Trump threatens to use Bill's sex scandal against Hillary

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hillary has been trying to court the SJW/student vote by playing up the woman angle. That clashes with the "all these woman are lying about being raped" narrative she also maintains regarding her husband. All womens study majors can tell you, it's impossible for women to lie about being raped.

This is an interesting contradiction I never considered.

[Averroës Nix]

The existence of multiple credible sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton is a serious issue that the Democratic Party should have come to terms with two decades ago or earlier. You have to hope that an issue like this wouldn't be treated under an omerta-like code of silence today.

But why that should discredit Hillary Clinton more than anyone else who ignored or impugned those charges - and, let's be clear, that includes most Democrat notables, including every presidential nominee since Clinton - isn't so clear to me. If Trump were somehow to force a serious reconsideration of the accusations that Clinton faced during and prior to his presidency, it could seriously damage a lot of powerful people in the Democratic Party and in the media, exposing them as enablers of a sexual predator who used his power to guarantee that none of his accusers would ever be taken seriously.

On the other hand, it's more likely that it's just half-assed headline-baiting. We'll get a lot of yelling, partisan bludgeoning, and more moments like this:



...but not a serious reconsideration of Bill Clinton's troubling personal legacy. Which is a shame.

[bobloblaw]

Hillary has been trying to court the SJW/student vote by playing up the woman angle. That clashes with the "all these woman are lying about being raped" narrative she also maintains regarding her husband. All womens study majors can tell you, it's impossible for women to lie about being raped.

This is an interesting contradiction I never considered.

Correct. Hillary has even said every rape accusation should be taken seriously.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I feel like I lose brain cells every time Trump says something....give it a rest.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

He goes further:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!"

[ProudModerate2]

He goes further:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!"

Yes you are right ... he does "go further."
Trump goes further on making himself look more like of an ass, than he already has.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He goes further:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!"

Yes you are right ... he does "go further."
Trump goes further on making himself look more like of an ass, than he already has.

What people don't get is that Trump is the only one trying to hold BILL Clinton accountable for his past actions, and the only way he can do this is by pre-empting a degree of the appeal for the Clintons (and they are, truly a "package deal") amongst women on the gender issues.  Violence against women is a real-world thing.  Even a liberal woman will be creeped out if she thinks long enough about some of what Bill Clinton allegedly did.  It wasn't a CAMPAIGN issue in the past; the Willey/Lewinsky/Tripp stuff happened after 1996.  But it WILL be a campaign issue now, thanks to Donald Trump.  Think about this, and the effect that this could possibly have.

[ProudModerate2]

He goes further:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!"

Yes you are right ... he does "go further."
Trump goes further on making himself look more like of an ass, than he already has.

What people don't get is that Trump is the only one trying to hold BILL Clinton accountable for his past actions, and the only way he can do this is by pre-empting a degree of the appeal for the Clintons (and they are, truly a "package deal") amongst women on the gender issues.  Violence against women is a real-world thing.  Even a liberal woman will be creeped out if she thinks long enough about some of what Bill Clinton allegedly did.  It wasn't a CAMPAIGN issue in the past; the Willey/Lewinsky/Tripp stuff happened after 1996.  But it WILL be a campaign issue now, thanks to Donald Trump.  Think about this, and the effect that this could possibly have.

How far in time do we go back, and discuss such dinosaur issues, to "hold people accountable" ?
Should we go back and discuss Kennedy for his past (affairs) ?
Maybe early Presidents for having slaves ?
Should Trump discuss Barry Goldwater and his anti-segregation stance .... oh wait, Trump is also in the bigot arena ... scratch this one, Trump wouldn't use that tactic.

In any case this is an old issue. Bringing it up again, will just make people roll their eyes.
I also think it's a disgusting tactic, and people will only have less respect for Trump for doing it (if he has any respect left by the time the general election rolls around). The past "bad behavior" of Bill Clinton, should not be something used to attack or take advantage of, towards Hillary Clinton. What people fail to see, is that Hillary was the victim regarding Bill's actions. If you don't think that Hillary and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of women who experience similar situations, endure emotional pain for the family, then you have no heart and soul (and to also consider the pain that their children also go through).

So women in the electorate will only relate more to what Hillary experienced. And then for women to hear someone else (Trump) mocking the whole situation for political gain, will only make women hate Trump even more. This is not really a safe, or in-play issue, for candidates to use. Kind of like attacking or using the other candidate's children for political points (an area the media and candidates know they should not do).

