3 ms·

Has he made some admission I haven't heard about? What he says on the tape (in conjunction with perfectly credible statements from multiple witnesses) tells yo

Has he made some admission I haven't heard about? What he says on the tape (in conjunction with perfectly credible statements from multiple witnesses) tells you everything you need to know. And BTW, the standard shouldn't be whether he's been criminally convicted or not; but "preponderance of evidence". As in the, you know, rational, pragmatic "Would you even consider (for so much as half a second) hiring someone who made statements like that, in conjunction with statements his victims? Let alone electing him to the office of dog catcher?" sense.

ensignavenger 10y ago
Well, I certainly didn't vote for him. But by your standard of evidence, I would have to say that we already elected someone that is just as much "confirmed serial sexual predator" who served as President for 8 years. In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger. Said former President was repeatedly defended by Trumps primary former rival for the position... so what choice did Americans really have? In the end, not a very good one.
- argonaut 10y ago
  The evidence of Bill's sexual harassment is actually much thinner, since there is no tape or anything except several women's accusations (his confirmed affairs are a different matter - they were consensual and Trump also had plenty of affairs and these weren't the issue). And in one case there are several other people who testify against that woman. Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard. Broaddrick denied her accusations in an affidavit, and later retracted that denial. That destroys her credibility. Edit: The only legit accusation is Paula Jones's, since Bill settled that case. Regardless, this is Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Hillary attacked Paula.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    And in each case there are several other people who testify against that woman. I don't have time to get into the fine-grain of it with you -- but if that's your impression then I'd suggest you look more closely into the basic event chronology. (What you're saying about counter-testimony has some relevance to the Wiley case; but to the Jones and Broaddrick cases, none to speak of). Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard. The word of "one person" (who has been established to be pathological dissembler and obfuscator on the subject of, well, just about anything he opens his mouth about) against the generally consistent and credible statements of at least 15 accusers, to be precise. Combined with his irrefutable statements on tape. Again... it all comes down to the "would you hire this person?" standard.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  All basically true and valid, as far as Clinton's behavior is concerned. However, it's also a completely immaterial to the subject of Donald Trump's behavior. And and to the subject of FB board member, and YC advisor Peter Thiel's attempt to obfuscate and normalize that "behavior" (i.e. sexual violence) -- even more so.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger I don't think you can get much stronger than "bragged about it on tape".

ensignavenger 10y ago

Well, I certainly didn't vote for him. But by your standard of evidence, I would have to say that we already elected someone that is just as much "confirmed serial sexual predator" who served as President for 8 years. In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger. Said former President was repeatedly defended by Trumps primary former rival for the position... so what choice did Americans really have? In the end, not a very good one.

argonaut 10y ago
The evidence of Bill's sexual harassment is actually much thinner, since there is no tape or anything except several women's accusations (his confirmed affairs are a different matter - they were consensual and Trump also had plenty of affairs and these weren't the issue). And in one case there are several other people who testify against that woman. Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard. Broaddrick denied her accusations in an affidavit, and later retracted that denial. That destroys her credibility. Edit: The only legit accusation is Paula Jones's, since Bill settled that case. Regardless, this is Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Hillary attacked Paula.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  And in each case there are several other people who testify against that woman. I don't have time to get into the fine-grain of it with you -- but if that's your impression then I'd suggest you look more closely into the basic event chronology. (What you're saying about counter-testimony has some relevance to the Wiley case; but to the Jones and Broaddrick cases, none to speak of). Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard. The word of "one person" (who has been established to be pathological dissembler and obfuscator on the subject of, well, just about anything he opens his mouth about) against the generally consistent and credible statements of at least 15 accusers, to be precise. Combined with his irrefutable statements on tape. Again... it all comes down to the "would you hire this person?" standard.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kafkaesq 10y ago
All basically true and valid, as far as Clinton's behavior is concerned. However, it's also a completely immaterial to the subject of Donald Trump's behavior. And and to the subject of FB board member, and YC advisor Peter Thiel's attempt to obfuscate and normalize that "behavior" (i.e. sexual violence) -- even more so.
serge2k 10y ago
> In fact, the evidence against them is much stronger I don't think you can get much stronger than "bragged about it on tape".