Fair Game?

J Craft said:
There were women who weren't willing. And according to Hillary their word should be believed....oh wait, except when they accuse her husband. You're just another partisan hypocrisy who's attitude is telling its own story about your character.

How many cases, regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, acknowledge that people in power have abused that power? Indeed, counselor, isn't often the case that women feel compelled to comply? This is what women who've accused Clinton have claimed.
Click to expand...

1) The only women who claim to have not been willing have been severely and seriously discredited by their own actions.
2) HRC said that woman who ARE victims should be believed, not women who simply claim to be victims.

You can pretend that HRC said something different all you want. You can act like its a fact that these women are telling the truth. When one looks at the evidence without bias its clear that there is a lot of question as to the validity of Cathleen Wiley or the others claims.

In the end, its not Bill Clinton running for president, its HRC. When Bill was running these allegations were made, and Bill was reelected.

The fact is that it is DONALD TRUMP running for president. Its a fact that DT, cheated on his first wife with his second, his second with his third. Its a fact that he fathered a child with a woman he was not married to while married to his second. I find it shocking that the moral crusaders of the Republican party are looking the other way!
 
evince said:
Three weeks after the probable date of the rape, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser.


Broaddrick says she was "still in denial at that time."
Click to expand...

Ok... that explains it quite clearly then. You even posted the definition of denial you fucking moron. Amazing how far you will go to defend your party. Party over people... the Desh way.
 
Superfreak said:
and that means she didn't get raped? What if she went there to confront him about the rape and then got scared? Simple attendance at an event does not negate the possibility of her being raped.

But nice to see you will smear her and attack her in support of your party.
Click to expand...

Has absolutely nothing to do with HRC's qualifications to be president.
 
Jarod said:
1) The only women who claim to have not been willing have been severely and seriously discredited by their own actions.
2) HRC said that woman who ARE victims should be believed, not women who simply claim to be victims.

You can pretend that HRC said something different all you want. You can act like its a fact that these women are telling the truth. When one looks at the evidence without bias its clear that there is a lot of question as to the validity of Cathleen Wiley or the others claims.

In the end, its not Bill Clinton running for president, its HRC. When Bill was running these allegations were made, and Bill was reelected.

The fact is that it is DONALD TRUMP running for president. Its a fact that DT, cheated on his first wife with his second, his second with his third. Its a fact that he fathered a child with a woman he was not married to while married to his second. I find it shocking that the moral crusaders of the Republican party are looking the other way!
Click to expand...

Really, Hillary said that in the bold? So if it's a he said she said situation the woman shouldn't be believed?
 
Jarod said:
Has absolutely nothing to do with HRC's qualifications to be president.
Click to expand...

It definitely speaks to her character when she claims women should be believed about rape claims and then her and her people attack the women with claims against her husband.
 
Trump has abused women, according to his second wife.

Trump has cheated on at least two of his three wives... admittedly.

Trump has fathered children out of wedlock while married.

And he's attacking HRC because her husband was a philanderer?
 
cawacko said:
It definitely speaks to her character when she claims women should be believed about rape claims and then her and her people attack the women with claims against her husband.
Click to expand...

1) His people, not hers.

2) She never said women should be believed about rape claims. She said victims of rape should be believed. There is a very significant difference, you know enough to see that.

Do you disagree with her that those who truly are victims should be believed?
 
Jarod said:
1) His people, not hers.

2) She never said women should be believed about rape claims. She said victims of rape should be believed. There is a very significant difference, you know enough to see that.

Do you disagree with her that those who truly are victims should be believed?
Click to expand...

We're not in a courtroom here. Her statements about sexual assault victims and her actions with Broderick don't jive.
 
evince said:
Three weeks after the probable date of the rape, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser.


Broaddrick says she was "still in denial at that time."
Click to expand...


when you are in denial you don't tell people you have been raped.



do you understand how that works?
 
evince said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denial





denial
play


noun | de·ni·al | \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\



Simple Definition of denial

Popularity: Bottom 50% of words

1

: a statement saying that something is not true or real : a statement in which someone denies something


2

psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real


3

: the act of not allowing someone to have something
Click to expand...

this
 
evince said:
rape victims don't tell people about the rape and then attend a public admiration fest for their perpetrator because they are in denial.


If they are in denial they don't tell people what they are denying happened
Click to expand...

this
 
there is no poof that this happened as claimed.


there is only her words and the words of a couple other people who hate clinton
 
It's a he said she said between Broderick and Clinton. Pretty interesting people who generally support women don't want to now.
 
This is the very end of a good article on the subject from the liberal Vox.


But the Clinton critics have a point. There is a crucial tension between "believe survivors" and the "Juanita Broaddrick is lying" position of some Clinton defenders, lacking further information.

One answer might be giving up the former position. Many, including Harvard Law's Jeannie Suk, have argued that defaulting to believing every accusation of rape "harms the overall credibility of sexual assault claims," given that false claims do happen, albeit quite rarely. But whatever the merits of that view, adopting it would be a big pivot for Hillary Clinton, given that just a couple of months ago she was tweeting, "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported." There's no easy way to reconcile that view with her allies' dismissal of Broaddrick's allegations.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top