• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Newt Gingrich, Fox News' Megyn Kelly Clash Over Trump Accusers

tres borrachos said:
So if you're mad that the law didn't go after Bill Clinton (for what, I don't know, but that's neither here nor there), then why are you holding it against his wife?

Hillary isn't the first woman to "go after" the "other" woman - and she won't be the last. Once again, I don't peek in peoples' underwear drawers, and I have no interest in how Hillary Clinton treated her husband's chippies.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should. Someone that attacks women over rape allegations is not someone to be trusted with women's issues.

tres borrachos said:
I don't defend Hillary any more than I defend Trump. You seem to think it's okay to fret over her marriage. I don't. I would say that if we were discussing Donald Trump and Marla Maples as well. I'm not interested. If you are, that's fine by me. But if you think me saying what I've said for years on here - including if it was my husband doing the deed - means I'm voting for Hillary, I can't help you. Sometimes posters actually put honesty before partisanship.
Click to expand...

Again, I could care less about her marriage. You keep saying this as if its about her marriage. It's not. I could care less about her marriage. It's about her treatment of women that accused her husband of rape. Especially considering her public stance is that rape victims have a right to be heard and a right to be believed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not gone after the women?
Click to expand...

What did she do to go after any of the women ? Do you have anything specific ?

Kal'Stang said:
Let the law handle it?
Click to expand...

How did she obstruct justice- or otherwise prohibit the law from handling it (what's it, anyway) ?

Kal'Stang said:
I don't care about their marriage. I care about what is right and what is wrong. A POTUS should also.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're complaining that she had some choice words for the women her husband cheated on her with. Seems pretty understandable to me, and definitely not a policy-relevant issue.

Kal'Stang said:
You think that its about how she treated Bill? How about how she treated those women?
Click to expand...

Again, what, specifically, did she do to them ?

Kal'Stang said:
Frankly this surprised me. As much as you defend Hillary I'd have thought it would have been her.
Click to expand...

She's not defending Hillary here; she's criticizing Newt and defending Megyn.
 
Nilly said:
Comparative to Trump? Not really.

Hilary isn't a perfect candidate (mainly due to ties to wall street) but most of the vitriol directed against her is part of a decades old witch hunt.

Let's see, her main transgressions seem to be:

- Bill's infidelity
- Benghazi
- Email server
- 'Crookedness'
- Iraq war vote

I guess you could add the DNC emails in but those primarily implicated DWS rather than Hilary.

Iraq vote aside, most of these are kinda BS. Blaming her for an unfaithful husband is retarded, the Benghazi thing is hopelessly overblown (biggest military coverup? biggest terrorist event? come'on.. read a ****ing book) not to mention, Hilary and the DoD could not have changed the laws of space and time in getting support to the area. As for email servers, GWB had a private email server when he was president which no-one gave a **** about. They lost thousands of emails. Cybersecurity in general is handled awfully in past administrations in general but that's not something you can put at the feet of Hilary. The Iraq war vote was a big mistake, but in a 25 year political career there are going to be wrong calls. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm a massive Bernie fan but I'm not kidding myself when he says that he voted against the Iraq war that he somehow predicted the future. No-one could have predicted the current predicament in the M.E. and the people who voted against the Iraq war were broadly anti-war/non-interventionists rather than anti-Iraq-war because they thought it would lead to IS.

Before she was running for anything, she had great favorability rating. I would rather have someone in charge that is actually on the left, who takes matters like climate change seriously, but frankly, she's the most qualified candidate for the presidency ever. Trump, on the other hand, is the least qualified candidate for the presidency ever, he has proven that time and time again both on and off the trail, and it's perfectly fair for news outlets to highlight that when Trump makes gaff after gaff after gaff and Hilary simply doesn't. If Hilary had done half the **** that Trump had done, if she'd had 5 children with three different men, if she'd talked about how attractive her sons were, if she'd talked about how she enjoyed grabbing ****, she'd be considered a punchline in a trashy comedy, not a presidential candidate.

If anything, if you want Hilary to be covered by the media more, it should be for the good she's done, in foreign policy and with women's rights, because that's not something that's been covered whatsoever.
Click to expand...

