Bill Clintons sexual assaults vs Trumps

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
When Bill Clinton was in office and was committing sexual acts with subordinates, and sexually assaulting them the democrats told us that we shouldn't bother with the presidents personal business and Hillary literally destroyed/blackmailed them into silence. Now that Trump has accusers coming up should we just assume it was personal business as well or do we hold republicans to another standard?

Why is Bill Clinton still a democrat idol after knowing his history, but Trump is a disgusting individual?

Personally feel that they are both disgusting if the accusations are correct, but I am wondering about the double standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thermodynamic

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
Because Trump was a disgusting individual before we knew of the sexual assaults. Slick Willy plays the sax and awwwwriiiight.

Also because Trump is a whiny little b***h.
 
Last edited:

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,464
3,829
Space--The ONLY Frontier
When Bill Clinton was in office and was committing sexual acts with subordinates, and sexually assaulting them the democrats told us that we shouldn't bother with the presidents personal business and Hillary literally destroyed/blackmailed them into silence. Now that Trump has accusers coming up should we just assume it was personal business as well or do we hold republicans to another standard?

Why is Bill Clinton still a democrat idol after knowing his history, but Trump is a disgusting individual?

Personally feel that they are both disgusting if the accusations are correct, but I am wondering about the double standard.
You have it wrong. Thats one reason.

The bold part is untrue.

There was the Clinton Monica Lewenski scandal which was a mutual thing. Not sure about any other "subordinates".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avalontor and Huntn

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
I agree. The same logic must be applied equally.

I do not, however, know if she really is an enabler. That seems to be conjecture.

And I've said this before - their personal lives really are theirs, cheaters and brothel bangers have been around since the days of Washington and when they were in the Hellfire Club looking for a hooker I doubt they were posh with their discussions, there are better things to talk about in the here and now. Americans need to take more history classes.

Why can't the next debate just stick to the issues instead of this pissing contest about who's been more of a party animal in the past because, for both of them, it all happened in the past. The present and future are what's important. Celebrities obviously might take more advantage of those types of situations, none of this is an earth shattering revelation for crying out loud. And as everyone else has gotten a pardon, there is no reason that Trump should not be excluded. If people disagree, don't spend time bitching about "apologists" but answer some questions: Where is the line drawn, how do we move forward positively? Which candidate wants to improve America the most, noting that Eisenhower was no means perfect but seemed to be one of America's better presidents. Eisenhower's family dealt with whatever back in the 1950s. Kennedy's in the 1960s. Time to move forward and positively so.

If nothing else, Jesus forgives. Let's forgive everyone involved, again if we have to, and move forward and positively. Please.

 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,464
3,829
Space--The ONLY Frontier
I agree. The same logic must be applied equally.

I do not, however, know if she really is an enabler. That seems to be conjecture.

And I've said this before - their personal lives really are theirs, cheaters and brothel bangers have been around since the days of Washington and when they were in the Hellfire Club looking for a hooker I doubt they were posh with their discussions, there are better things to talk about in the here and now. Americans need to take more history classes.

Why can't the next debate just stick to the issues instead of this pissing contest about who's been more of a party animal in the past because, for both of them, it all happened in the past. The present and future are what's important. Celebrities obviously might take more advantage of those types of situations, none of this is an earth shattering revelation for crying out loud. And as everyone else has gotten a pardon, there is no reason that Trump should not be excluded. If people disagree, don't spend time bitching about "apologists" but answer some questions: Where is the line drawn, how do we move forward positively? Which candidate wants to improve America the most, noting that Eisenhower was no means perfect but seemed to be one of America's better presidents. Eisenhower's family dealt with whatever back in the 1950s. Kennedy's in the 1960s. Time to move forward and positively so.

If nothing else, Jesus forgives. Let's forgive everyone involved, again if we have to, and move forward and positively. Please.

Tell Drumpf that , he started it by parading accusers before the American public.
 

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
Double standard? Which one, the one the democarats use for standing behind Clinton while smashing trump? Or the one republicans used for impeaching Clinton and now supporting trump?
Gingrich, Livingston, and Hassert all support Trump?

I just did a quick search:

Gingrich called him "Little Trump" and seems to be hostile.

Livingston has supported Trump. So far.

Hastert - articles suggest he's pro-Trump.

Since other candidates have said how and why they change their beliefs and opinions based on new facts, you must not use double standards on non-Democrats should the same reasoning be employed by them. Other candidates have changed their opinions and beliefs based on epiphanies and other facts, so do these people mentioned. Time changes all. Let's get more information first.

Having said that, it probably is another case of partisan chicanery. But that carries as much evidence as the flip-side I just presented.

Am I going to look things up? Yes. But eventually, I've better things to do than read up on peoples' sex lives while noting so many figures throughout history have had "other action" that not many give as much of a **** as they used to.
 

