real "An Inconvenient Truth".

Perhaps? There were at least a dozen women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

How many other Presidents before or after sleazy Bill were accused of rape or sexual assault that many times?

It's not the politics of personal destruction that caused this. It was rapist Bill's actions. That scumbag belongs in jail for what he did. His wife should be disqualified to become POTUS because she destroyed the character of the women that Bill Clinton raped.

If not for that blue dress, Monica Lewnisky would have suffered the same fate.

Sorry, red avatars, I have zero sympathy or empathy for the white trash Clintons. They are utter scum. I really don't get why you stand behind those two grifters. There's nothing appealing about a pair of unethical pathological liars.

I get Obama. I get Bernie Sanders. I even get Jimmy Carter. But the Clintons? Why would you ever vote for them knowing what you know about them?

And don't give me this BS that they didn't do it. They did it.

Perhaps, somebody would possibly have taken you seriously, if you were not supporting Donald Trump. However, given your publicly stated preference, we all know your outrage is fake. So, do not bother. The only thing you are achieving with these posts is further destroying whatever small reputation you might still have here.

Sorry, brah. I've despised the unethical, immoral, scumbags known as the Clintons long before Trump ran for office. They are not good people and are all that is wrong with this country.

[Devout Centrist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BAHAHAHAHA....Holy f**king Sh*t, are you serious?! That ruined Lewinsky's life. She never wanted any of that to come out and she's never claimed assault either. I mean, sh*t, you have other examples, but you trip at the finish line. What a f**king joke.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

[Sorenroy]

So a common criticism of Republicans on the Atlas seems to be the overuse of the "but... but muh emails" argument. However, as someone with little experience with what this is all about (I wasn't alive at the time), it seems like that is exactly what all the red avatars are using on this post. Honestly, the two things I have read are "well Trump's bad too" and "looks like the Trumpkins are in panic mode". Where are the facts? Where are the refutations? Come on people, you can do better then that.

[Badger]

Very sad to see this Fuzzy person get more and more deranged as this campaign wears on.  Losing that last debate must have really done a number.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Perhaps the idea that Bill Clinton is guilty of some degree of sexual assault and Hillary Clinton worked to discredit his victims is the real "An Inconvenient Truth".

Perhaps? There were at least a dozen women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

How many other Presidents before or after sleazy Bill were accused of rape or sexual assault that many times?

It's not the politics of personal destruction that caused this. It was rapist Bill's actions. That scumbag belongs in jail for what he did. His wife should be disqualified to become POTUS because she destroyed the character of the women that Bill Clinton raped.

If not for that blue dress, Monica Lewnisky would have suffered the same fate.

Sorry, red avatars, I have zero sympathy or empathy for the white trash Clintons. They are utter scum. I really don't get why you stand behind those two grifters. There's nothing appealing about a pair of unethical pathological liars.

I get Obama. I get Bernie Sanders. I even get Jimmy Carter. But the Clintons? Why would you ever vote for them knowing what you know about them?

And don't give me this BS that they didn't do it. They did it.

Perhaps, somebody would possibly have taken you seriously, if you were not supporting Donald Trump. However, given your publicly stated preference, we all know your outrage is fake. So, do not bother. The only thing you are achieving with these posts is further destroying whatever small reputation you might still have here.

You may well be the most condescending poster here.

At least you're #1 at something.  

[ag]

You may well be the most condescending poster here.

At least you're #1 at something.  

May very well be, may very well be.

At least, unlike you, I do not want to destroy my country and my children´s lives.

[ag]

So a common criticism of Republicans on the Atlas seems to be the overuse of the "but... but muh emails" argument. However, as someone with little experience with what this is all about (I wasn't alive at the time), it seems like that is exactly what all the red avatars are using on this post. Honestly, the two things I have read are "well Trump's bad too" and "looks like the Trumpkins are in panic mode". Where are the facts? Where are the refutations? Come on people, you can do better then that.

There is nothing to discuss. Bill Clinton's attrocious past behavior and Hillary Clinton's reaction to it have been in the public domain for the past quarter century. There is no news there. There is, obviously, nothing to be proud of there (at least, as far as Bill Clinton is concerned), but this personal history is just that: history. Neither of them is runnigng their campaign on the public defense of this past. They have a record of public life that goes far beyond the former inability of Bill Clinton to keep his dick where it belonged. And, in any case, it is not Bill Clinton running for office: it is his wife, who, let us not forget, was very much an aggrieved party there.  To the extent she committed any mistakes back then, this was a horrid personal tragedy for her as well. That family had its hard times, but they resolved their issues, and they have done it in public eye. If anything, contrary to the usual accusations, there has never been a more transparent presidential candidate than HRC is today. All her life is public record, and much of it is the public record one can be proud of.

