Obama held EXTACTLY the same view as clinton before and then changed to EXACTLY THE SAME view she has now.
Obama said:
“I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. I had hesitated on gay marriage, in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient… And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word ‘marriage’ was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth.”
With him, that was not a big deal, but hillary is suddenly anti gay when in fact a big chunk of the feminist and homosexual movement held very favourable views on bill and hillary when they were in office? Makes no sense at all.
Which 'hidden anti gay thoughts' would she even have, and where could she have fought 'harder'?
I mean, is that the best to muster up the claim that she is anti gay, by saying 'well she could have done even more'?
Yeah, and Obama backed it up. And it doesn't matter what feminist movements think of Hillary, or homosexual movement, what matters is what she does and believes in. What makes anyone think she's a true feminist and not only for wealthy white women?
Wikileaks say that, and I think Washington Post points out she could have done more? idk and idc, I still don't trust her. I just prefer her over dumb Trump.
We can't really know her private thoughts though. It's not like mind reading has been invented yet.
Abortion and same sex marriage aren't related though. Him having one position does not mean he has to have another. Or being for one and against the other does not make him hypocritical.
Hillary's stance, from what I can tell anyways, has never been anti same sex marriage (let alone anti homosexual). Her position back in the 90s was for turning civil unions into the exact same thing as marriage but with a different name. And today she has made it as clear as obama that she supports gay marriage.
Abortion was an example. I'd rather have a president who chooses what's good for America, like being pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage, even if they're against it, like Johnson. I was defending him. If Hillary is against homosexuality, that's okay as long as she does things that are good for homosexuals.
Yeah, and Obama backed it up. And it doesn't matter what feminist movements think of Hillary, or homosexual movement, what matters is what she does and believes in. What makes anyone think she's a true feminist and not only for wealthy white women?
Wikileaks say that, and I think Washington Post points out she could have done more? idk and idc, I still don't trust her. I just prefer her over dumb Trump.
We can if she revealed it privately.
Abortion was an example. I'd rather have a president who chooses what's good for America, like being pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage, even if they're against it, like Johnson. I was defending him. If Hillary is against homosexuality, that's okay as long as she does things that are good for homosexuals.
I hope Hillary has a plan to prevent these type of homeland security threats from occuring, as the current democratic regime under Obama has failed to keep us safe. Not even our housing establishments are safe from brainwashed individuals.
Yeah, and Obama backed it up. And it doesn't matter what feminist movements think of Hillary, or homosexual movement, what matters is what she does and believes in. What makes anyone think she's a true feminist and not only for wealthy white women?
Wikileaks say that, and I think Washington Post points out she could have done more? idk and idc, I still don't trust her. I just prefer her over dumb Trump.
I find it still very problematic to just say 'i don't trust her for reasons' and then when these reasons are rather questionable say 'idk idc' <:
There are legitimate reasons to not want clinton as a president (if we ignore trump), but most of the reasons everyone says are complete fabrication.
There is no 'true feminist'. Every politician uses movements to get elected. It's not like obama made particular pro black politics even if he used the black community to get elected. But clinton's track record is clearly democratic and progressive in most cases. It is hard to see any doubt about her making progressive politics.
So you have no gripe with the amount of evidence that shows she's basically owned by the banking industry? Like, even if you want to ignore standard politicking, the people who pay her bills prove where her actual interests would lie. And if you simply want to not think that based on good faith, fair enough, but I don't see how that can't be seen as at least somewhat naive.
So you have no gripe with the amount of evidence that shows she's basically owned by the banking industry? Like, even if you want to ignore standard politicking, the people who pay her bills prove where her actual interests would lie. And if you simply want to not think that based on good faith, fair enough, but I don't see how that can't be seen as at least somewhat naive.
I don't think that what has been presented is anywhere near evidence that she is 'owned'.
It's not like she is dependend on the money she and bill get for presentations.
I don't think that what has been presented is anywhere near evidence that she is 'owned'.
It's not like she is dependend on the money she and bill get for presentations.
Because you don't sell yourself under your value. It is a common practice among politicians when they are not active. You will find it in the us and any western country even among very popular politicians.
And no, it is not that simple. Not at all. Most of the allegations against her (like against the clinton foundation or that she is so cozy with wallstreet) are either outright lies or at least vastly exaggerated.