It's really disgusting if you think about it. (I'm a man, and I can see how rancid and hideous this strategy would be.) Would Trump do it ? Probably, being the scum bag that he is. Will it back-fire on Trump ? I say yes.

PS: If Hillary was the one committing affairs, then OK, she is a direct candidate for the office. But attacking and using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" to relate to the presidential candidate, then No.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He goes further:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!"

Yes you are right ... he does "go further."
Trump goes further on making himself look more like of an ass, than he already has.

What people don't get is that Trump is the only one trying to hold BILL Clinton accountable for his past actions, and the only way he can do this is by pre-empting a degree of the appeal for the Clintons (and they are, truly a "package deal") amongst women on the gender issues.  Violence against women is a real-world thing.  Even a liberal woman will be creeped out if she thinks long enough about some of what Bill Clinton allegedly did.  It wasn't a CAMPAIGN issue in the past; the Willey/Lewinsky/Tripp stuff happened after 1996.  But it WILL be a campaign issue now, thanks to Donald Trump.  Think about this, and the effect that this could possibly have.

How far in time do we go back, and discuss such dinosaur issues, to "hold people accountable" ?
Should we go back and discuss Kennedy for his past (affairs) ?
Maybe early Presidents for having slaves ?
Should Trump discuss Barry Goldwater and his anti-segregation stance .... oh wait, Trump is also in the bigot arena ... scratch this one, Trump wouldn't use that tactic.

In any case this is an old issue. Bringing it up again, will just make people roll their eyes.
I also think it's a disgusting tactic, and people will only have less respect for Trump for doing it (if he has any respect left by the time the general election rolls around). The past "bad behavior" of Bill Clinton, should not be something used to attack or take advantage of, towards Hillary Clinton. What people fail to see, is that Hillary was the victim regarding Bill's actions. If you don't think that Hillary and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of women who experience similar situations, endure emotional pain for the family, then you have no heart and soul (and to also consider the pain that their children also go through).

So women in the electorate will only relate more to what Hillary experienced. And then for women to hear someone else (Trump) mocking the whole situation for political gain, will only make women hate Trump even more. This is not really a safe, or in-play issue, for candidates to use. Kind of like attacking or using the other candidate's children for political points (an area the media and candidates know they should not do).

It's really disgusting if you think about it. (I'm a man, and I can see how rancid and hideous this strategy would be.) Would Trump do it ? Probably, being the scum bag that he is. Will it back-fire on Trump ? I say yes.

PS: If Hillary was the one committing affairs, then OK, she is a direct candidate for the office. But attacking and using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" to relate to the presidential candidate, then No.

Will the women in the electorate relate to Hillary if her role in discrediting Bill's FEMALE accusers as "nuts and sluts" is brought up, highlighted, and new information brought to light on THAT aspect of the scandals?

The issue of Hillary Clinton choosing to be a spear carrier for her husband, and working actively to discredit women who claimed to be conned and/or coerced into sex with Bill Clinton, and (in one case) claiming to be forcibly groped, is not an issue Feminists and anti-Domestic Violence activists take lightly.  One thing these women are familiar with is male perpetrators of domestic violence who take no responsibility for their actions, who deny, accuse their accusers of lying and fabricating, and take the role of the victim for themselves.  That's what Bill Clinton did, after a lifetime of having sex with subordinates.  And he called in his aggrieved wife to do the dirty work, which she did not out of loyalty to Bill, but with one eye to her own ambitions.

What I think this issue will do is take some of the shine off of the "First Woman President" angle Hillary is staking out.  Women who want badly to see a female President were certainly not hoping that the one elected would turn out to be an apologize for a misogynist who, whatever his public policy positions, personally views women as little more than sex objects. 

[ProudModerate2]

.... using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" (the issue or story) to relate to the presidential candidate ....

