4 ms·

>Huff is full of titles Trump is sexual predator without facts, just talks. We have, on record, him describing sexual assault. With his own words. On the other

>Huff is full of titles Trump is sexual predator without facts, just talks. We have, on record, him describing sexual assault. With his own words. On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them. On top of the fact that there is zero evidence in favor of that statement. That's the difference. And you would definitely know this if you weren't being disingenuous.

nartsbtaa 10y ago
> On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them. Yet other women have consistently claimed over decades that Clinton sexually assaulted them. And today women are coming forward accusing Trump of sexual assault. There seems to be very little difference; both men have probably assaulted women in the past and abused their power to get away with it. I don't think arbitrarily slanting the narrative to defend one and condemn the other serves anybody. In fact, sweeping sexual assault under the rug when it doesn't serve your political agenda is a pretty horrible thing to do.
- CocaKoala 10y ago
  Well, one significant difference here is that Donald Trump is running for President, and Bill Clinton isn't.
  - duncanawoods 10y ago
    Barely. The Clintons have long campaigned as a two for one deal. She announced that if elected, he will be "in charge of reinvigorating the economy". http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-administration-economy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bill-hillary-c...
- popmystack 10y ago
  There is nothing arbitrary about evidence based statements. Everything I stated is completely based on evidence from multiple sources, from the congressional investigations to reporters. So, you can remove your disingenuous label of "my political agenda." just because you want to falsely equivocate things based on what you feel is probably true from hearsay and claims, instead of what is actually known based on evidence and legal testimony.
oldmanjay 10y ago
We have him on record joking around with someone about actions he didn't take. It's hardly the confession the breathless Twitter hordes want it to be, not to ruin your emotionally resonating state of being
- popmystack 10y ago
  When you have multiple claims against you and you describe in detail taking actions that you've denied, it's no longer "joking" (Honestly, who jokes about stuff like that?) At that point it's called corroborating evidence. Thinking logically and taking all contextual evidence into account can be hard, but it's worth the effort instead of rationalizing things away while simultaneously debasing yourself. Based on your profile, you don't really seem to care, so I won't bother anymore.

nartsbtaa 10y ago

> On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them. Yet other women have consistently claimed over decades that Clinton sexually assaulted them. And today women are coming forward accusing Trump of sexual assault. There seems to be very little difference; both men have probably assaulted women in the past and abused their power to get away with it. I don't think arbitrarily slanting the narrative to defend one and condemn the other serves anybody. In fact, sweeping sexual assault under the rug when it doesn't serve your political agenda is a pretty horrible thing to do.

CocaKoala 10y ago
Well, one significant difference here is that Donald Trump is running for President, and Bill Clinton isn't.
- duncanawoods 10y ago
  Barely. The Clintons have long campaigned as a two for one deal. She announced that if elected, he will be "in charge of reinvigorating the economy". http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-administration-economy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bill-hillary-c...
popmystack 10y ago
There is nothing arbitrary about evidence based statements. Everything I stated is completely based on evidence from multiple sources, from the congressional investigations to reporters. So, you can remove your disingenuous label of "my political agenda." just because you want to falsely equivocate things based on what you feel is probably true from hearsay and claims, instead of what is actually known based on evidence and legal testimony.

oldmanjay 10y ago

We have him on record joking around with someone about actions he didn't take. It's hardly the confession the breathless Twitter hordes want it to be, not to ruin your emotionally resonating state of being

popmystack 10y ago
When you have multiple claims against you and you describe in detail taking actions that you've denied, it's no longer "joking" (Honestly, who jokes about stuff like that?) At that point it's called corroborating evidence. Thinking logically and taking all contextual evidence into account can be hard, but it's worth the effort instead of rationalizing things away while simultaneously debasing yourself. Based on your profile, you don't really seem to care, so I won't bother anymore.