Let's look at this for example:
Here we see that saudi arabia donated long before clinton ever even was secretary of state or active in foreign politics and that their money was basically irrelevant for the foundation.
We see that there are naturally interewst overlaps, yes, but the claim (i know you did not make it but many people did) that clinton is 'owned' by saudi arabia and now has to make politics for them due to a very million dollars for her foundation is complete nonsense.
And the same is true for the 'omg she is the pet of wallstreet' claims.
Just because someone gives you money, it does not mean you are loyal to him if you'd be wealthy and well off anyway.
So we can basically break her insanely loyal politics to wallstreet down to 'not as tough as sanders because she believes that this is the best outcome she can get'.
How can this be horrible?
Even insanely wealthy men like bill gates get paid if they hold a speech in front of people.
But it's not like Bill Gates is dependend on that money.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I mean, every candidate who is not verging into populist territory ever gets attacked for having ties to something shady, at least the democratic candidates.
Even Obama got attacked for stuff like that, and once again, it was vastly exaggerated or outright wrong.
Thinking that a woman with a networth of 45 million dollars with a husband with a networth of 80 million dollars and a daughter with 15 million dollars is motivated by the money seems very irrational to me.
Yes, they got lots of money for speeches. It is assumed that they, both clintons on a whole, got 150 million dollar for all their speeches, about 200.000 a speech. The thing is, as you can see, they didnt put that money right onto their bank accounts. They used it for the campaign.
There is absolutely no fear of losing any lifestyle standards even if she would never receive any money from anyone ever again, because she has more than enough of it.
What she did was holding speeches for many different players, some even opposed to each other, to fund her campaign.
Why would she be loyal to them after she got money for her speech? The transaction is over.
And when she won her campaign, she does not need that money anymore anyway. It simply does not work that way. You are not loyal to someone because he pays you for your onetime speech, EXSPECIALLY not when you personally do not need that money.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Another thing: University pacs gave often just as much money to clinton as banks did.
For example, the university of california (or rather, the people working there, owners and so on) raised more money for clinton than goldman sachs did.
Or yale university, where more money for clinton was raised than for sanders:
Now, is clinton 'owned' by universities? No. Because yes, she needs money for her campaign, and lots of it, but her personal wellbeing is not affected by that.
And her campaign is funded my so many different individuals and interest groups that it's not like she couldnt campaign if some banks withdrew the money.
Yes, goldman sachs would not support clinton if they thought it was bad for them, but that does not mean that clinton will let them do what they please.
It is enough for goldman sachs that clinton's stance to them is less tough than sander's was. Thus they spend moderate money for her campaign.
Yet another thing is that in Obama vs Romney, Obama raised even more money than clinton (1000 million vs clinton's 700million) with, naturally, goldman sachs being a top donor too.
But we don't see Obama being questionaed about that anymore or him being particularly friendly to big banks.
So why have the double standards for clinton? Why is clinton a pet of the banks, but not every other of the countless politicians people actually like and trust which got even more money from them?
Oh and another thing which i just found when factchecking: The number of 150 mio for speeches is only if you add bill and start counting at after bill left office (so 2000).
Clinton got 22 mio in speeches and that's it. And only part of that was from the financial sector. And that is basically nothing when you take into account that even when running against sanders, her campaign was already 200 million dollars expensive.
Also, the people she held speeches for are not the same people who spend for her campaign afterwards.
Disregarding the speech money, the financial sector spend 12% of the money she used against sanders.
And the five big wallstreet banks only were responsible for a sum of under a million dollars.
Yet even then sanders claimed she was funded by wallstreet, which is simply not true.
What is true is that sanders received basically nothing (but not nothing) from the financial sector.
However, Rubio and Cruz got half of what clinton got from the financial sector, and their campaigns were smaller on a whole.
So, bottomline is, clinton would have had a very well off personal life and a still very ressourceful campaign even without ANY money she received from any tie to wallstreet or even the whole financial sector.
And what she got from thsoe guys was less than obama received against romney, which is obviously no problem because....Obama didnt hold a speech for some of the money?
So why have the double standards for clinton? Why is clinton a pet of the banks, but not every other of the countless politicians people actually like and trust which got even more money from them?