By private you mean an RNC server, and not one tucked away at Crawford.
 
Fishking said:
No, I'm just pointing out the clear bias in the news, which is proven by data, against Trump, just like Gringrich did. You can have cover whatever you want but people are free to point out the double standard, which is what happened here.

You've shifted the goalpost of the entire point with your ridiculous Russia comment.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about ?

Talking about what Bill did 20 years ago is different than talking about what Trump did 20 years ago for a simple reason: one of the two is running for president.
 
Thread's too long to check, but surely someone has pointed out the new levels of hypocrisy Gingrich has achieved here?

Back when he was leading the charge against Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky, I wonder if he ever told his mistress that he would be an even bigger @**hole someday.

I'll bet she knew, regardless.


He also pushed the death penalty for marijuana dealers when he himself was a pothead in school, back before it became immoral.

If we're dredging up old ****, let's get all of it!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: It's not about blaming her for her husbands infidelity. It's about how she attacked the women that accused him of essentially rape.

Underlined: Agree.

Red: So because someone else does the same thing it somehow makes it OK for her to do it also? Sorry, never bought that excuse. I'm on record here as stating that anyone that did the same thing should be prosecuted also. So this line of "defense" is not going to work for me.

You also forgot her pay to play foundation. Her failure with Putin. Her failure with Syria.

I do agree that skill set wise Hillary is more experienced than Trump. But that alone does not make her qualified to be POTUS. I'd rather an honest high school drop out be elected POTUS than someone with 50 years experience but is obviously not to be trusted. Regarding her favorability rating, much of that was before she became SoS, before the Clinton foundation, and before people really found out about how she treated the women that has accused Bill of what amounts to rape.

I'd go over Trumps reasons to be disqualified as being elected as POTUS also but pretty sure you know them all already. On those we'd agree also. If not the actual facts (Ex:such as him being a racist or a bigot) that surround his own set of scandals.
Click to expand...

With regards to the email server - that is a systemic problem with our govt, rather than an issue specific to Hilary. In fact, it's a problem with societies approach to technology in general. That massive DDOS web takedown that happened last week was because millions of web connected devices (security cameras) were without passwords. I'm severely hoping that what happened never happens again (in terms of email storage/hacks), to republicans or democrats, but I don't think it's somethign to lay specifically at Hilary's feet, and is going to require a severe rethinking of how we, in general, approach information security (which right now is more hopeless than you know).

Detail her failure with Russia and Putin? I'll admit I'm no expert on US-Russia relations but it seems to me that most of Russia's aggression (Crimea, Syria) really started to kick off after she was out of office in 2013. Obviously there's 'residual' blame of sorts, but on the other hand I also think it's ridiculous to blame the current state of Syria on the US SoS. Not only has there been fighting going on in the area for centuries, but there was a whole slew of factors that led to it, not least of all drought, which caused tempers to flare in the first places as various people were squeezed. How many US citizens have died as a result of the Syrian Civil War? 3 civilians and 1 serviceman?

In fact, the whole Syria thing in general, obviously it's a terrible thing but how has it affected US citizens? The death toll is half that of the First Persian Gulf war and a tenth that of the Second Congo war. But we don't remember past SoS's as being responsible for them.

As for the Clinton foundation, it should stop taking any foreign money if she were to assume the presidency, which she has already said she would do. I think she should cut all ties with it until her presidency is over, but we'll see what happens. Concerns about transparency are warranted, but accusations about collusion with foreign nations are simply accusations until real proof can be presented. Foreign donations to charities are commonplace, and the Clinton foundation has received good grades from charity watchdogs (how reliable these are, I don't know, but I'm not one to see a conspiracy where there's no evidence of one).

Fishking said:
No, I'm just pointing out the clear bias in the news, which is proven by data, against Trump, just like Gringrich did. You can have cover whatever you want but people are free to point out the double standard, which is what happened here.

You've shifted the goalpost of the entire point with your ridiculous Russia comment.
Click to expand...

