12th October 2016, 1:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 12th October 2016, 1:38 PM by A Black Falcon.)
On the Juanita Broadrick rape accusation, in 1999 she stated the claim that Bill had assaulted her back in 1979. However, earlier in the '90s during part of the Paula Jones investigation she had signed a sworn affidavit saying that Bill had never done anything to her, which undercut her later claim that he had indeed raped her. On the other hand I do think that such charges should usually be believed unless proven otherwise, and Bill sure has a long history of cheating on his wife, with several women also claiming sexual assault or rape (Paula Jones being the major other one), so yes, it's very possible that it's true. Her credibility is damaged by the changing story, though. You'd think that with all the years the Republicans have despised Bill, if he was as bad as Trump says there'd be more strong charges out there. That suggests that he mostly cheated consensually, but that doesn't mean that the Broadrick isn't true, I just don't know. It could be either way.
Beyond that though, the fact that the Republican Party has always been deeply involved in pushing the cases of all of Bill's accusers is an issue. I mean, yes, it makes sense that Democrats would defend their president and their opponents take the opportunity to attack him, but by making the cases and charges so political, it makes it more likely that liberals were (and are) going to not give the charges the serious attention they probably deserve because they're so closely tied to the Republican anti-Clinton hate machine. Those four women who appeared with Trump, the three accusing Bill of assault and the one who hates Hillary because of that old court case, all support Trump for president now, and that's the reason they appeared with him. And sure, Trump did not assault them, but you'd think they would pause before supporting another man with serious sexual assault charges against him... Trump has that ongoing rape case he's facing for example, though for some reason the press rarely mentions it. So yeah, the issue as it stands is a complex mess of politics and law. Overall I'd say that sure, I can believe that Bill may have done those things, or something at least, but it's very hard to prove that for an incident from the 1970s, the charges have become a cause celebre of right-wingers who despise the Clintons, and, most importantly, and Bill is not the one running for president now. If he was the issue would be far more important than it is; I would hope that today someone facing charges like those would not win the Democratic nomination! Bill Clinton is the best public speaker I have ever heard speak in person, he's an amazing speaker with a great talent for making each person in the crowd feel like he's speaking to them, but you can't just ignore those charges, or the numerous consensual cheating cases either. Trump tried to tie this all to Hillary by saying that she verbally criticized the people accusing Bill, but that's a very sketchy case that probably doesn't hold up. Hillary is a victim here too, not a perpetrator.
(But as for comparing Bill to Trump in terms of the severity of their charges, Bill has never been caught on tape saying things like Trump did here and has never faced a trial in court for rape, so on those two levels Trump is worse, though Bill obviously has an unpleasant past as well.)
Beyond that though, the fact that the Republican Party has always been deeply involved in pushing the cases of all of Bill's accusers is an issue. I mean, yes, it makes sense that Democrats would defend their president and their opponents take the opportunity to attack him, but by making the cases and charges so political, it makes it more likely that liberals were (and are) going to not give the charges the serious attention they probably deserve because they're so closely tied to the Republican anti-Clinton hate machine. Those four women who appeared with Trump, the three accusing Bill of assault and the one who hates Hillary because of that old court case, all support Trump for president now, and that's the reason they appeared with him. And sure, Trump did not assault them, but you'd think they would pause before supporting another man with serious sexual assault charges against him... Trump has that ongoing rape case he's facing for example, though for some reason the press rarely mentions it. So yeah, the issue as it stands is a complex mess of politics and law. Overall I'd say that sure, I can believe that Bill may have done those things, or something at least, but it's very hard to prove that for an incident from the 1970s, the charges have become a cause celebre of right-wingers who despise the Clintons, and, most importantly, and Bill is not the one running for president now. If he was the issue would be far more important than it is; I would hope that today someone facing charges like those would not win the Democratic nomination! Bill Clinton is the best public speaker I have ever heard speak in person, he's an amazing speaker with a great talent for making each person in the crowd feel like he's speaking to them, but you can't just ignore those charges, or the numerous consensual cheating cases either. Trump tried to tie this all to Hillary by saying that she verbally criticized the people accusing Bill, but that's a very sketchy case that probably doesn't hold up. Hillary is a victim here too, not a perpetrator.
(But as for comparing Bill to Trump in terms of the severity of their charges, Bill has never been caught on tape saying things like Trump did here and has never faced a trial in court for rape, so on those two levels Trump is worse, though Bill obviously has an unpleasant past as well.)
Quote:The determination for who "won" a debate is pretty silly. The pundits and news heads basically decide it entirely based on who they think "looked better". They don't judge the facts, they don't judge the character even, they just judge who seemed to "dominate" the other more, and thus appear more "Presidential". Someone can be completely right on every point, but if they say it in a way that stutters or lacks conviction, they "lost".Both content and delivery are important in a debate. As I said I absolutely agree that presidential debate pundits vastly overemphasize the importance of the delivery and presentation element, but it IS a relevant part of any debate; present your case poorly and you will do worse even with good arguments, though in high school debate good arguments will probably get you farther than they do in Presidential debates. I know having some kind of formal judging system in quite impossible, as people would never agree on the standard that should be used, but pundits REALLY need to take the Republicans' constant lying into consideration when they say who they think won, because it matters. Pence may have had better stage presence, but he did not win, not when he had to resort to constant lies to stay "ahead".
Quote:It's why I don't bother with debates. Nothing about any of the past three debates has changed my mind on anything.I think that they are worth watching even if you aren't planning on changing your mind, or at least the presidential ones are. You learn things about the state of the race and the issues by watching them.
Quote:The recent trouble for Trump has been those horrible remarks he made on a live mic. What gets me is that, while for any other candidate yes, that would ruin their chances, for Trump that was just another day at the office. Why was THIS the thing that "will ruin him" when none of the other terrible racist, sexist, xenophobic, tyrannical remarks didn't? Heck, the one thing that most interested me during that last debate was Trump's promise to get a "special hearing" to toss Hillary in JAIL if he's elected. You know who puts together special hearings to arrest their political enemies after becoming leader of a country? Dictators, that's who. Considering just how much he talks about other world dictators in glowing terms, I don't think that's an unfair interpretation.Yeah, it is weird sometimes when you consider what things make press and which don't. I have sometimes thought that other stories should be bigger than the ones that do get the most attention this campaign for sure, though this tape was sure to be big news since it has Trump saying he likes to assault women. But yeah, that "I will put you in jail" line should be huge too! Probably its impact was reduced by that people on both right and left have been saying that for at least a year ("Hillary for Prison" is hardly a new concept), but still, no presidential candidate has ever said something that horrendous before, and they never should. There have been some articles hitting Trump on this issue, since it's blatantly dictatorial language, so it was not completely ignored, but it should be bigger than it is. (Of course, the whole "Hillary should be in jail" line of thinking is based mostly on sexism, but that's obvious.)