I don't see it as a double-standard, because I wasn't putting forth the idea that Obama shouldn't be criticized for it either. Obama isn't running for office, Clinton is.
This sort of behavior is a problem with most of politics. It needs to be changed. But continuing to take money in this way (whether you think they need to or not) and then saying that they want to change the system makes no real sense. I mean, like any politician, they can say whatever and deal in whatever rhetoric they wish, but I don't see why anyone would take them at their word.
That is true, but why would one person suddenly be dependend on another because they hold a speech for lots of money and the other not?
You asked me why the clintons take mony for their speeches, and i can only answer that everyone, even rich people, does that for speeches.
In case of the clintons, they use the money for the campaign, but i fail to see how this means they are owned.
As i said, the clintons got just as much money from university than from banks and held almost a thousand speeches over the time to so many different parties that they couldnt even satisfy all of their wishes if they wanted to.
I don't see it as a double-standard, because I wasn't putting forth the idea that Obama shouldn't be criticized for it either. Obama isn't running for office, Clinton is.
This sort of behavior is a problem with most of politics. It needs to be changed. But continuing to take money in this way (whether you think they need to or not) and then saying that they want to change the system makes no real sense. I mean, like any politician, they can say whatever and deal in whatever rhetoric they wish, but I don't see why anyone would take them at their word.
Okay, but what i wanted to express is that every election ever there is a candidate where people claim he has shady connections, and mostly, as in obama's case, it is nonsense.
I am not using obama to say it is okay, i am using obama to tell you that he got even more for his campaign from banks but still was not a wallstreet friendly candidate or whatever, and the allegations against him lost any credibility once the election was over.
So, why did the wallstreet favour Obama over Clinton back then? It sure didnt help them a lot. If we look at taxation:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/ Under Obama, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% of households has gone up more than 6 percentage points to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center.
and
For those with taxable income over $400,000 ($450,000 if married), their rate on dividends and long-term capital gains is now 20%, up from 15% previously.
In his 2016 budget proposal, Obama will call for the long-term capital gains and dividend tax rate for high-income households to be raised again -- this time to 24.2%.
_________________
Before, everyone's taxes fell except those of low income families, under bush. Under obama, everyone's taxes fell or stayed the same (exspecially low and middle) and only the top taxpayers saw a rise. So, if they favoured obama, it seems to have been a mistake. And if they favour clinton now, a candidate which seemed MORE unfavourable to them than Obama in 2008....what makes you think that it does not make sense that clinton can change some things about the system?
Changing the system is a big word, she is not exactly a communist after all, but seeing higher taxes for rich people and lower taxes for the middle class is not exactly something out of question.
I wonder what will happen after the election.
We can be pretty sure by now that clinton will win, but even in Obama's case, it took a long time until reps calmed down and they were still very spiteful towards obama for his whole legislation.
The Birther conspiracy never completely died down until now, so didn thte 'he is a muslim' allegations.
And this time, the hate and conspiracy anger is thousandfold. I can honestly see a movement that will be adamant about the elction being rigged and start violent protests. This does not have to happen, but it could. Lots of the Trump protesters fall into the group of people which is the likeliest to start mass shootings. And if they are given a 'good cause' like 'reinstalling democracy', i could see at least some lunatics goinginto warmode.
Before, it still seemed like, whatever is said and done, the two candidates could seperate between election talk and what comes after. The first debate still had a handshake and seemed mostly civil compared to the second one.
But once the sex scandals came into play, all bets were off.
I think both candidates, behind their facade, are actually hurt by what is digged out there.
I think the being betrayed by bill and it going public was already a very ashaming time for hillary, leave alone the rape allegations against him while her daughter is in the room.
Similarly, while it is not officially brought in by the clinton campaign (they are too smart for that, but i think it can be assumed that the timing of the rape and groping allegations are no coincidence) are more than the usual 'oh well he is a bad boy' gossip about trump. Raping a 13 year old girl is no joke, and he is actually sued for it right now (it is really interesting regarding both allegations against trump and bill clinton to read into the person jeffrey epstein. A horrible person who is connected to a lot of powerful persons who might have participated or at least kept quiet about his, and this is no exaggeration, underage sex salves).
Before, i could see either candidate at least keeping quiet after their lose and at a minimum not being hostile.