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,464
3,829
Space--The ONLY Frontier

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
Tell Drumpf that , he started it by parading accusers before the American public.
Wouldn't it be more interesting of you to ask him why? We all know about the accusers, who actually did it or otherwise, from the past. But why surely seems more interesting? Apart from the usual excuse of "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"?
[doublepost=1476401003][/doublepost]
Show me the legal agreement where it calls Clinton a "sexual deviant". Thats just plain wrong and a statement of misinformation.


As far as Paula Jones goes I'm not gonna type 3 pages of litigation.

You can read about it here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton
I would look at the cited sources in Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is not always the most accurate source of information, since we are talking about conscious, wilful misinformation to mislead others and all. And, yeah, the last few weeks have had some doozies others made to mind**** peoples' minds with.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,816
USA
When Bill Clinton was in office and was committing sexual acts with subordinates, and sexually assaulting them the democrats told us that we shouldn't bother with the presidents personal business and Hillary literally destroyed/blackmailed them into silence. Now that Trump has accusers coming up should we just assume it was personal business as well or do we hold republicans to another standard?

Why is Bill Clinton still a democrat idol after knowing his history, but Trump is a disgusting individual?

Personally feel that they are both disgusting if the accusations are correct, but I am wondering about the double standard.
First of all is assuming that there wasn't outrage in and outside the Democratic party for what Bill was accused of. Were you paying as close to the news then as you are now?

Also - as been pointed out (and it's not an excuse) - but any discovery of Bill's actions were done already in office. In this scenario, we have someone not IN office yet who the American voters will or won't choose to put into the White House.

He paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle a civil suit for being a sexual deviant. That's called shut up money.
Oh - so paying a settlement equated to guilt? You realize how much Trump has paid off in lawsuits? $850K is likely pocket change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avalontor

Peace

macrumors Core
Apr 1, 2005
19,464
3,829
Space--The ONLY Frontier
Wouldn't it be more interesting of you to ask him why? We all know about the accusers, who actually did it or otherwise, from the past. But why surely seems more interesting? Apart from the usual excuse of "Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!"?
I know why but I don't think you'd like the answer.

And I might add this topic implies Bill Clinton is running for President.

He is not.
 

Mac'nCheese

Suspended
Feb 9, 2010
3,732
4,967
"In 10 years" regarding a 10 year old girl that he has no intention of sleeping with right

Gingrich, Livingston, and Hassert all support Trump?

I just did a quick search:

Gingrich called him "Little Trump" and seems to be hostile.

Livingston has supported Trump. So far.

Hastert - articles suggest he's pro-Trump.

Since other candidates have said how and why they change their beliefs and opinions based on new facts, you must not use double standards on non-Democrats should the same reasoning be employed by them. Other candidates have changed their opinions and beliefs based on epiphanies and other facts, so do these people mentioned. Time changes all. Let's get more information first.

Having said that, it probably is another case of partisan chicanery. But that carries as much evidence as the flip-side I just presented.

Am I going to look things up? Yes. But eventually, I've better things to do than read up on peoples' sex lives while noting so many figures throughout history have had "other action" that not many give as much of a **** as they used to.
Clinton was impeached for lieing under oath.

I don't think much of the Republican establishment is supporting Trump.
Fine, not all republicans. Just the ones who still support him and are voting for him just like every single democrat.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,022
16,472
The Misty Mountains
When Bill Clinton was in office and was committing sexual acts with subordinates, and sexually assaulting them the democrats told us that we shouldn't bother with the presidents personal business and Hillary literally destroyed/blackmailed them into silence. Now that Trump has accusers coming up should we just assume it was personal business as well or do we hold republicans to another standard?

Why is Bill Clinton still a democrat idol after knowing his history, but Trump is a disgusting individual?

Personally feel that they are both disgusting if the accusations are correct, but I am wondering about the double standard.
Do you like being victim of the Right Wing Clinton slander machine? There is no equivalence, but I don't think you'll be open minded enough to consider alternatives to your preconceptions, so I won't bother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
When Bill Clinton was in office and was committing sexual acts with subordinates, and sexually assaulting them the democrats told us that we shouldn't bother with the presidents personal business and Hillary literally destroyed/blackmailed them into silence. Now that Trump has accusers coming up should we just assume it was personal business as well or do we hold republicans to another standard?

Why is Bill Clinton still a democrat idol after knowing his history, but Trump is a disgusting individual?

Personally feel that they are both disgusting if the accusations are correct, but I am wondering about the double standard.
Please source your claim. I've done some digging on that subject, and haven't found anything nearly as clear cut as you describe.

I have to assume you have some really good evidence. Please share it. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdowns and samcraig

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
What exactly is your point ? Are you seriously asking a question or using a poorly worded veil to insult Clinton ?
My point is we aren't talking about guilt or innocence in court rooms, we only have accusers on the Trump side right now anyways, Bill had much more evidence against him including settling a case for nearly a million dollars.