It also should be noted that neither the Clintons, nor their supporters are, in fact, using the ample material provided by Trump's rich private life and his past personal relationships with women. What is being argued about is his behavior today and now. The main reason the accusations are relevant is that he doubles up on his misbehavior - today, right now, as part of his campaign.  

In fact, the ridiculous thing is that Trumpistas continuously accuse HRC of the sins she is not guilty of - but their orange idol is. They do this about secrecy, lying, etc., etc. (as well as being nasty to women, of course). The more viciously they accuse HRC of anything, the more obvious it is that it is their guy's sins they are denouncing. If any of these guys (and I mean our fellow forum participants) had any shred of decency about them, they would have long ago shut up. But they are - every single one of them - immoral, nasty, abominable hypocrites. And that, of course, is a point one should never stop making.

[ag]

Perhaps the idea that Bill Clinton is guilty of some degree of sexual assault and Hillary Clinton worked to discredit his victims is the real "An Inconvenient Truth".

Perhaps? There were at least a dozen women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

How many other Presidents before or after sleazy Bill were accused of rape or sexual assault that many times?

It's not the politics of personal destruction that caused this. It was rapist Bill's actions. That scumbag belongs in jail for what he did. His wife should be disqualified to become POTUS because she destroyed the character of the women that Bill Clinton raped.

If not for that blue dress, Monica Lewnisky would have suffered the same fate.

Sorry, red avatars, I have zero sympathy or empathy for the white trash Clintons. They are utter scum. I really don't get why you stand behind those two grifters. There's nothing appealing about a pair of unethical pathological liars.

I get Obama. I get Bernie Sanders. I even get Jimmy Carter. But the Clintons? Why would you ever vote for them knowing what you know about them?

And don't give me this BS that they didn't do it. They did it.

Perhaps, somebody would possibly have taken you seriously, if you were not supporting Donald Trump. However, given your publicly stated preference, we all know your outrage is fake. So, do not bother. The only thing you are achieving with these posts is further destroying whatever small reputation you might still have here.

Sorry, brah. I've despised the unethical, immoral, scumbags known as the Clintons long before Trump ran for office. They are not good people and are all that is wrong with this country.

And that is why you support the guy who is running his campaign on a pledge to destroy your own country, while being guilty hundredfold of pretty much every sin you publicly assign to the Clintons. Got it.

Nah. Your main complaint about the Clintons is that, unlike you, they are decent honest public servants, who, whatever indiscretions that happened in their lives, have done a lot to make America great. They are infinitely better people (personally) than you have ever been or will ever be.

[ag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BAHAHAHAHA....Holy f**king Sh*t, are you serious?! That ruined Lewinsky's life. She never wanted any of that to come out and she's never claimed assault either. I mean, sh*t, you have other examples, but you trip at the finish line. What a f**king joke.

Our Fuzzy friend here simply believes that it is every woman's dream is to have her life destroyed that way. I wonder, what his wife thinks about that view of his.

Update: I misattributed the quote from Seriously? to Fuzzy. I was wrong. I withdraw that particular accusation and apologize.

[ag]

So a common criticism of Republicans on the Atlas seems to be the overuse of the "but... but muh emails" argument. However, as someone with little experience with what this is all about (I wasn't alive at the time), it seems like that is exactly what all the red avatars are using on this post. Honestly, the two things I have read are "well Trump's bad too" and "looks like the Trumpkins are in panic mode". Where are the facts? Where are the refutations? Come on people, you can do better then that.

Again. Let me stress it. There is nothing to refute: Bill Clinton, in his day, behaved abominably towards women (including his wife). This is the thing that came close to destroying his presidency: and, certainly, prevented him from becoming the great president he should have been.

But he is not on the ballot today. HRC is, mostly, accused of trying to keep her family together. She may not have, at the time, behaved most decently towards the women she had reasons to suspect her husband was cheating her with - we never may know here what she, really, knew. This might not have been the wisest or kindest behavior at all times. But, honestly, what sort of behavior would anybody expect from her under those circumstances? Taking monastic vows and moving to Calcutta? She is, certainly, not trying to destroy those women today, nor she is boasting about her (or her husband's) behavior back then.

[Virginiá]

Sorry, brah. I've despised the unethical, immoral, scumbags known as the Clintons long before Trump ran for office. They are not good people and are all that is wrong with this country.