I could see trump going 'Oh well yes, i have to accept defeat and i will run next time and take the presidency from her' or some of such bullshit.
But i cannot see that anymore. I think if she wins he will go full on conspiracy, say she rigged the election and make remarks that his supporters can interpret as open calls for violence (like the second amendmend remark).
Most of the time, politicians might say mean things about each other, but they seperate those from the actual reality.
I bet Obama had no actual problem with romney or mc cain, and if he had, it had nothing to do with what they did in their campaigns but just personal antipathy.
But i think that clinton and trump, after having a friendly relationship before, actually do hate each other now.
I wonder what will happen after the election.
We can be pretty sure by now that clinton will win, but even in Obama's case, it took a long time until reps calmed down and they were still very spiteful towards obama for his whole legislation.
The Birther conspiracy never completely died down until now, so didn thte 'he is a muslim' allegations.
And this time, the hate and conspiracy anger is thousandfold. I can honestly see a movement that will be adamant about the elction being rigged and start violent protests. This does not have to happen, but it could. Lots of the Trump protesters fall into the group of people which is the likeliest to start mass shootings. And if they are given a 'good cause' like 'reinstalling democracy', i could see at least some lunatics goinginto warmode.
Before, it still seemed like, whatever is said and done, the two candidates could seperate between election talk and what comes after. The first debate still had a handshake and seemed mostly civil compared to the second one.
But once the sex scandals came into play, all bets were off.
I think both candidates, behind their facade, are actually hurt by what is digged out there.
I think the being betrayed by bill and it going public was already a very ashaming time for hillary, leave alone the rape allegations against him while her daughter is in the room.
Similarly, while it is not officially brought in by the clinton campaign (they are too smart for that, but i think it can be assumed that the timing of the rape and groping allegations are no coincidence) are more than the usual 'oh well he is a bad boy' gossip about trump. Raping a 13 year old girl is no joke, and he is actually sued for it right now (it is really interesting regarding both allegations against trump and bill clinton to read into the person jeffrey epstein. A horrible person who is connected to a lot of powerful persons who might have participated or at least kept quiet about his, and this is no exaggeration, underage sex salves).
Before, i could see either candidate at least keeping quiet after their lose and at a minimum not being hostile.
I could see trump going 'Oh well yes, i have to accept defeat and i will run next time and take the presidency from her' or some of such bullshit.
But i cannot see that anymore. I think if she wins he will go full on conspiracy, say she rigged the election and make remarks that his supporters can interpret as open calls for violence (like the second amendmend remark).
Most of the time, politicians might say mean things about each other, but they seperate those from the actual reality.
I bet Obama had no actual problem with romney or mc cain, and if he had, it had nothing to do with what they did in their campaigns but just personal antipathy.
But i think that clinton and trump, after having a friendly relationship before, actually do hate each other now.
The birther conspiracy has not died down. Trump claims to have ended it (which is one of the stupider things he has said) but his actual supporters still believe obama was not born in the US, is a muslim and a few things even worst than that (such as michele obama is not a woman). Unfortunately this is an entire generation of people who literally trust nothing and the believes they have are written in stone and they will die this way.
Well, it depends but after the election hillary probably won't have to care much about trump. It's not like trump was a politician beforehand. The biggest threat he could pose is to continue to spread insane conspiracy theories through breibart and other alt right media outlets. Though everything considered that is a real possibility and even a threat. Other than that there is no reason for her to work with him.
Realistically speaking the allegations against bill have about as much merit as the ones against trump. The difference being that there is an audio of trump doing exactly what over dozen women are claiming he did to them. In particular the Juanita broadrick testimony is kinda terrifying to hear.... However it has been too long since it happened and in the end its her work against his so there really is nothing to go on from here as far as I can tell.
The birther conspiracy has not died down. Trump claims to have ended it (which is one of the stupider things he has said) but his actual supporters still believe obama was not born in the US, is a muslim and a few things even worst than that (such as michele obama is not a woman). Unfortunately this is an entire generation of people who literally trust nothing and the believes they have are written in stone and they will die this way.
Well, it depends but after the election hillary probably won't have to care much about trump. It's not like trump was a politician beforehand. The biggest threat he could pose is to continue to spread insane conspiracy theories through breibart and other alt right media outlets. Though everything considered that is a real possibility and even a threat. Other than that there is no reason for her to work with him.
