3 ms·

You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on. Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fak

by 551199 10y ago

You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on. Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016'[0] [0]https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928

masklinn 10y ago
> You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on. 1. Trump was not hammering anything, accusing Hillary for Bill's infidelity has never been a hammer over the 20 years it's been used (in fact it's usually backfired). The strategy was flopping as irrelevant even amongst republicans. Reminder: Bill is not running for president. 2. Kenneth Starr's investigation dropped all of these accusations back when it was trying to find anything to pin on him, none of them were credible, the only thing they got in the end was infidelity in a consensual relationship 3. And Trump's bringing up of Bill was only a flippant attempt to direct people away from his Access Hollywood tape. > Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016' https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928 Er… so? That reads like a criticism ad prep: > This will be a microsite Which I guess they ended up not having to run since Trump has been providing the quotes directly.
- 551199 10y ago
  Clintons say they are running as a team. You can't take the good without the bad. You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed. BUT Trumps alleged should be believed. Hillary stated all rape victims have a right to be believed. In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped?
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed. I never said that, no. What I did say was that their claims were investigated by Starr who had every reason to use them if he could, and he didn't. > BUT Trumps alleged should be believed. See there are a few big differences here. Trump's history of bragging about sexually assaulting women, the coherence of the accusations and Trump's MO, that Gloria Allred has decided to get involved, and that these are not 20+ years old accusations which were already dropped. > In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped? You do understand that "we should believe [people] saying they have been raped" means "trust but verify" right? The allegations against Clinton were extensively checked two decades ago by people working against Clinton who had every reason to use these accusation, and they judged them not worth pursuing. Not that the move makes any sense either way, if assault accusations against one candidate's SO are impeachable offenses, what are assault accusations agains the other candidate directly?
alexbeloi 10y ago
If it makes you feel any better, there are many of us that would like to see both Trump and B. Clinton in a court room. The strategic nature of information dispersal is not lost on people and it's disgusting. If you accept the accusers claims from both sides (as I am inclined to do in cases of sexual harassment), we have one nominee that is a self reported serial sexual predator and another who is an attacker of victims of her serial sexual predator spouse. There's no moral high-ground here.

by 551199 10y ago

masklinn 10y ago

> You mean the time Clinton campaign needed a way to counter Bill's actual sexual assault victims Trump was hammering them on. 1. Trump was not hammering anything, accusing Hillary for Bill's infidelity has never been a hammer over the 20 years it's been used (in fact it's usually backfired). The strategy was flopping as irrelevant even amongst republicans. Reminder: Bill is not running for president. 2. Kenneth Starr's investigation dropped all of these accusations back when it was trying to find anything to pin on him, none of them were credible, the only thing they got in the end was infidelity in a consensual relationship 3. And Trump's bringing up of Bill was only a flippant attempt to direct people away from his Access Hollywood tape. > Wikileaks: 'Democrats prepared fake Trump "grope under the meeting table" Craigslist employment advertisement in May 2016' https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787060280832380928 Er… so? That reads like a criticism ad prep: > This will be a microsite Which I guess they ended up not having to run since Trump has been providing the quotes directly.

551199 10y ago
Clintons say they are running as a team. You can't take the good without the bad. You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed. BUT Trumps alleged should be believed. Hillary stated all rape victims have a right to be believed. In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped?
- masklinn 10y ago
  > You say women that have settled in court or accused of Clinton of sexual assault should not be believed. I never said that, no. What I did say was that their claims were investigated by Starr who had every reason to use them if he could, and he didn't. > BUT Trumps alleged should be believed. See there are a few big differences here. Trump's history of bragging about sexually assaulting women, the coherence of the accusations and Trump's MO, that Gloria Allred has decided to get involved, and that these are not 20+ years old accusations which were already dropped. > In your mind should we or should we not believe women saying they have been raped? You do understand that "we should believe [people] saying they have been raped" means "trust but verify" right? The allegations against Clinton were extensively checked two decades ago by people working against Clinton who had every reason to use these accusation, and they judged them not worth pursuing. Not that the move makes any sense either way, if assault accusations against one candidate's SO are impeachable offenses, what are assault accusations agains the other candidate directly?

alexbeloi 10y ago

If it makes you feel any better, there are many of us that would like to see both Trump and B. Clinton in a court room. The strategic nature of information dispersal is not lost on people and it's disgusting. If you accept the accusers claims from both sides (as I am inclined to do in cases of sexual harassment), we have one nominee that is a self reported serial sexual predator and another who is an attacker of victims of her serial sexual predator spouse. There's no moral high-ground here.