You are a living meme, I swear.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Sorry, red avatars, I have zero sympathy or empathy for the white trash Clintons. They are utter scum. I really don't get why you stand behind those two grifters. There's nothing appealing about a pair of unethical pathological liars.

I get Obama. I get Bernie Sanders. I even get Jimmy Carter. But the Clintons? Why would you ever vote for them knowing what you know about them?

Probably for similar reasons you've managed to stand behind the unethical, pathologically lying grifter known as Donald Trump.

Partisan polarization is fueled by the type of group attribution errors you're so prone to.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BAHAHAHAHA....Holy f**king Sh*t, are you serious?! That ruined Lewinsky's life. She never wanted any of that to come out and she's never claimed assault either. I mean, sh*t, you have other examples, but you trip at the finish line. What a f**king joke.

Our Fuzzy friend here simply believes that it is every woman's dream is to have her life destroyed that way. I wonder, what his wife thinks about that view of his.

I've never said this, and you know it.  Show me MY quote.

Get your quotes straight.

Perhaps some folks here with integrity can also point that out to ag.  

[ag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BAHAHAHAHA....Holy f**king Sh*t, are you serious?! That ruined Lewinsky's life. She never wanted any of that to come out and she's never claimed assault either. I mean, sh*t, you have other examples, but you trip at the finish line. What a f**king joke.

Our Fuzzy friend here simply believes that it is every woman's dream is to have her life destroyed that way. I wonder, what his wife thinks about that view of his.

I've never said this, and you know it.  Show me MY quote.

Get your quotes straight.

Perhaps some folks here with integrity can also point that out to ag.  

That quote is in the bold above this own objection of yours. I am referring precisely to that.

Update I have to apologize: that quote belongs to Seriously?, not to you. I redirect that particular accusation to him. In this particular case you are right to be offended. Sorry.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So a common criticism of Republicans on the Atlas seems to be the overuse of the "but... but muh emails" argument. However, as someone with little experience with what this is all about (I wasn't alive at the time), it seems like that is exactly what all the red avatars are using on this post. Honestly, the two things I have read are "well Trump's bad too" and "looks like the Trumpkins are in panic mode". Where are the facts? Where are the refutations? Come on people, you can do better then that.

Again. Let me stress it. There is nothing to refute: Bill Clinton, in his day, behaved abominably towards women (including his wife). This is the thing that came close to destroying his presidency: and, certainly, prevented him from becoming the great president he should have been.

But he is not on the ballot today. HRC is, mostly, accused of trying to keep her family together. She may not have, at the time, behaved most decently towards the women she had reasons to suspect her husband was cheating her with - we never may know here what she, really, knew. This might not have been the wisest or kindest behavior at all times. But, honestly, what sort of behavior would anybody expect from her under those circumstances? Taking monastic vows and moving to Calcutta? She is, certainly, not trying to destroy those women today, nor she is boasting about her (or her husband's) behavior back then.

As for not trying to destroy Bill's victim's today, the damage has already been done.

As for trying to keep her family together:  If she weren't a Presidential candidate, I might buy into that.  I'd be sympathetic in that case, even of her erroneous actions in discrediting victims.

Hillary's participation in "Bimbo Eruption" containment (remember that phrase) and her active participation in the discrediting of Bill's accusers could be mitigated, IMO, if her intention was to save her family and retire to private life.  But her PRIMARY intention was to advance her own political career, a career that she has long envisioned as being the successor to her husband.  Everything else, IMO, is second to that.  

I'll point out a contradiction:  Trump isn't cheating on his wife anymore, yet folks bring that up all the time.  It's fair game; it's part of his life story and his character.  I can say it appears he's faithful to Melania, but I wouldn't be shocked if he gave the tabloids more fodder.  He's Donald Trump.  But Hillary's retaliation against Bill's accusers; that's acquired an odd statute of limitation, at least in the reasoning of ag.  As if what Hillary did then didn't affect those women now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BAHAHAHAHA....Holy f**king Sh*t, are you serious?! That ruined Lewinsky's life. She never wanted any of that to come out and she's never claimed assault either. I mean, sh*t, you have other examples, but you trip at the finish line. What a f**king joke.

Our Fuzzy friend here simply believes that it is every woman's dream is to have her life destroyed that way. I wonder, what his wife thinks about that view of his.

I've never said this, and you know it.  Show me MY quote.

Get your quotes straight.

Perhaps some folks here with integrity can also point that out to ag.  

That quote is in the bold above this own objection of yours. I am referring precisely to that.

Update I have to apologize: that quote belongs to Seriously?, not to you. I redirect that particular accusation to him. In this particular case you are right to be offended. Sorry.

Accepted.

[ag]

So a common criticism of Republicans on the Atlas seems to be the overuse of the "but... but muh emails" argument. However, as someone with little experience with what this is all about (I wasn't alive at the time), it seems like that is exactly what all the red avatars are using on this post. Honestly, the two things I have read are "well Trump's bad too" and "looks like the Trumpkins are in panic mode". Where are the facts? Where are the refutations? Come on people, you can do better then that.

Again. Let me stress it. There is nothing to refute: Bill Clinton, in his day, behaved abominably towards women (including his wife). This is the thing that came close to destroying his presidency: and, certainly, prevented him from becoming the great president he should have been.

But he is not on the ballot today. HRC is, mostly, accused of trying to keep her family together. She may not have, at the time, behaved most decently towards the women she had reasons to suspect her husband was cheating her with - we never may know here what she, really, knew. This might not have been the wisest or kindest behavior at all times. But, honestly, what sort of behavior would anybody expect from her under those circumstances? Taking monastic vows and moving to Calcutta? She is, certainly, not trying to destroy those women today, nor she is boasting about her (or her husband's) behavior back then.

As for not trying to destroy Bill's victim's today, the damage has already been done.

As for trying to keep her family together:  If she weren't a Presidential candidate, I might buy into that.  I'd be sympathetic in that case, even of her erroneous actions in discrediting victims.

Hillary's participation in "Bimbo Eruption" containment (remember that phrase) and her active participation in the discrediting of Bill's accusers could be mitigated, IMO, if her intention was to save her family and retire to private life.  But her PRIMARY intention was to advance her own political career, a career that she has long envisioned as being the successor to her husband.  Everything else, IMO, is second to that.  

I'll point out a contradiction:  Trump isn't cheating on his wife anymore, yet folks bring that up all the time.  It's fair game; it's part of his life story and his character.  I can say it appears he's faithful to Melania, but I wouldn't be shocked if he gave the tabloids more fodder.  He's Donald Trump.  But Hillary's retaliation against Bill's accusers; that's acquired an odd statute of limitation, at least in the reasoning of ag.  As if what Hillary did then didn't affect those women now.

The problem is not Trump cheating on his wife (whether he is still doing this or not: this is not at all the issue of this campaign). It is his general attitude towards people, of which he is proud. He despises people. He humiliates them. He abuses them. He is doing it all his life, with a vengeance, and is proud of it. And you want to make that guy President of the United States. And, having decided on that, you have the gall to attack a woman, whose main fault is not to have left her husband when he cheated on her. Having decided to support the guy who refuses to release even the most minor details about his life, you attack that woman for being secretive. Having decided to support the guy who despises America and its constitutional order, you attack a woman, who has spent her life in public service.

Do you have any decency left? Have you ever had any?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Sorry, brah. I've despised the unethical, immoral, scumbags known as the Clintons long before Trump ran for office. They are not good people and are all that is wrong with this country.

You are a living meme, I swear.

To be fair, Trump isn't a politician.

He's an actor, playing a fictional business man, who is pretending to be a politician.

That's a lot to keep straight. Especially for someone dumb enough to support Trump in the first place.

What's going to happen in the Trumpista's heads when two actors start playing the same character this weekend, I can't imagine.

[Seriously?]

The obnoxiousness of you red avatar trolls on this board is despicable.  How dare someone challenge your world view. Bring out the memes.

Trump is not a "fake businessman." How do I know that? Walk by any Trump Tower in any major city. Go to any Trump golf course around the world. There are tangible, concrete manifestations of Trump's business prowess.

Trump is neither unethical nor immoral. His positions do not shift like the wind. You can pull up videos from 20 or 30 years ago and get the same position on NAFTA, for example.

Trump is a threat because he challenges your world view. He will obliterate your little red avatar safe spaces. He will change how things are done in this country. For the better.

Your candidate created a personal server to avoid public record disclosure, destroyed evidence, engaged in pay-for-play practices while Secretary of State, gave $250,000 one-hour speeches to the investment banks you despise, condoned rape, maligned rape victims while claiming that all rape victims should be heard (except those raped by her husband), lied, cheated, stole the White House china, engaged in domestic violence against her husband, is known to have a temper and to have used racist and anti-Semitic language.

She was for the Iraq War before she was against it. She was against gay marriage before she was for it. She was for the imprisonment of "super-predators" before she was against it. She claims to be against the TPP, but she's really for it. She wasn't sick, but she had pneumonia.