Realistically speaking the allegations against bill have about as much merit as the ones against trump. The difference being that there is an audio of trump doing exactly what over dozen women are claiming he did to them. In particular the Juanita broadrick testimony is kinda terrifying to hear.... However it has been too long since it happened and in the end its her work against his so there really is nothing to go on from here as far as I can tell.
I have looked into both allegations in great detail (because the procrastination is strong in me) and I see it like this:
It is very very clear to me that trump has molested women and was violent to his ex wife, engaging in something that was not a rape in front of the law, but was a rape in my book.
However, whether he really raped a child is very unclear and for now, i would not believe it without evidence. The case against him is not made public (rightfully), but we might hear about a conviction at some point. However, the rape case against trump took allegedly place on the propery of jeffrey epstein, a convicted child rapist. The thing is: Bill clinton was there too. Noone claimed that he engaged in anything with the minors and sex slaves on that property (and that those existed is proven), but he was seen there (to his credit before epstein got convicted, tho).
That has nothing to do with juanita broadrick. Her case is very difficult to judge, too, because part of it is very credible, and part of it i find very unbelievable.
Broadrick did wait for a long time with the allegations and was even seen on VOLUNTEER WORK for clinton after the alleged rape. However, that is not out of question for rape victims. Even her subscription of a document saying she had no sexual encounter with clinton would make somewhat sense if she says she was afraid that there was nothing the law could do to clinton at that point and wnated to protect herself and her family from the media attention.
There was one thing that i found noteworthy in particular: Women who had concensual sex with clinton said that he sometimes tended to get rough while having sex and bit their lips, and broadrick claimed the same thing: he bit her lip when he raped her. Now, that could be due to her being informed about that story by another of the women (they probably had contact, at least via one of the women's lawyer), but she was seen in 'a state of shock' by two friends of her after the alleged encounter with a swollen lip.
That does not look good for clinton, however: Noone saw clinton even enter the building where the alleged rape took place, and the two friends of Broadrick who allegedly saw her swollen lip had a blood relative who was sentenced to death when clinton was general attorney.
So noone saw clinton enter the building, at least two of the people who saw that 'state of shock' were biased, and she could have even just hurt her lip herself.
That would, however, beg the question why she personally would do something against bill clinton when she was volunteer before but keep silent for so long.
This directly questions her state of mind too.
When i saw her now and twitter and TV, she made the impression on me of a haunted person with an erratic mind. A person i would not necessarily believe.
But that makes it too easy, because back then, she probably was not that way. Her facility (a nursing home) won prizes, so she was able to work efficiently and lead it. That would not be possible if she was really completely loony back then.
But after the incident, she said a lot of things which verge into loony territory because i cannot believe they happened:
First of all, she says hillary clinton went to her on a clinton event (where broadrick was too. Which can be interpreted as normal behaviour for a rape victim or be questioned) and thanked for several times for her 'special engagement' while looking her in the eye without smiling and then left the event quickly after it.
This seems questionable to me. I don't think bill clinton runs straight to his wife and tells her when he rapes a woman so hillary can go and threaten her.
He would either threaten her via a lawyer or in person if he chose to do so and he would do anything else than telling hillary. This event seems stolen straight out of a bad movie.
The second thing is that she says bill, after many years when the lewinsky scandal was about to happen, went to her to appologize. I also don't believe that.
Even if he was afraid she would say something in the lewinski scandal, why would he go there in person THIS TIME to appologize, when before he sent his wife to threaten? And in person? So that her claims would be even more credible when he was seen before with her? Nah. I don't think that happened.
The same goes for other women who had allegations against clinton. One said people had laid dead cats onto her property as warning, and really, i don't think the clintons have a black ops unit to lay dead cats on someone's property. If they want to subtly threaten someone, they send lawyers, not dead cats. Or subtly show someone that they are dependend or whatever. But this? also from a movie, definitely.
So what to make out of it? We know clinton fucked everything he could get and he had good relations with a pimp for underage sexslaves who even let him use his private yet.
That alone does nto necessarily make him a rapist. Naomi campbell has relations with that guy too and i doubt she rapes people, and womanizing is not rape, too.
Personally, if bill clinton would run today, i would definitely not see him as ethically fit to be president. His womanizing is not a problem to me, but the way he handled that hurt his integrity and also his wife.
