• 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!

Gillibrand Says Bill Clinton Should Have Resigned Over Lewinsky Affair

Abuse allegations have revived scrutiny of Bill Clinton — and divided Democrats




After a fiery exchange between Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and a Clinton aide, the question is whether Democrats in the 1990s were guilty of the sin they accuse Republicans of committing now by continuing to support President Trump and Senate nominee Roy Moore: Were they putting partisanship above principle?



There is no question in my mind that principal doesn't come close to party with most people.
 
Seems to me that Gillibrand out 'Clintoned' the Clintons.

Not that this is not anything to be proud about, but an accomplishment, none the less.

I wonder how long until her 'suicide' ?
 
LOL, so you were wrong in general about 20 years being too short a time for any change in attitudes and specifically wrong about smoking.

imrs.php


More specifically, in my experience and knowing my wife's experience, you're also wrong about sexual harassment, what's acceptable in the workplace, etc. at least in my field of accounting. I could provide details, but I'm sure it's changed pretty dramatically, mostly because so many more women occupy high positions.

Wait one minute. You say you are in accounting but you just showed a graph, 1965-2014, which is 49-years compared to the 20-years that have past since Bill Clinton.

That's some funky math.

And that graph is very flawed because it doesn't reflect the increasing number of people vaping, which is not smoking in that graph but technically vaping is smoking.
 
Wait a second... who was it again running on the platform of calling them and their base "THE MORAL MAJORITY!"

:lol:

An organization that dissolved before disco could fully die, though your desperation at proving a hollow point is deeply saddening as well.

Who was it that named all of the people supporting their political opponent "A basket of deplorable"?

Like I said, they loved to keep on brow beating.
 
Seeing as we haven't even seen a photograph that places either of these women with Moore, then I am highly skeptical of all the claims coming his way. Not to mention the fact that the article that says he was banned from a mall here in Alabama, turned out to be an "unofficial" ban. That means that there is no paper trail to at least state that he was in fact, banned. All of these claims are slowly becoming more unsubstantiated as they keep talking.

That's an odd fact to hang onto. Everyone didn't have a camera in their pocket like they do now. Given the alleged "relationships" it would be shocking to me to find photos of Moore with any of those women. I was around 16 (so the girls' ages....) when the alleged incidents took place and dated a girl for 2 years in HS and AFAIK the only photos of us together were at things like family gatherings and school dances. I don't think I knew anyone near my age at that time who even owned a camera. And I don't know of a single photo I have of my four years in college in casual settings.

Just speaking for me, and from what I've seen from many others, including Republicans clearly torn up about the prospect of a Democrat taking that seat, the most damning evidence against Moore is his weak non-denial, denials that amount to something along the lines of "I don't recall" dating underage women...
 
Wait one minute. You say you are in accounting but you just showed a graph, 1965-2014, which is 49-years compared to the 20-years that have past since Bill Clinton.

That's some funky math.

LOL, well, I thought you could see the constant downward sloping line with no upticks at all, recognize that 1998 is in the middle, and recognize that it must have decreased from that date since it's decreased steadily for the entire period. Guess I overestimated your analytical ability. ;)

And that graph is very flawed because it doesn't reflect the increasing number of people vaping, which is not smoking in that graph but technically vaping is smoking.

I'd disagree about the equivalence between smoking and vaping, but it's not the point. 20 years is plenty long to see big changes in societal attitudes.
 
I like the post in this thread that compared the shift between slavery and the thread between now and 1998....

20 years is not enough time for any shift to happen.

Oh look! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a squirrel.
 
I provided the Hannity interview with the victims.

Oh so their words are fact. Are you willing to say the same thing about the victims of Moore?

And what about Trump's own "words"?
 
Oh so their words are fact. Are you willing to say the same thing about the victims of Moore?

And what about Trump's own "words"?

Moore's victims were invited by Hannity. They declined.
 
You do realize Bill Clinton hasn’t been the president for almost two decades, yes?