[Trapsy]

“I got a chuckle out of all the moralists in Congress and in the media who expressed public outrage at the president’s immoral behavior,” wrote Trump in The America We Deserve . “I happen to know that one U.S. senator leading the pack of attackers spent more than a few nights with his twenty-something girlfriend at a hotel I own. There’s also a conservative columnist, married, who was particularly rough on Clinton in this regard. He also brought his girlfriend to my resorts for the weekend. Their hypocrisy is amazing.”  - Trump

Trump also wrote that Clinton should have refused to talk about his personal life.
“When confronted with the Lewinsky matter, Clinton should have stoutly refused to discuss his private life,” wrote Trump. “He should also have declined to answer, rather than perjure himself. If the Clinton affair proves anything it is that the American people don’t care about the private lives and personal of our political leaders so long as they are doing the job.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-defended-clinton-during-lewinsky-scandal-against-moral#.liN0VGAj2

[Fuzzy Bear]

“I got a chuckle out of all the moralists in Congress and in the media who expressed public outrage at the president’s immoral behavior,” wrote Trump in The America We Deserve . “I happen to know that one U.S. senator leading the pack of attackers spent more than a few nights with his twenty-something girlfriend at a hotel I own. There’s also a conservative columnist, married, who was particularly rough on Clinton in this regard. He also brought his girlfriend to my resorts for the weekend. Their hypocrisy is amazing.”  - Trump

Trump also wrote that Clinton should have refused to talk about his personal life.
“When confronted with the Lewinsky matter, Clinton should have stoutly refused to discuss his private life,” wrote Trump. “He should also have declined to answer, rather than perjure himself. If the Clinton affair proves anything it is that the American people don’t care about the private lives and personal of our political leaders so long as they are doing the job.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-defended-clinton-during-lewinsky-scandal-against-moral#.liN0VGAj2

The American People care greatly about the private lives of the opposition party's politicians.  They hope the sleaziest dirt comes out so their candidate can win, and America will either be saved from the reign of Satan's Disciples, or from Neanderthals who wish to repeal the 20th and 21st centuries.  That's how divided we are.  The American People hunger for dirt on the opposition to reinforce their view that they are right in what they, personally, believe.

Having said that, Feminists and Domestic Violence advocated care very much how politicians react to allegations of Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Assault aimed at public figures.  They are very much victim's advocates, and they have, for DECADES, pushed to ensure that victims' allegations are listened to, not dismissed out of hand, and the process in meting out justice and/or correction does not put the VICTIM on trial.  I can't begin to emphasize the BIG deal this is to such folks. 

That being said, when Hillary Clinton's record of being complicit in attacking the credibility of Bill Clinton's alleged victims, these Feminists, and anti-DV advocates' credibility is on the line.  All of it.  There will be the issue of their being Special Rules for Special People when it comes to Hillary Clinton.  Donald Trump will bring this up.  And it will be the Feminists and the anti-Domestic Violence activists whose credibility will be on the line.  Most of these folks recognize that Hillary will, once in office, do what they want (just as Bob Packwood did), so they're not going to back a Republican.  But it will make things awkward.  It will dampen enthusiasm.  And, most of all, it will put a limit to just how far the Democrats can drive the gender gap upward. 

[ProudModerate2]

The American People care greatly about the private lives of the opposition party's politicians.  They hope the sleaziest dirt comes out so their candidate can win, and America will either be saved from the reign of Satan's Disciples, or from Neanderthals who wish to repeal the 20th and 21st centuries.  That's how divided we are.  The American People hunger for dirt on the opposition to reinforce their view that they are right in what they, personally, believe.

This is false, and thus so is everything else you assume in your post. The American People don't "hope for the sleaziest dirt." The American People don't "hunger for dirt on the opposition to reinforce their views."

Do some Americans feel this way .... more than likely yes. But if you are describing anyone this way, then more than likely you are describing Trump supporters and Tea-Baggers. They are the only ones who would accept such "sleazy dirt" to be thrown around. Probably because they have lived their entire lives without any morals/ethics.

The rest of us civilized "American People" will just stand back and react in horror, if Trump (or any candidate) would actually move to such low-level tactics as described in this thread.
I am actually offended that you would refer to and assume that all Americans are, as you describe.
I have faith that the vast majority of us, would have nothing to do with enjoying and sporting-wood for "sleaze and dirt." But I can tell you this .... the minority that you describe are similar to the many posts if have read from Trump yes-men on Atlas. They are the perverted ones that seem to get some kind of sick gratification from "sleaze and dirt."

[SillyAmerican]

The rest of us civilized "American People" will just stand back and react in horror, if Trump (or any candidate) would actually move to such low-level tactics as described in this thread.

Yes, it's really awful the way "those other folks" stoop to using those terrible, low-down tactics. Thank goodness for us "civilized" people, the ones who recognize Hillary for the sweet grandma that she is, spending her time making chocolate chip cookies and just loving on everyone. It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way...

[Brittain33]

The issue with "Trump says outrageous things, and his support only goes up" is that it's not going to work as well in the general election as it does with the Republican primary electorate.