And maybe he did rape her. It could also be truth inbetween: Maybe they had consensual sex but he got rough?
But then again, there is no evidence he was even in that building and no single other of the numerous women say he forced them to do anything.
Even the ones who say he groped them don't say that.
In any case: I do definitely not believe that hillary clinton tried to cover up a rape.
Even if broadrick tells the truth it was at best an interpretation of her that hillary wanted to threaten her.
And i mean: Hillary clinton, at that point, had no daughter with that man and he stopped being president soon after.
At that moment, when she knows he is a rapist, would she stay with him and get a baby?
She might be power hungry, okay, but i don't think any rational woman (and she is one, in my book) would make a baby with someone she believes to be a rapist.
I subscribe to several conservative materials and news and am constantly groaning in agony whenever they bring up the new set of emails and etc. I dont honestly think people will truly be altering their voiting regime based on them. Do democrats really care about Hillary Clinton and her colleagues statements in these emails that are continually being released?
I subscribe to several conservative materials and news and am constantly groaning in agony whenever they bring up the new set of emails and etc. I dont honestly think people will truly be altering their voiting regime based on them. Do democrats really care about Hillary Clinton and her colleagues statements in these emails that are continually being released?
They ar eopen for everybody and i must say: I don't see why that would bring outrage? She said things she cannot say in public, yes, but the things she said made sense to me and in fact showed that she cares about those topics.
I have looked into both allegations in great detail (because the procrastination is strong in me) and I see it like this:
It is very very clear to me that trump has molested women and was violent to his ex wife, engaging in something that was not a rape in front of the law, but was a rape in my book.
However, whether he really raped a child is very unclear and for now, i would not believe it without evidence. The case against him is not made public (rightfully), but we might hear about a conviction at some point. However, the rape case against trump took allegedly place on the propery of jeffrey epstein, a convicted child rapist. The thing is: Bill clinton was there too. Noone claimed that he engaged in anything with the minors and sex slaves on that property (and that those existed is proven), but he was seen there (to his credit before epstein got convicted, tho).
That has nothing to do with juanita broadrick. Her case is very difficult to judge, too, because part of it is very credible, and part of it i find very unbelievable.
Broadrick did wait for a long time with the allegations and was even seen on VOLUNTEER WORK for clinton after the alleged rape. However, that is not out of question for rape victims. Even her subscription of a document saying she had no sexual encounter with clinton would make somewhat sense if she says she was afraid that there was nothing the law could do to clinton at that point and wnated to protect herself and her family from the media attention.
There was one thing that i found noteworthy in particular: Women who had concensual sex with clinton said that he sometimes tended to get rough while having sex and bit their lips, and broadrick claimed the same thing: he bit her lip when he raped her. Now, that could be due to her being informed about that story by another of the women (they probably had contact, at least via one of the women's lawyer), but she was seen in 'a state of shock' by two friends of her after the alleged encounter with a swollen lip.
That does not look good for clinton, however: Noone saw clinton even enter the building where the alleged rape took place, and the two friends of Broadrick who allegedly saw her swollen lip had a blood relative who was sentenced to death when clinton was general attorney.
So noone saw clinton enter the building, at least two of the people who saw that 'state of shock' were biased, and she could have even just hurt her lip herself.
That would, however, beg the question why she personally would do something against bill clinton when she was volunteer before but keep silent for so long.
This directly questions her state of mind too.
When i saw her now and twitter and TV, she made the impression on me of a haunted person with an erratic mind. A person i would not necessarily believe.
But that makes it too easy, because back then, she probably was not that way. Her facility (a nursing home) won prizes, so she was able to work efficiently and lead it. That would not be possible if she was really completely loony back then.
But after the incident, she said a lot of things which verge into loony territory because i cannot believe they happened:
First of all, she says hillary clinton went to her on a clinton event (where broadrick was too. Which can be interpreted as normal behaviour for a rape victim or be questioned) and thanked for several times for her 'special engagement' while looking her in the eye without smiling and then left the event quickly after it.
This seems questionable to me. I don't think bill clinton runs straight to his wife and tells her when he rapes a woman so hillary can go and threaten her.
He would either threaten her via a lawyer or in person if he chose to do so and he would do anything else than telling hillary. This event seems stolen straight out of a bad movie.
