What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

Had no idea she'd done that! That book must have dropped like a stone. I've never heard of it.

So, I guess everybody after the Clinton's is in it for the money!

Not Jaunita Broaddrick, who as far as I know has never sought nor received a thing, other than a campaign against her character, that is.

It seems to me morally feeble, as well as intellectually slack, to split the difference between Clinton and Broaddrick, or to characterize her allegation as unprovable. The feeblest summary of this compromise is contained in the lazy phrase “he said, she said.” In the case of the “he,” we already know that he is a hysterical, habitual liar. We also know that almost no allegation ever made by a woman and denied by him has proven to be untrue. And we know that ex-girlfriends have been subjected to extraordinary campaigns of defamation, amounting in some cases to intimidation, merely for speaking about “consensual” sex. What allegation could be more horrific than that of rape?

And yet, “he” hasn’t said anything yet. If I was accused of rape, and the woman making the charge was a lady of obvious integrity, I would want to do better than have a lawyer make a routine disclaimer. (Especially a lawyer, in this case the pathetic figure of David Kendall, who had not even met me at the time of the supposed crime.) Asked by NBC to say where Clinton had been on the morning in question — a fact easily established in the life of a state attorney general — the White House declined cooperation. I would have wanted to do better than that, too.

So much for the “he said.” What of the “she”? If the allegation is false, then Broaddrick is not just getting her facts wrong. She is deliberately fabricating one of the most ****ing charges that any one person can make against another. She must be a wicked or deluded or vicious person. There seems no escaping this corollary conclusion. There also seems no reason at all for reaching it. Where is the famous Clintonian rapid-response team? Has it no pride? Can it not find or produce any shadow of a doubt to cast on Broaddrick’s character? I think that if it could, we would know by now.

A provisional but not unpardonable induction, then, is that she is speaking the truth. Questioned fairly closely by Lisa Myers, she and her contemporary corroborative witnesses were easily able to answer the questions about silence and delay. The victim felt guilty for letting an unchaperoned man into her room, even if he was the attorney general. In a banana republic like Arkansas, allegations against powerful men were believed to have potentially unpleasant consequences. The victim was also having an extramarital affair with a man she hoped to marry. She did not want to be exposed, and she did not expect to be believed.

Finally — and very importantly — she didn’t “go public.” She was made public. The feminist movement has taught us to recognize this pattern of response as a familiar and intelligible one. (How sad it was, by the way, to see Patricia Ireland changing her mind at this late stage. Doesn’t she know that she has lost something that she can’t ever hope to retrieve, and has lost it to Clinton?) Even the first lady seems to be hesitant these days: The question before us being not “Will she run?” but “Will she walk?” Surely the two can’t be connected? Can they?

Perhaps I won’t be taken as an authority on the moral credibility of the feminist leadership. But something ought to be said about the honor of the male sex in this business. It has been disgusting, all through the last year, to hear Clinton defended as homme moyen sensuel. “Everybody does it … all men lie about sex … a gentleman is expected to lie.” One reason a gentleman may be obliged to lie is to protect the reputation of the woman. Clinton has lied in order to trash them. I don’t have any male friends who hump the help and then (with the assistance of paid slanderers) call them liars, gold diggers, sluts and blackmailers. I don’t have any male friends who have been plausibly accused of rape, either, though I do know several women who have been sexually assaulted and decided not to go public. I also know of three other women who I suspect could, if they chose, lay a charge of assault against Clinton.

This puts him, in male terms, way outside the limit of what can be tolerated. I see him on the television all the time, biting that fat lip of his, and now I have an additional reason for the powerful nausea I have always felt. I imagine his teeth in Juanita Broaddrick’s lips, after he’s told her to lie still or he’ll bite her again. But hey, it’s time to move on. So forget it. Forget it if you can.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

Look, only the most naive would believe that a) Hillary did not know about the Clinton insiders' plans with respect to Flowers, or b) that she didn't approve of it.

The beauty of this election, which Clinton will certainly win, is we're going to get a chance to see this in action again. Bill Clinton, sitting around with literally nothing to do, and no ability to do anything because of his wife's job?!?! No one personifies "idle hands are the devil's workshop" more than Bill Clinton.

Sooner or later voters on the left will realize how much they are getting played, just as those on the right have realized.

They have? Tell that to the 42% voting for the guy openly talking about how he is fleecing them.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

They have? Tell that to the 42% voting for the guy openly talking about how he is fleecing them.

Yes, but the government is funded under current tax law and he didn't break any rules.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

There it is. The October surprise.

Sure thing Flaggy...his last "big bomb" was debunked 5 minutes after he talked about it cause it was a BS Russian story from a year ago.

I notice that you ignore all the numbers being put up showing your Sancho Doo schtick is failing. Best bet still is to always bet against your worries :D ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

Yes, but the government is funded under current tax law and he didn't break any rules.

Literally no one said it is funded now, we said your plan would fund it less. Keep trying though ;)

(not to mention your plan would never pass anyways)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

(Not sure who to give credit to but I heard this on the radio today ... )

Gary Johnson, the legalize marijuana Libertarian, has more newspaper endorsements than Donald Trump.

So there it is: If you have the weed, Gary has the papers.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

Not Jaunita Broaddrick, who as far as I know has never sought nor received a thing, other than a campaign against her character, that is.

What exactly is your source for this stellar piece of journalism? :eek:

I'm guessing she's getting paid and paid well for this. She didn't seem to have much of a problem with Clinton for 20 years even signing an affidavit that the story was bogus. Its one thing to not come forward. Its another to declare in a court document that nothing happened.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

(Not sure who to give credit to but I heard this on the radio today ... )

Gary Johnson, the legalize marijuana Libertarian, has more newspaper endorsements than Donald Trump.

So there it is: If you have the weed, Gary has the papers.


Alice Ollstein Verified account @AliceOllstein
@GovGaryJohnson just told @MSNBC that his lack of geographical knowledge is a plus bc you can't get into a war w/ a country you can't find

Will the Libertarian Party now change its name to the Know-Nothing Party?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

Literally no one said it is funded now, we said your plan would fund it less. Keep trying though ;)

(not to mention your plan would never pass anyways)

And that's exactly what's wrong with our government and the electorate. We don't solve big problems anymore. Our Congress is in dereliction of duty every day along with our State Governments. We don't even try. We just give up. If not Trump this time then it will be Trump next time. Hopefully I'll be dead before it happens but I doubt it.

Will the Libertarian Party now change its name to the Know-Nothing Party?

They're not dumb. They're high.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

That story does not make any sense. Cui bono? What would be Cuomo's inducement to cover for a high profile Republican who at the time looked like a frontrunner for President?

Something is missing.

I said apparently. If Chris Christie would stop lying maybe we'd find out?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XX: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

That story does not make any sense. Cui bono? What would be Cuomo's inducement to cover for a high profile Republican who at the time looked like a frontrunner for President?

Something is missing.

My guess: Somebody has dirt on somebody else and this was quid pro quo to keep it under wraps. However, I think I just defined all US politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top