Bill Clinton and Sexual Assault
- Thread starter Staccat0
- Start date
- Status
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
The hanky panky with multiple women was no surprise after people came forth during his election run, he still won. Now sexual assaults i never heard of, and like all good politicians ...it's designed that way i suppose..
Jack Remington
Banned
There's also no proof that this alleged apology actually happened.
Mariah Carey
Member
It's probably from frustration that they could dig these things up that would sink many other politicians but Clinton always recovered from. They called him Slick Willy for a reason.
I think it's fair game.
Hillary is putting women's rights at the center of her agenda and campaign.
Hillary is asking Bill Clinton to go out to rallies and campaign for her.
It ain't about Bill. I'm willing to bet a good amount of people don't want to shine any light here because it may hurt Hillary.
I'm not a Democrat but I am not conflicted about Bill Clinton at all. I don't even have to take the sexual assault accusations into consideration to know he is a piece of shit. Hell, we are talking about a dude that made it a point to attend the execution of a mentally challenged person which he could have stopped to show he was tough on crime. Then again I like Sanders so maybe fuck everything I have to say.
Jack Remington
Banned
I'd be conflicted if there were any evidence he actually committed any sex crime.
It's certainly a tough position for diehard liberals to be in. Bill has cheated on his wife, who happens to be running a presidential campaign with Women's Rights being a cornerstone of her platform.
Obviously this is the case.
Trigger Warning
Member
I believe women when they say that they were raped.
And Hillary is fair game for trying to silence Juanita.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I believe women when they say that they were raped.
And Hillary is fair game for trying to silence Juanita.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...nton-rape-accuser-hillary-tried-to-silence-me
Secondly, I'd like to hear 'how' Hillary tried to Silence her. Sure sounds great as a blanket statement, but specifics would be nice when dealing with such a serious topic.
Jack Remington
Banned
I believe women when they say that they were raped.
In the absence of any evidence? Why?
Bill Clinton And The Sexual Assault would be an amazing if not a bit offensive band name
Saxual Assault?
AstroZombie
Banned
People should really read Hitchens Clinton book, No One Left To Lie To. The Clintons, particularly Bill, are pieces of shit.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's really a tricky subject, I'm of the opinion that any shred of evidence should cause us to err on the side of the accuser.
But, rape does not always leave evidence.
On the other hand, an estimated 2 to 10% of rape cases have been proven false, so the chance of a false accusation is not so small that it should be ignored. It's not a large jump of inference to guess that over 10% of rape accusations are false. I also suspect that the chances of such false accusations increase when motivated by other reasons.
So the question then becomes; do you, unlike other crimes err on the side of the accuser without any evidence?
Who is we? Since when are "we" crucifying people?
I call bullshit. Am I wrong?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'd have to see the context, that's not exactly an acceptable source.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I really don't think quoting RNO is a great source. From my experience, they've done a uniquely horrible job when it comes to vilifying the accuser.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I can directly quote the abscract from the study:
http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf
I have admittingly problems with the source being a former Heritage staffer, now Breitbart columnist, who caught peoples attention by writing a racist piece. Any other sources, maybe some academics from the field?
Jack Remington
Banned
Seems fairly straightforward. Presumably some percentage of those 44% of cases that did not proceed were false allegations.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I should have linked straight to the study...
The biggest problem with that study is it's relatively low sample size, hence the large variability of 8%.
It certainly warrants looking though other record sets, which will narrow the range. It's also enough to say that false accusations are a real thing, but at the same time it's difficult to say how much of a problem it actually is.
Their estimate ranges from not a significant problem at 2%, to oh wow at 10%.
The Lamonster
Member
But he's not a rapist. Republicans would JUMP on it right quick if it was real.
Is he a cheater? Yes. Are cheaters pieces of shit for cheating? Yes. Doesn't mean they also suck at their jobs. Cheaters can also be forgiven.
Trigger Warning
Member
Trying to discredit a woman saying she was raped, wow that didn't take long. She likes a Republican from New York? I guess that means she's lying about it. She also voted for Obama in 2008.
Slate can respond to this better than I can:
HiredN00bs
Banned
You don't find it mildly unethical that he fooled around with a young intern? She was his employee and he was the President of the Motherfucking United States.
Is everyone forgetting that sexual assault is very difficult to prove in a court of law and Bill Clinton was a lawyer?
The Lamonster
Member
I didn't say that it was unethical. It was hugely unethical. It just doesn't make him a bad president.
That's what investigations are for... That can easily be countered with: She WAS believed until no evidence was found.
HiredN00bs
Banned
If I forced my hand down your pants while we were in private, what evidence would you have?
oneils
Member
I don't know if he committed assault but I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying he would have been fired from most jobs for having sex in the office with a subordinate. There was some weird hand waving going on back then.
But it was over 20 years ago and peoples' views about this kind of thing has changed a lot.
But it was over 20 years ago and peoples' views about this kind of thing has changed a lot.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Is the story that came out in 2008 about Hillary's defense of a guy who raped a kid going to be coming out again?
We're talking about rape here. There's a huge difference...