The second thing is that she says bill, after many years when the lewinsky scandal was about to happen, went to her to appologize. I also don't believe that.
Even if he was afraid she would say something in the lewinski scandal, why would he go there in person THIS TIME to appologize, when before he sent his wife to threaten? And in person? So that her claims would be even more credible when he was seen before with her? Nah. I don't think that happened.
The same goes for other women who had allegations against clinton. One said people had laid dead cats onto her property as warning, and really, i don't think the clintons have a black ops unit to lay dead cats on someone's property. If they want to subtly threaten someone, they send lawyers, not dead cats. Or subtly show someone that they are dependend or whatever. But this? also from a movie, definitely.
So what to make out of it? We know clinton fucked everything he could get and he had good relations with a pimp for underage sexslaves who even let him use his private yet.
That alone does nto necessarily make him a rapist. Naomi campbell has relations with that guy too and i doubt she rapes people, and womanizing is not rape, too.
Personally, if bill clinton would run today, i would definitely not see him as ethically fit to be president. His womanizing is not a problem to me, but the way he handled that hurt his integrity and also his wife.
And maybe he did rape her. It could also be truth inbetween: Maybe they had consensual sex but he got rough?
But then again, there is no evidence he was even in that building and no single other of the numerous women say he forced them to do anything.
Even the ones who say he groped them don't say that.
In any case: I do definitely not believe that hillary clinton tried to cover up a rape.
Even if broadrick tells the truth it was at best an interpretation of her that hillary wanted to threaten her.
And i mean: Hillary clinton, at that point, had no daughter with that man and he stopped being president soon after.
At that moment, when she knows he is a rapist, would she stay with him and get a baby?
She might be power hungry, okay, but i don't think any rational woman (and she is one, in my book) would make a baby with someone she believes to be a rapist.
Well, as far as the Juanita Broadrick I think the issue is that this thing is already past it's expiration date. She, for a number of reasons, did not come forward when it happened. Even when she did come forward many years had passed. And there is no real evidence that bill did anything to her. This is a situation where "innocent until proven otherwise" should apply because the alternative simply is not reasonable. Nowadays you hear you should believe rape victims but this is, however unfortunately, a hard crime to prove. However that doesn't mean you should treat people accused of rape as actual rapists, the burden of proof does fall on them after all (as far as the issue of rape trials go I do think they should be changed so that a woman's sexual history and whatnot are not a factor and are actually fair). With trump and the issue about assaulting women it's a tad different because in the leaked audio you have the guy explaining exactly what he does and then a bunch of women come out as say that trump did exactly that. And for some reason he thinks pointing out how ugly those women are constitutes a defense. Now, regarding the last bit Juanita said about hillary, it is a tad weird. Normally if you read about clinton and her interactions with other people she works with they point out how great she is (obviously not everyone she has worked with thinks she is great but at least the majority seems to think she is). Heck, at times even republicans have praised her. So if an uncharacteristically unfriendly clinton approached her and said that I could absolutely believe it was meant to be menacing. However that completely depends on her account being accurate.
Well, as far as the Juanita Broadrick I think the issue is that this thing is already past it's expiration date. She, for a number of reasons, did not come forward when it happened. Even when she did come forward many years had passed. And there is no real evidence that bill did anything to her. This is a situation where "innocent until proven otherwise" should apply because the alternative simply is not reasonable. Nowadays you hear you should believe rape victims but this is, however unfortunately, a hard crime to prove. However that doesn't mean you should treat people accused of rape as actual rapists, the burden of proof does fall on them after all (as far as the issue of rape trials go I do think they should be changed so that a woman's sexual history and whatnot are not a factor and are actually fair). With trump and the issue about assaulting women it's a tad different because in the leaked audio you have the guy explaining exactly what he does and then a bunch of women come out as say that trump did exactly that. And for some reason he thinks pointing out how ugly those women are constitutes a defense. Now, regarding the last bit Juanita said about hillary, it is a tad weird. Normally if you read about clinton and her interactions with other people she works with they point out how great she is (obviously not everyone she has worked with thinks she is great but at least the majority seems to think she is). Heck, at times even republicans have praised her. So if an uncharacteristically unfriendly clinton approached her and said that I could absolutely believe it was meant to be menacing. However that completely depends on her account being accurate.
