this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
619 points (97.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7228 readers
181 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fuck that "BoTh SiDeS" whining. I said no such thing. However, Bill Clinton is almost as connected to Epstein as Trump, and that's just a matter of public record. How is it that everyone seems to forget that he stuck it in a Whitehouse Intern? Whatever else Bill Clinton is, he is a slime ball, but he is still in the bubble of people protected by the Democratic party. There are political consequences to that, whether you want to accept it or not.
You want to offer an alternative theory about why the press and Democrats aren't all over this story? They can't seem to campaign on anything but how truly shitty Trump is, but they ignore this? Make it make sense.
Bill Clinton is old fucking news and I don't care to engage with conspiracy theories other than to deride them
A weapon to destroy Trump is lying on the table TODAY and it isn't being picked up because of that old news. That is why it's relevant TODAY. Deride it as a conspiracy theory if you want, but it's not the first time Bill Clinton's dick has saved Trump in an election.
you really think a single Republican would care about this?
wtf are you talking about with Bill Clinton's dick?
It's how Trump dulled the impact of the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/donald-trump-juanita-broaddrick-paula-jones-facebook-live-2016-election/index.html
So you're providing evidence that Republicans give zero fucks about sexual crimes but think it's evidence that Bill Clinton saved him. That's a stretch to say the least
That's the whole goal of the "both sides" attack, for those who do actually deploy it. It takes an issue that people might actually care about and makes it irrelevant. A Republican that cares has no reason to abandon a sexual predator to vote for another. (Or in Hillary's case a supporter of a sexual predator.)
Also, if anything, the attitude of the Democratic party towards Bill Clinton indicates that Democrats don't care about sexual crimes. I don't think it's really that simple though.
It's weird that you're willing to accept any rumor about Clinton as fact. Hmm...
The only thing I know for sure is he had inappropriate but consensual sex with an adult. It looks bad on him being a friend of Epstein but it's also not proof like you asset it is. It continues to be weird also that you're fixated on someone irrelevant to American politics for 20 years or more. But yeah totally I'm "protecting" him
It's weird that you ignore the power balance, and all the other credible accusations. LOL, yeah, his friendship with Epstein looks bad. I never said it was proof of anything, but it strains credulity to think that he wasn't involved. It's also politics, so we need Democrats with better judgement.
You still seem to think I'm making a both sides argument and trying to draw some equivalence. My point is that Democrats are unnecessarily burdening themselves by tacitly excusing bad behavior from it's leadership. The Republicans are shit from top to bottom. Democrats have other choices.
Clinton is irrelevant in the national conversation. He is not irrelevant in Democratic leadership.
Epstein was connected with plenty of people from both parties, and in ways that implicate, not just associate. Bill is just the biggest example. There is no vast conspiracy to bury the story, but rather a tacit understanding in mainstream media that this story is radioactive and best left alone. Better Democrats wouldn't have put us in this position.
Also relevant is the fact that Biden appears to have steered almost entirely clear of such scandal over a very long career, and he gets full credit for that. I am only aware of one purported incident, and there is enough room for doubt in it that I would defer to his otherwise clean record. Between Biden and Trump, it's damn clear who is better. It's just too bad that Biden is hampered in benefitting from that by a history of scandal he has nothing to do with.
I am not a prosecutor or detective so it's not my job to investigate it. And I'm not a conspiracy psycho either. Just how exactly is Clinton a party leader? Because he attends events or..?
I've not said anything that even borders on conspiracy theory. It seems like you just throw that label at anything you don't, or don't want to, understand.
Former Presidents typically have tremendous influence in their parties. Biden went from near the back of the pack to a clear first place on one super Tuesday due in large part to Obama's influence. Every establishment friendly candidate dropped out on the same day and endorsed Biden due to deals made or brokered by Obama. Likewise, in 2016, Hillary had the machinery of the DNC behind her candidacy long before the primary even began. Leadership in the DNC, DCCC, and a myriad of other organizations that collectively make up the Democratic party is chosen largely through back room deals and endorsements. Then there are the lobiests, Democratic consultants, and wealthy interests who all benefit from their relationships with former presidents. Soft power may be difficult to nail down, but is undeniably a huge driver of Democratic leadership.
I feel so bad for Monica Lewinsky and for us as a nation. She was so young, naive, optimistic, and driven. An old man with power took advantage of all of that and ended up ruining her career for a stupid blowie. Granted, she fucked up by telling her friend, but once again, young and naive.
In the past decade or so, she's been an incredible speaker and activist and it makes me sadly wonder how different our country would be if she'd stayed in politics. She's one of those people who I'd love to meet but would be too scared to then learn something disappointing about her.