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
"Repeatedly and convincingly made the case", huh. God forbid we use the same agnosticism that we exercise for every other crime.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
She seems politically motivated bringing it up, being a Trump supporter, doubly so.
I guess I don't tow the liberal line about rape accusations. We don't use "guilty until proven innocent" with anything else. This is why more research is done to determine the propensity of false accusations. 10% would simply be unacceptable, and 2% I would have to ruminate over.
I'd also like to see stats that compare Rape with other crimes in relation to false accusations.
Fair point, the further back you go the less likely there will be evidence for any crime.
There's like... one dude that made a statement that could in any way be construed as this up to the point where you replied.
Check yourself.
From her Wikipedia:
This is something she described in an interview with Sean Hannity in 2003. It seems much too ambiguous to me, to confirm that Hillary Clinton knew about the alleged rape or was condoning it.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Look at prostitutes who take money for sex. It isn't a real relationship. You give a person money and they sleep with you. You don't know rather or not you're treating them emotionally or physically wrong unless they physically stop you or say something really frank.
It's rather frightening because the woman is simply offering her body for money.
If you go a head with the deed out of your own willingness then consent is simply performing the action. Monica performed the deed, many women perform the deed on a whim, and often times when it's in the public eye people don't know how to feel about it.
I've had sexual experiences as a minor that were incredibly swift, downright hidden with women and I see things at times that shock me. I've known girls as a teen who'd let you do everything to them and it felt like they allowed the reigns to become unhinged. If they would have come back at me in some way then it would have felt like a lie from hell because they were allowing me to do those things to them.
I often times feel that people who are over protected do not fully understand the limits people allow others to have or what other people lie about.
If it's forceful then it should be taken very serious, but people can often consent and commit all kinds of sexual favors on a person. I guess I've always respected the person who I was with and they always allowed something that I knew how to follow through with. I definitely think he went behind his wife's back, but I also realize he's popular enough for some criticism. If he didn't do anything bad then his own fault is infidelity.
It's rather frightening because the woman is simply offering her body for money.
If you go a head with the deed out of your own willingness then consent is simply performing the action. Monica performed the deed, many women perform the deed on a whim, and often times when it's in the public eye people don't know how to feel about it.
I've had sexual experiences as a minor that were incredibly swift, downright hidden with women and I see things at times that shock me. I've known girls as a teen who'd let you do everything to them and it felt like they allowed the reigns to become unhinged. If they would have come back at me in some way then it would have felt like a lie from hell because they were allowing me to do those things to them.
I often times feel that people who are over protected do not fully understand the limits people allow others to have or what other people lie about.
If it's forceful then it should be taken very serious, but people can often consent and commit all kinds of sexual favors on a person. I guess I've always respected the person who I was with and they always allowed something that I knew how to follow through with. I definitely think he went behind his wife's back, but I also realize he's popular enough for some criticism. If he didn't do anything bad then his own fault is infidelity.
biggersmaller
Banned
Bill Clinton had sex with a lot of women and Hillary very likely never gave a shit. The question is whether Broaddrick, Jones, and Willey were each lying and exploiting Bill's known promiscuity for personal/political gain. Personally, I am not convinced Bill is a rapist given the circumstances and timing of each accusation.
That said, if he was a used car salesman picking up strange in a bar instead of my favorite president of all time, I would likely be more skeptical. Can't say I'm proud of my bias on this one, but it's there.
That said, if he was a used car salesman picking up strange in a bar instead of my favorite president of all time, I would likely be more skeptical. Can't say I'm proud of my bias on this one, but it's there.
Well, it's a small sample size, so taking either 2 or 10% as the takeaway isn't really right. I also don't think the "liberal line" is that we should take a guillatine through the streets to the accused, but instead to actually listen to accusers instead of dismissing their claims. That doesn't mean every accusation will be valid, but that there are many implicit biases that might make us discount rape accusations. If we're to take the raw data from the study linked, only 5.9% of rape accusations proved false. I think it'd be fair to say, if we're to use that raw data, that a vast majority of women are telling the truth but to be vigilant about the case and evidence.
I'm also not sure if any of those stats necessarily apply to Bill Clinton, who is sort of a unique case because of his unique position and the Lewinsky scandal.
I think you're reading a different thread. I can't remember the last time I saw a thread about a subject like this with so much "where's the evidence?" going on.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If you're going to make the case that Hillary Clinton is not fit to be President because of something that her husband did as much as 40 years ago. Then you factor in that this issue has been vetted for 40 years by the media and his political opponents prominently. At that point, where's the evidence is probably a valid statement.
Also keeping in mind that the Clintons have been accused of murder, bribery, and just about everything else and you start to wonder who's crying wolf here. 5 months ago we were talking about her going to jail over e-mails but nothing has come out of that yet. Or Benghazi.
King Tubby
Member
I don't know if I believe the sexual assault allegations just because Bill Clinton had basically an entire institution hellbent on digging up/manufacturing any scandal it could to try and sink him. That said, I wouldn't completely discount the possibility. Bill was sexually "improper" at least.
Excuse me for wanting to see evidence when someone's been accused of a serious and violent crime. I thought that's how it's supposed to work, but what do I know.
- Status