Exspecially republicans have praised clinton as being easy to work with and a good mender of party disputes.
The only people who, as far as i know, univocally hated hillary clinton were the workers in the white house and the secret service back in bill's term.
Allegedly the time was so stressful that clinton got insanely paranoid and insulted people left and right, because she was not used to being watched over nonstop (while the bushes has servants even before entering the white house and were totally cool with it ).
However, as i said, i simply cannot believe bill would tell hillary when he raped someone so SHE would go and threaten her.
The only thing i could imagine was if hillary knew nothing about rape but somehow thought that bill had betrayed her with broadrick and thus wanted to let her know she knows.
But that is kinda the maximum. You don't threaten someone by saying 'thank you' with a low voice and no smile.
I would have found it more believeable if hillary would have gone to her and offered her a sum of money under the excuse of her good work in the nursing home via the clinton foundation or any other channel. That would make sense to try to buy her silence.
But why threaten someone who was silence until them and not even threaten him with anything you mention?
This does not add up for me in any way, the same goes for bill allegedly appologizing to her.
I think that at least in some regards, broadrick does not tell the truth.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
So, i am hyped for the last debate.
I wonder what i will eat and drink this time.
I will have a mate coming over so i think i will make a motto evening. Burgers and Wine as metaphor for Trump and Clinton? That mix is disgusting, but so will the debate be.
Exspecially republicans have praised clinton as being easy to work with and a good mender of party disputes.
The only people who, as far as i know, univocally hated hillary clinton were the workers in the white house and the secret service back in bill's term.
Allegedly the time was so stressful that clinton got insanely paranoid and insulted people left and right, because she was not used to being watched over nonstop (while the bushes has servants even before entering the white house and were totally cool with it ).
However, as i said, i simply cannot believe bill would tell hillary when he raped someone so SHE would go and threaten her.
The only thing i could imagine was if hillary knew nothing about rape but somehow thought that bill had betrayed her with broadrick and thus wanted to let her know she knows.
But that is kinda the maximum. You don't threaten someone by saying 'thank you' with a low voice and no smile.
I would have found it more believeable if hillary would have gone to her and offered her a sum of money under the excuse of her good work in the nursing home via the clinton foundation or any other channel. That would make sense to try to buy her silence.
But why threaten someone who was silence until them and not even threaten him with anything you mention?
This does not add up for me in any way, the same goes for bill allegedly appologizing to her.
I think that at least in some regards, broadrick does not tell the truth.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
So, i am hyped for the last debate.
I wonder what i will eat and drink this time.
I will have a mate coming over so i think i will make a motto evening. Burgers and Wine as metaphor for Trump and Clinton? That mix is disgusting, but so will the debate be.
Well, there isn't a single scenario here which is not extreme. Granted that hillary learning of this, covering up, threatening her and then going on to start a family with bill is kinda over the top.
Well, there isn't a single scenario here which is not extreme. Granted that hillary learning of this, covering up, threatening her and then going on to start a family with bill is kinda over the top.
Yeah, i mean, hillary was not really dependend on bill anymore. He was leaving office and if she knew he was a rapist and cheated on her nonstop, why stay together and make a baby? Nah, it makes no sense to me.
I got two possible rough theories:
First: At the time the alleged rape took place, Broadrick cheated on her first husband with her (later) second husband. It was suspected that she possibly either got suspected by her first husband and invented a rape to defelect any thought about her cheating, or in fact had consensual sex with bill clinton but didnt want that to destroy her relationship to both of her lovers. It could be that clinton in fact bit her lip during the encounter, and thus she had a visible mark she had to explain.
She could also simply in fact be mentally ill. Her state right now, in my opinion, is clearly erratic, so possibly at that time that tendency began.
Second: Bill clinton did in fact rape her. He was used to women wanting him and just went at it. Some rapists even don't accept that they are comitting a rape and convince themselve the victim wants it, because no means yes.
After that, Broadrick got haunted by this experience and slowly started going off the rails.
As i said i think that hillary clinton threatening her and bill apologizing is pure fabrication. Both does not make any sense to me, even if he did rape her.
____________________________________
The shot idea might be a bit extreme Maybe i will set up a skype convo with sean hannity?
).