All the data proves, irrevocably, that Trump does far more stupid newsworthy **** than Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Politics is weird.

But this election should get an award for weirdness.

Someone pointed out that the Trump campaign went off the rails when Megyn Kelly asked Trump about the way he treated women.

I've seen something like this once before. Hunter S Thompson decided Carter was something like the 2nd coming of christ. Before that, Carter was at the back of the pack without a snowflakes chance on the surface of the sun.
You'd have to know how weird Hunter S was, and it's worth finding out. He left a mark on American culture and politics while being stoned out of his gourd.

She took him down. And the weirdest aspect to that is me praising a Fox talking head. Unfreakingbelievable, at least it would have been if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
What the hell are you talking about ?

Talking about what Bill did 20 years ago is different than talking about what Trump did 20 years ago for a simple reason: one of the two is running for president.
Click to expand...

One of the two was enabled by someone running. But let me ask you, if Sarah Palin was married to David Duke would you say the same? "David Duke isn't running for President."?

Disingenuous, I name thee.
 
WillyPete said:
Thread's too long to check, but surely someone has pointed out the new levels of hypocrisy Gingrich has achieved here?
Click to expand...

I guess you missed his point as well, which was that if this very topic was going to be covered for days and days, non-stop, then it should be the same for rehashing the history of the Clintons. It was brought up as a counterpoint.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Perhaps you should. Someone that attacks women over rape allegations is not someone to be trusted with women's issues.



Again, I could care less about her marriage. You keep saying this as if its about her marriage. It's not. I could care less about her marriage. It's about her treatment of women that accused her husband of rape. Especially considering her public stance is that rape victims have a right to be heard and a right to be believed.
Click to expand...

I'm a woman, and I don't need a politician looking out for me, thanks. I can take care of myself. And if her husband was a rapist, I missed his convictions. Or trials.

If you want to vote for Trump, that's your right. Why do you think I need to read about how much you can't stand Bill and Hillary Clinton?
 
Fishking said:
One of the two was enabled by someone running. But let me ask you, if Sarah Palin was married to David Duke would you say the same? "David Duke isn't running for President."?

Disingenuous, I name thee.
Click to expand...

You're comparing a former President of the United States with David Duke?

I think your posts are not serious. Michael Jackson and a guy who wants to be President. A former President and a man who is associated with one of the most horrifically nasty group of racists ever. Unbelievable.
 
tres borrachos said:
You're comparing a former President of the United States with David Duke?
Click to expand...

I'm pointing out the flawed "not running for President" comment. If it had validity then it would stand in other instances. It's not that confusing. David Duke...or someone who enabled a serial predator of women for decades and attacked them, what difference at this point does it make?

I think your posts are not serious. Michael Jackson and a guy who wants to be President. A former President and a man who is associated with one of the most horrifically nasty group of racists ever. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Perfectly highlights the ridiculousness of the news and the ridiculousness of people's comments.
 
Fishking said:
I'm pointing out the flawed "not running for President" comment. If it had validity then it would stand in other instances. It's not that confusing. David Duke...or someone who enabled a serial predator of women for decades and attacked them, what difference at this point does it make?
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was not convicted of any sexual crime. Trump's OWN WORDS were used. They weren't edited, they weren't omitted, they were his own words that oked gropping women and kissing them without consent. He even bragged how he would purposely walk in on pageant contestants changing and sometimes in the nude. Keep in mind these pageants were open to 14-19 year old females so he didn't care if he was walking in on underage girls changing.

As for Duke, Duke is a known racist by his OWN WORDS. You are comparing apples to drywall. They aren't comparable.



Perfectly highlights the ridiculousness of the news and the ridiculousness of people's comments.
Click to expand...

The ridiculousness is you guys trying to bring Bill Clinton into something when he isn't running for president. Currently, the perv in chief running would be Trump.
 
American said:
That's what she said.
Click to expand...

Pardon me?

Trying to get a serious answer.

Assuming the security of the servers is the most pertinent thing here, how do you know that RNC servers were secure? How do you know if Hilary's were?

If you don't, what's the difference if one is in Florida and the other is at the RNC?
 