She changes positions as often as she changes her Depends.

Hillary Clinton stands for nothing except for Hillary Clinton.  She will do anything to achieve power. She is amongst the most unethical, immoral people ever to seek the office of President of the United States, but you blindly follow her because she has a "D" next to her name. No matter what her position of the day is. It's sad really.

[afleitch]

Trump is not a "fake businessman." How do I know that? Walk by any Trump Tower in any major city. Go to any Trump golf course around the world. There are tangible, concrete manifestations of Trump's business prowess.

If he has tangible, concrete manifestations of his business prowess then his tax returns would prove this. They would prove his wealth, prove where he banks his wealth and prove he pays his fair share of tax

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He shifts his positions move often than my ass shifts on my seat.

In 1990 Donald Trump supported the legalization of drugs; 'legalize to win the war'. In 1999, he said was was 'very pro choice' and wouldn't support banning partial birth abortion. Now he's pro-life and says women should be 'punished'..maybe. Or maybe not. In 1999 he also supported a one time tax on individuals and trusts over 10 million dollars; 'By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan. The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes.'  In 2000 he was in favour of a ban on assault weapons and wanted waiting periods and background checks. In 2000 he said 'I am very liberal when it comes to health care, I believe in universal health care'.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Hillary Clinton Donald Trump stands for nothing except for Hillary Clinton Donald Trump. She He will do anything to achieve power. She He is amongst the most unethical, immoral people ever to seek the office of President of the United States, but you blindly follow her him because she he has a "D" "R" next to her his name. No matter what her his position of the day is. It's sad really.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Person Man]

Hillary Clinton Donald Trump stands for nothing except for Hillary Clinton Donald Trump. She He will do anything to achieve power. She He is amongst the most unethical, immoral people ever to seek the office of President of the United States, but you blindly follow her him because she he has a "D" "R" next to her his name. No matter what her his position of the day is. It's sad really.

Pot, meet kettle.

Sad!

[Lyin' Steve]

So a common criticism of Republicans on the Atlas seems to be the overuse of the "but... but muh emails" argument. However, as someone with little experience with what this is all about (I wasn't alive at the time), it seems like that is exactly what all the red avatars are using on this post. Honestly, the two things I have read are "well Trump's bad too" and "looks like the Trumpkins are in panic mode". Where are the facts? Where are the refutations? Come on people, you can do better then that.

I'll bite.  Kathleen Willey, who started this website, had told some major sex-related proven lies in the past (in fact she'd confessed to doing so), her testimony was inconsistent over time and also inconsistent with what Linda Tripp claimed Kathleen had told her.  Furthermore, Julie Steele wrote an affidavit that Willey had asked her to lie about Clinton as well.  Why should we believe the known big-league liar who can't keep her story straight over her friend who has no such problems and no ulterior motivations (note that Willey waited five years after the assault, until Linda Tripp was on the hunt and needed a case, to come out with her allegations)?
As for Linda Tripp, other than Kathleen Willey she has no actual rape charges to bring against Bill and her only claim to fame is that she secretly wiretapped a conversation Monica Lewinsky had about her consensual, desired sex with Clinton and then released it, to Lewinsky's neverending humiliation and shock, to further her own selfish goals.  That's unethical.  Tripp also had a criminal background that she lied about on her government application, and after the whole scandal was over she tried to convince everyone that it was retaliation when she was let go along with the rest of the Clinton administration on the day George W. Bush took office.  Additionally, if you actually go back to 1998 and read or listen to Tripp, it's very clear that she just plain hates Clinton and is out to get him from the get go.  She claimed to be able to prove all of Clinton's scandals, but everyone ignored her on those, and (what a shock) she never bothered to actually release any of her supposedly damning evidence, even though she had no problem releasing a wiretap of an innocent young woman to destroy her life.
So what we have is one woman, a liar, criminal, deeply unethical, with a major grudge against Clinton, who desperately wanted to make his phony scandals become reality.  This one woman is clinging to the testimony of another woman, testimony that has changed multiple times, that her close friend has said is a lie, and that is being given by someone who has told major, major lies in the past.  There is no evidence to support either of their claims that this is a real story, and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly against them.
That was true at the time and it's true now, regardless of how much time people have had to forget why they were all on Clinton's side at the time.  The only reason this blew up into an impeachment scandal had nothing to do with rape and everything to do with the fact that Clinton was so sick of the rape allegations that when they finally found out about some consensual sex he had, he tried to kill the story and it backfired into perjury.