So why are Democrats spending so much time of late hand wringing and finger pointing over him? Can the hypocritical "party of women's rights" really pivot from their legacy of dealing with "bimbo eruptions" brought on by "floozies" and "stalkers" and convince anyone that they've grown a conscience? And, thanks to people like Bill Clinton, do voters even give a **** about this sort of behavior? I mean, the Access Hollywood tape didn't stop Trump, and I expect Roy Moore will be elected. Al Franken was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar, so to speak, and yet some of his supporters are saying he should stay because he supports women's rights! :lamo

But back to Bill:

Democrats don’t deserve credit today for refusing to be hypocrites. They already are. They stood by Clinton in the ’90s because they thought it was in their political interest, and they batted back attempts during the 2016 election to bring up what it would mean to have an accused rapist as first gentleman for the same reason. That impulse may have been rooted in a desire not to see Hillary Clinton punished for her husband’s wrongs. Yet instead of interrogating that reasoning, liberals did their best to ignore the problem.

Democrats are years ahead of Republicans on issues of sexual abuse from a policy point of view. But from a political one, so far they’ve gotten off easy. Though right now it’s Republicans who are under fire for putting an alleged pedophile up for election and an alleged assaulter in the White House, history tells us there’s no reason to think the next man who gets caught won’t have a “D” next to his name. Maybe it’ll be a rising star rather than a controversy-courting extremist who thinks there’s sharia law in Illinois. Liberals will then have a chance to really prove they’re not still stuck in the ’90s. For now, they’re ready to reckon with Bill Clinton. They’re just not ready to reckon with themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...d-sex-crimes-and-fail/?utm_term=.7364c5ccd3d1
 
So why are Democrats spending so much time of late hand wringing and finger pointing over him? Can the hypocritical "party of women's rights" really pivot from their legacy of dealing with "bimbo eruptions" brought on by "floozies" and "stalkers" and convince anyone that they've grown a conscience? And, thanks to people like Bill Clinton, do voters even give a **** about this sort of behavior? I mean, the Access Hollywood tape didn't stop Trump, and I expect Roy Moore will be elected. Al Franken was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar, so to speak, and yet some of his supporters are saying he should stay because he supports women's rights! :lamo

But back to Bill:

I'm a little more interested in why the righties are more interested in screaming "HYPOCRITE" at Democrats rather than try to clean their own house.

Oh, that's right. Because you guys don't give a **** what Roy Moore did, as long as a Democrat doesn't take that seat.
 
That's an odd fact to hang onto. Everyone didn't have a camera in their pocket like they do now. Given the alleged "relationships" it would be shocking to me to find photos of Moore with any of those women. I was around 16 (so the girls' ages....) when the alleged incidents took place and dated a girl for 2 years in HS and AFAIK the only photos of us together were at things like family gatherings and school dances. I don't think I knew anyone near my age at that time who even owned a camera. And I don't know of a single photo I have of my four years in college in casual settings.

Just speaking for me, and from what I've seen from many others, including Republicans clearly torn up about the prospect of a Democrat taking that seat, the most damning evidence against Moore is his weak non-denial, denials that amount to something along the lines of "I don't recall" dating underage women...

(sigh).. alright lets explain this another way.

I am adamant about the photo issue, because articles have said that at least one of the girls had been with more, and they both visited a photo booth together. These booths were highly use in this era, and even my mother has photos from at least six of these things.

Even the photos in the articles, say that the girls ages are alleged. So even the writers don't know who to believe, if they are covering their backs as such.
 
Riiiight, because the moralists inside the GOP are never caught violating their standards on sexuality.:roll:

Earlier this year, the vice president was ridiculed by many when he said he felt uncomfortable being alone in a room with a woman not his wife.

After the standards set by bill clinton and hillary clinton (who after all went after these women claiming sexual abuse by Bill, and who the Democrats still saw fit to nominate as their candidate as president way back in 2016), what are the standards of Democrats?