Nilly said:
Pardon me?

Trying to get a serious answer.

Assuming the security of the servers is the most pertinent thing here, how do you know that RNC servers were secure? How do you know if Hilary's were?

If you don't, what's the difference if one is in Florida and the other is at the RNC?
Click to expand...

There is a difference technically, but agreed it wasn't in keeping from a security policy point of view as far as we know. What server was located in Florida?
 
late said:
Politics is weird.

But this election should get an award for weirdness.

Someone pointed out that the Trump campaign went off the rails when Megyn Kelly asked Trump about the way he treated women.

I've seen something like this once before. Hunter S Thompson decided Carter was something like the 2nd coming of christ. Before that, Carter was at the back of the pack without a snowflakes chance on the surface of the sun.
You'd have to know how weird Hunter S was, and it's worth finding out. He left a mark on American culture and politics while being stoned out of his gourd.

She took him down. And the weirdest aspect to that is me praising a Fox talking head. Unfreakingbelievable, at least it would have been if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Yeah, I would never have believed that the far right-wing cons would turn on FOX like this.

I guess Trumpitis does strange things to the true believers. :shrug:
 
Fishking said:
One of the two was enabled by someone running. But let me ask you, if Sarah Palin was married to David Duke would you say the same? "David Duke isn't running for President."?

Disingenuous, I name thee.
Click to expand...

What ?!??

If Sarah Palin chose to marry David Duke, then she could be judged for that choice. Do you not understand how personal responsibility works ?

Now, if President Bill Clinton was serving in prison for *actually* raping *real* women and THEN Hillary chose to marry him, she could be judged based on that choice.
 
American said:
There is a difference technically, but agreed it wasn't in keeping from a security policy point of view as far as we know. What server was located in Florida?
Click to expand...

Ok what's the technical difference? Apart from the fact that Bush was president and Hilary was not?

Freudian slip. Had Florida in my head and for some reason I thought Hilary's server was there. It wa sin New York, not that the physical location really matters too mcuh
 
Absentglare said:
What ?!??

If Sarah Palin chose to marry David Duke, then she could be judged for that choice. Do you not understand how personal responsibility works ?

Now, if President Bill Clinton was serving in prison for *actually* raping *real* women and THEN Hillary chose to marry him, she could be judged based on that choice.
Click to expand...

And until Donald Trump has been actually convicted he can be afforded the same consideration, yes?
 
Nilly said:
Ok what's the technical difference? Apart from the fact that Bush was president and Hilary was not?

Freudian slip. Had Florida in my head and for some reason I thought Hilary's server was there. It wa sin New York, not that the physical location really matters too mcuh
Click to expand...

Whether one is President or not is irrelevant. Do you have proof that Bush used the email server? Hillary was sec state, and lectured her employees on the exclusive use of govt systems. She set up a private server in her home knowing it was against security policy that even Obama signed.
 
American said:
Whether one is President or not is irrelevant. Do you have proof that Bush used the email server? Hillary was sec state, and lectured her employees on the exclusive use of govt systems. She set up a private server in her home knowing it was against security policy that even Obama signed.
Click to expand...

Proof that Bush himself used the email server? No, I guess not. We do know that his chief of staff did, his deputy chief of staff and senior advisor did, with emails going to numerous .gov addresses.

The point is, the WH has a long history of infosec malpractices, the outrage directed specifically at Hilary is massively overblown.

Further, I doubt Hilary set up an email server herself. We don't know how secure these private servers were (they could have been more secure than WH servers). Email is incredibly insecure anyway (it's fairly easy to just change the from: field in an email header to spoof an address, particularly pre-2008 when TLS wasn't a thing).

EDIT: looks like FBI has reopened the email case (as of like, 5 minutes ago). I'll guess we'll see what happens.
 
Fishking said:
And until Donald Trump has been actually convicted he can be afforded the same consideration, yes?
Click to expand...

I don't judge him based on his accusers alleged experiences. As far as i know; there is little evidence.

However, we do have evidence of Trump's own statements, and, in my opinion, those statements reflect negatively on Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom