its stupid to blame hillary for bill being a skank, but its totally fair game to criticize her for her attacks on his accusers. and the fact that she called monica lewinsky a "narcissistic looney-toon". the clinton affair destroyed that girls life and bill got to go on like it never happened. major double-standard.
If Hillary knew what all Bill was doing and did nothing to stop it. Then she is just as bad as he is. Personally I believe she knew everything that was going on and did nothing to stop it.
Wives are generally not that fond of women who cheated with their husband. You are asking Hillary to not perform actions that a normal woman in her position would do. Be in her shoes. The father if her only child is being accused of sexual misconduct. The reflexive action is to defend the husband in order to protect the child.
This thread is a good look at the tribalism that many deny exists. Somehow people have built it into their head that it is appropriate for Hillary to use her husband by touting his endorsement of her, having him give speeches, working with her campaign, and most of all, claiming that she would put him into another position of power ("in charge of the economy") - having known what he was capable of with such power. Yet the "I'm a feminist" crowd rolls in with the "but she's just a woman" excuse. Long live the tribe.
You have shown an amazing grasp of these arguments going on in your imagination. None of that is what is going on in this thread.
If that's what you believe based on zero evidence of that being the case, then I don't think there is anything we can do to help you.
She was doing exactly what any typical scumbag politician would do; Defend their political position. If you really think she was doing it to defend the one true love of her life, you're intentionally being a dunce. Without Bill, Hillary is dead in the water.
This is what you were capable of responding with. Most people would quit their addiction after being confronted with such evidence of their behavior.
This has nothing to do with 'her one true love of her life'. She has an only child with him. Politicians have natural human feelings also. The vast majority of wives in that position where another woman accused their husband of sexual harrasement or cheating will naturally defend the father of their own child. You are being absurd to not understand this. To tie his alleged sexual misconduct to Hillary is disgusting and then on top of that stating that a woman who was a Yale law graduate of her own academic merit, US senator and Secretary of State would be nothing without her husband is sexist and I'm not the type to throw around that term often. I'm not one of those who thought Hillary lost because she's a woman. So don't go there. Politics warps our moral decision making. For example if Hillary Clinton was a non politician, no one would dare blame her for her Husband's sexual misconduct. It's something you would probably never do in any other situation. Infact people would label the wife as a second victim.
Cohete's initial point was that it's dumb to prefer a rapist's wife to a rapist and then he has stretched opposition to his statement into some really weird arguments. I completely agree that Hilary deserves criticism for her handling of the incidents and her media backlash against accusers. No debate. The idea that Cohete sees a rapist and a rapist's wife as equals is stupid. End argument.
The response you quoted from me doesn't make any of claims you say people are making. Though, I do find it funny that you are talking about confronting me with evidence as if that's been done many times before. You didn't do it this time, nor have you done it with any regularity in the past. Is this more from your imaginary world? Perhaps you'd like to go back and look at your own examples of being confronted by evidence.
hillary is not a normal woman - she wields a ton of power and she used it to tear down and slander the women that had affairs with her husband. that is not normal at all. and bill was not "accused" of sexual misconduct. he actively engaged in it over and over again. also, there is a difference b/t defending your husband and publicly attacking the women he had affairs with. if she is such a feminist it seems like she would have had a little more empathy towards their situations. for some like the clintons (and most republicans and evangelical christians these days) im sure it does, but thats a totally lame excuse. nobody would blame her for her husbands sexual misconduct, but if hillary was a normal person and her 50-something year old husband had an affair with a girl in her early 20's and she proceeded to publicly attack the young woman and call her a "narcissistic loony-tune" i dont think she would get a lot of sympathy. i dont believe hillary even cares about bill having affairs or "protecting the child"...for her its all political. she attacked all those women b/c it was the politically expedient thing to do.
So many assumptions about Hillary... What makes you conclude that she didn't care about how the implications if her only child understanding that her father was a sexual predator could be overly emotionally burdening? What evidence do you have that she did not care for Chelsea? From all accounts she was a very good mother and cared for her. It just makes rational sense that she would have Ill thoughts of the accusers who in her perspective is ruining her home life. You think it's not a natural reaction for a wife to spit fire at a random young woman who accused her husband and father of her only child of sexual misconduct? Really? These are all natural reactions we expect and somehow that makes her morally culpable for her husband's alleged sexual misconduct? I mean what evidence do you have that it was "all political?". You don't think these accusations were emotionally burdening for her?
You are making no sense in this thread. You would actually find a lot of agreement if you made the argument that Hillary abetted her husband by attacking the credibility and reputation of his accusers. Instead, you make a ridiculous argument that a wife is guilty of the sins of her husband and then claim victory when people object. Please let @jo mama take the lead on this one since he's the one making sense.
"Natural" is different from "acceptable." It isn't really acceptable to try to destroy the reputation of a victim because you blame them for the choices your husband makes, especially for someone in the position she was in. I don't really care how natural or understandable it is. Besides which, she didn't do it shooting from the hip, but in a carefully constructed public relations effort with staff to help her. There isn't anything natural about that. Confronted with this problem, she made a decision to protect her husband from the political fallout. I don't really care if it was for her child's sake, her marriage's, or her political career's. It was a calculation she made that by hurting others, she could save her husband from the scandal.
If from her perspective, she believed these woman actually are laying false accusations, she has every right to be pissed. It all depends on whether Hillary believes her Husband's accusers. Again, she could believe that her husband isn't faithful. But actual rape allegations, does she believed the accusers? Do we know this? Yes, it's natural for a wife to believe her husband and father of her only child over random accusers. Again, the only reason Hillary keeps on being brought up is for whataboutism reasons to equate Donald to Hillary. I think I'm being fair and consistent here. I've never spoken ill of Melania Trump in regards to her husband's sexual misdeeds and infact see her as a victim. If she for what ever reason decides to run for office, her husband's sexual assault allegations would hold no water. I would be against her for gross incopetence reasons. Any any other situation where whataboutisms weren't the go to knee jerk reaction, Hillary Clinton would be seen as a victim of a shitty husband.
youre assuming quite a bit yourself dude. what makes you conclude she did? what evidence do you have the she did? link? never said she was morally culpable for her husband being a skank. i said she should be criticized for attacking the young women her husband took advantage of. she made a public campaign to destroy monica lewinsky and other women her husband had affairs with (and succeeded). some feminist she is. what evidence do you have that it was not?