Trump going after Hillary Clinton because of what Bill did in the 1990s is the War on Women equivalent of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. He's going to harden support from the people already voting for him but it's going to rouse tremendous support for Hillary.

[Torie]

People understand that Hillary was just protecting her husband's political career. People understood that they had an arrangement. This will not work, and should not work. Hillary gets a pass on this one from swing voters by and large. Her problem with many swing voters, is that she seems to have this tendency to not tell the truth, and to not take responsibility for anything. She has this tendency to legalistically parse words the way Bill did. She seems to be ethically challenged. Of course, if her opponent seems totally unfit for office, these considerations seem well, trumped by for example Trump, or say cruise controlled, by Cruz.

Yes, the above paragraph is co-extensive with my own particular biases. Thank you in advance for pointing that out. 

[ProudModerate2]

The rest of us civilized "American People" will just stand back and react in horror, if Trump (or any candidate) would actually move to such low-level tactics as described in this thread.

Yes, it's really awful the way "those other folks" stoop to using those terrible, low-down tactics. Thank goodness for us "civilized" people, the ones who recognize Hillary for the sweet grandma that she is, spending her time making chocolate chip cookies and just loving on everyone. It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way...

I said nothing about Hillary being perfect or described her as a "sweet grandma baking chocolate chip cookies." NO ONE is perfect, and everyone's sh#t stinks, including Hillary's and mine and yours SillyAmerican.

The point I am making is that spouses, children and other family members, should be off-limits to "attacks" during the campaign. Any issues directly committed by the candidate himself/herself is fine, but we need to stay away from attacks on their family.

Shouldn't we as people of this nation demand this ? Would you want your family (spouse, your child, your own mother/father/grandparent) attacked and used by the opposition ?
Of course not.
Thus I am perplexed by your comment : "It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way..."
Your use of the words "our way" seems to imply that "our" means Hillary supporter's way of looking at it. But that is not the "way" I am trying to convince anyone to look at my argument.
The way I would like people to understand my argument is that we should conform to and demand that family is off-limits, and that this is an "American way" of "our" politics. (That represents ALL OF US. Regardless if Dem, Rep, white, black, man, woman, fat or skinny.)

[Cassius]

The rest of us civilized "American People" will just stand back and react in horror, if Trump (or any candidate) would actually move to such low-level tactics as described in this thread.

Yes, it's really awful the way "those other folks" stoop to using those terrible, low-down tactics. Thank goodness for us "civilized" people, the ones who recognize Hillary for the sweet grandma that she is, spending her time making chocolate chip cookies and just loving on everyone. It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way...

I said nothing about Hillary being perfect or described her as a "sweet grandma baking chocolate chip cookies." NO ONE is perfect, and everyone's sh#t stinks, including Hillary's and mine and yours SillyAmerican.

The point I am making is that spouses, children and other family members, should be off-limits to "attacks" during the campaign. Any issues directly committed by the candidate himself/herself is fine, but we need to stay away from attacks on their family.

Shouldn't we as people of this nation demand this ? Would you want your family (spouse, your child, your own mother/father/grandparent) attacked and used by the opposition ?
Of course not.
Thus I am perplexed by your comment : "It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way..."
Your use of the words "our way" seems to imply that "our" means Hillary supporter's way of looking at it. But that is not the "way" I am trying to convince anyone to look at my argument.
The way I would like people to understand my argument is that we should conform to and demand that family is off-limits, and that this is an "American way" of "our" politics. (That represents ALL OF US. Regardless if Dem, Rep, white, black, man, woman, fat or skinny.)

Bill Clinton is an ex-President and top drawer Democratic surrogate for the party's current generation of politicians, not some misty housewife or a clueless teen. He should be able to handle attacks on his personal conduct, given that many of them are richly deserved.

[ProudModerate2]

The rest of us civilized "American People" will just stand back and react in horror, if Trump (or any candidate) would actually move to such low-level tactics as described in this thread.

Yes, it's really awful the way "those other folks" stoop to using those terrible, low-down tactics. Thank goodness for us "civilized" people, the ones who recognize Hillary for the sweet grandma that she is, spending her time making chocolate chip cookies and just loving on everyone. It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way...

I said nothing about Hillary being perfect or described her as a "sweet grandma baking chocolate chip cookies." NO ONE is perfect, and everyone's sh#t stinks, including Hillary's and mine and yours SillyAmerican.

The point I am making is that spouses, children and other family members, should be off-limits to "attacks" during the campaign. Any issues directly committed by the candidate himself/herself is fine, but we need to stay away from attacks on their family.

Shouldn't we as people of this nation demand this ? Would you want your family (spouse, your child, your own mother/father/grandparent) attacked and used by the opposition ?
Of course not.
Thus I am perplexed by your comment : "It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way..."
Your use of the words "our way" seems to imply that "our" means Hillary supporter's way of looking at it. But that is not the "way" I am trying to convince anyone to look at my argument.
The way I would like people to understand my argument is that we should conform to and demand that family is off-limits, and that this is an "American way" of "our" politics. (That represents ALL OF US. Regardless if Dem, Rep, white, black, man, woman, fat or skinny.)

Bill Clinton is an ex-President and top drawer Democratic surrogate for the party's current generation of politicians, not some misty housewife or a clueless teen. He should be able to handle attacks on his personal conduct, given that many of them are richly deserved.

But where do we draw the line, in who is considered acceptable to attacks ?
You say "ex-Presidents," but why not ex-senators or ex-mayors ?
You say "misty housewife," but why not sexy housewives or housewives from reality TV shows.
You say "clueless teen," but what about highly intelligent teens who graduate high school at the age of 15 ?

Who gets to determine that if you "should be able to handle attacks," then you are in-play during the campaign ?
Did Bill Clinton "richly deserve" the criticism for his misconduct during his tenure ... you bet your ass he did !!!
But should all that ancient mess now be "twisted" so that it somehow relates to something Hillary did directly, and then be used against her ? ........ No.

[SillyAmerican]

The point I am making is that spouses, children and other family members, should be off-limits to "attacks" during the campaign. Any issues directly committed by the candidate himself/herself is fine, but we need to stay away from attacks on their family.

I actually agree with you 100% here. A candidate's family members should be off limits.

However, if Hillary is trying to portray herself as some kind of feminist icon, isn't it fair to point out that she did nothing to support those women who accused her husband of wrongful activities? In fact, she went and pooh poohed all of those accusations. So if a woman accuses a man of something, and that man's wife does everything she can to deflect those charges, then later runs for public office, are her activities subject to review/criticism? (Note that the criticism in question is being directed towards her, not towards him...).

[ProudModerate2]

.... using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" (the issue or story) to relate to the presidential candidate ....

[SillyAmerican]

.... using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" (the issue or story) to relate to the presidential candidate ....

Sorry, but raising the question of whether or not this woman is a wonderful bastion of women's rights that would make an ideal first woman President? That's not "twisting it", that's completely on point...

[The Dowager Mod]

[ProudModerate2]

.... using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" (the issue or story) to relate to the presidential candidate ....

Sorry, but raising the question of whether or not this woman is a wonderful bastion of women's rights that would make an ideal first woman President? That's not "twisting it", that's completely on point...

Think about it .....
Any topic/subject related to one spouse, can easily be "twisted" to somehow attach it and have it related to the other spouse (the presidential candidate). They're married .... so making "any connection" will be easy.

Same with someone's child. The adult (mother and presidential candidate, in our case) is the guardian of anything and everything that child does. So again .... how easy would it be to "twist" any controversial topic/subject related to the child, and then attach responsibility back to the parent(s).

So ....
"twist, turn, detach and then reattach" the topic/subject to the presidential candidate ....
Add in some fancy organizations or groups that relate to the topic, like those associated with women's rights, a child welfare protection association against parental incompetence, PETA, the association of ufo's and aliens, etc etc ....
and wa-lah .... you have a cock-a-mamie attachment to the presidential candidate, and now the family member is considered fair-play for campaign abuse.

Easy as pie !
My challenge to you : Give me any "controversial" issue/story about a family member of any presidential candidate, and I can "twist" the issue and relate it back to the candidate, every time.

[SillyAmerican]

Easy as pie !
My challenge to you : Give me any "controversial" issue/story about a family member of any presidential candidate, and I can "twist" the issue and relate it back to the candidate, every time.

So I suppose you conclude that Mrs. Clinton can go around claiming to be a wonderful proponent of women's rights, the ideal candidate to lead the charge for women everywhere, and nobody is allowed to ask her why she dismissed the credible charges made by several women regarding the actions of her husband? If that's what you are actually saying, then I'm sorry, but I have to be in Trump's corner on this one. (And believe me, I'm not in his corner on too  many things...). The fact is, Hillary Clinton wants to tout herself as this great feminist, but when it mattered, she showed herself to be anything but...