Its nice that Gillibrand believes, 20 years later, Clinton should have resigned. Lots of people said the same thing back then. They were often called "prudes."
But should Franken resign? Why? Why not?
 
We have had a shift in acceptance. It's easy to condemn the 19th century slave owner or the racist on 21st century values, but is it fair?

We have been evolving out of a misogynistic culture over the past 4 decades. Bill Clinton would have had a more difficult time today than in 1998; I doubt Clarence Thomas would have made the bench. But, people accepted some things we would not accept today. On the other hand, a divorced Ronald Reagan or divorced/philandering Donald Trump would not have been electable in the 1960's.

That all said, the guy that probably needs to be run from office is the current President. His "crimes" appear on par with those of Judge Moore.

During the Thomas hearings, senators were debating whether the judge had a pubic hair on a can of soda that he had given to Hill. The issie wasnt that the charges werent t being treated seriously, is that there was no evidence that Thomas had harrassed Hill.

Thr problem with the Clinton years is that many people, who are still around today, were damming the accusers-- we might recall that Democrats had nominated such a person to run for president all the way back in the ancient days of 2016.

Its not so much a change of standards, as a political opportunity.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/gillibrand-bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct.html

I wonder, where were the feminists during Bill's presidency? Why were the feminists supporting Bill's wife who enabled Bill's criminal behavior? A little too late imo to condemn Bill's behavior now.

It's cute how the democrats, after decades of defending him to the death, are finally ready to throw the Clintons under the bus. Though I think most can work out that it's not sudden pangs of conscience. It's a combination of the following: One, Donna Bazille's book has effectively destroyed whatever was left of Hillary's political career and the democrat party has nothing further to gain from protecting the Clintons, and two, they think that finally admitting the Bill Clinton was a pathetic pervert will give them credibility in their fight against Roy Moore.
 
You do realize Bill Clinton hasn’t been the president for almost two decades, yes?

However the bastard did not exit politics in that almost two decades of politics. He did not as most former presidents do after leaving office, ride off into the sunset and enjoy retirement. If that corrupt couple ever actually does exit politics and ride off into the sunset, then we will stop talking about them. Okay? Hillary still seems to be attempting to repair her image for a possible third run. She has already started a PAC.
 
I think people figured out this Kirsten Gillibrand (and others) move almost immediately.
But I'm curious about who concluded that it's time to toss old Bill over the side.
Everybody seems to be doing it.
Who makes decisions like that and how is the approval communicated to the troops.
It sure did come as an explosion of Political and media commentary.
It's obviously opportunistic and serves more than one purpose.
They can finally claim a moral position now that the Clintons have outlived their usefulness, and it enables them to attack Trump on the same moral grounds.
But it also might mean that because of her various corruption scandals they may have to tie Hillary to Bill when they toss him overboard.
 
Criminal? Clinton might be guilty of a lot of different things, but calling his sexual relationships 'criminal' is just conservatives having a desperate need for political strike-back for the Moore scandal being exposed.

So raping women, forcefully groping women, raping one woman, and indecent exposure(the incident that led to the perjury he was impeached over) are not criminal?
 
Who did Bill Clinton rape? He was accused by Juanita Broaddrick

Who did Moore molest? He has only been accused. See how that works? You seem to want to convict Moore on accusations only, but give Clinton a pass on the same.
 
Show me actual evidence of real criminal conduct by Bill Clinton, and I’ll condemn it, but for all the false equivalencies puked up to make him and Roy Moore the same, THEY’RE NOT.

If you only realized how patently ridiculous you look with that statement. You are on one hand crying your eyes out over Clinton being damned based on accusations, while you are at the same time wanting to damn Moore based only accusations. Your moniker should be "Double Standards".
 
All of those women have retracted their stories.

Yep. They worked out that whatever they gained financially for making the claims was in jeopardy as Trump was preparing slander lawsuits. They crawled back into the wood work, just as Moore's accusers will after the special election, whether Moore wins or not. he is already preparing lawsuits.
 
Back
Top Bottom