And two terms.
You totally missed my point. Bill Clinton was considered a God in democrat circles for the past twenty years. His behavior was brushed off, rationalized, excused. It was always something like “that’s a personal issue,” or “it didn’t affect his ability to govern and run the country.” Why the shift now?
Political expediency, of course. Nothing more than that.
For the same reason the GOP isn’t talking up faith and values much since 2016. Political expediency.
Let’s not pretend either side has a lock on this sort of behavior.
Seems like that’s the theme here though. Defense of Bill Clinton when it suits, then pretending like democrats were against him all along. Doesn’t add up at all.
I’m astounded that no democrats here ever voted for a Clinton! What are the odds?
This thread was intended to call out the Democratic Party for not wanting to invite Clinton to functions in the wake of national attention on sexual assault against women. Seems appropriate, certainly more so than ignoring the contradiction and continuing to place him front and center at functions.
What most of us are lambasting is a Trumpist attempting to paint them in a bad light for it, when the current POTUS is an unrepentant liar, pig, ■■■■■ grabber, and adulterer. Republicans once claimed to be the party promoting a higher morality and devotion to family. That definitely doesn’t add up.
And I’m just commenting on how that behavior was acceptable to the vast majority of democrats, until it wasn’t politically convenient for them any more. It was ok for a while, but when they felt they could get hurt by it, now suddenly they have a problem with it. Not because they were opposed to it, because they clearly weren’t. Only because it can hurt them politically if they defend his behavior. At least now.
Like Trumpists with Donald?
“Faith and values” was clearly just a bit of red meat to throw to social conservatives.
Only because calling out Donald Deplorable can hurt them politically if they criticize his behavior.
On and on. Again, both sides have no room to criticize the other.
The shift is because Hillary ran and lost in 2016. Democrats realized that they didn’t have the magic anymore. The Clintons are old news. Democrats have moved onto other folks to do their campaigning.
Exactly. Bill Clinton’s behavior was perfectly acceptable until the Clintons were no longer en vogue politcially. Now suddenly the democrats have a problem with what Bill did.
What Bill did with Monica was fine, it was consensual.
Democrats are happy to admit what happened with Bill and the other women was terrible. Not so much with Trump and Republicans.
Yeah, now they are. I remember them trashing the women when it actually happened though. Let me guess- you’re going to tell me you weren’t one of those people?
I didn’t trash any of them. I was suspicious that they were brought out during the election with the accusations. With one of them, he settled out of court, which is an admission of some guilt. I felt that Trump bringing them out during the 2016 election was low class.
I felt that Ken Starr’s only job was to find something to nail Clinton on since the Whitewater investigation fell apart.
Amazing. How did you keep track of all these people?
2 Likes
I didn’t. I just like hearing people deny their involvement and actions.
Why?
10charles
That may have been Starr’s job but he didn’t fulfill it well. Clinton was wide open for prosecution after he left office.
- Lying to a Grand Jury by testifying that he and Lewinsky had never been alone together.
- Subornation of Perjury by telling Lewinsky to tell the Grand Jury she “didn’t recall” when asked certain questions.
- Obstruction of Justice by telling Lewinsky to destroy the gifts he had given her.
The Special prosecutor cut a deal with Clinton, not to prosecute if Clinton paid a fine (I think it was $200,000) and not contest any disbarment proceedings.
You’re aware there was a presidential election in 2012, right?
1 Like
Bwahahahahaha.
Isn’t that the year Obama suspended elections?
1 Like
