This story can be set in the context of "blame the opposition for crimes you're guilty of" tactics, e.g. the Pizzagate child sex trafficking ring conspiracy theory. There is indeed a group of...
This story can be set in the context of "blame the opposition for crimes you're guilty of" tactics, e.g. the Pizzagate child sex trafficking ring conspiracy theory.
There is indeed a group of highly placed conspirators with the power to subvert the law, they just happen to be big-name members of the Republican Party, not Democrats
I have a particular repugnance for the ability of the wealthy to escape due justice, more so in vastly corrupt South Florida (see also this gem from today), and in the face of other events this week that I'm not yet at liberty to disclose.
Bill Clinton is a democrat. His political party doesn't really matter to me in this case. That seems secondary to the factor of great wealth removing a lot of risk and scrutiny.
Bill Clinton is a democrat.
His political party doesn't really matter to me in this case. That seems secondary to the factor of great wealth removing a lot of risk and scrutiny.
I'm with him, I don't understand what you think pointing out Bill Clinton's namedrop does to contradict the point that while the far right were throwing around a conspiracy theory about the Dems...
I'm with him, I don't understand what you think pointing out Bill Clinton's namedrop does to contradict the point that while the far right were throwing around a conspiracy theory about the Dems covering up pedophilia, Republicans actually did do that. I read your comment back when it was just "Bill Clinton is a democrat" and I didn't understand what you were getting at. With your edit, I understand it less.
Someone is pointing out that despite a bunch of right wingers insisting on a pedophiliac conspiracy by Dems existed, current notable Republicans actually did engage in one. Your response of simply "Bill Clinton is a democrat" doesn't exactly respond to, add to, or dispute what was said. Sure, Clinton is mentioned in the article but in a completely different context entirely: he and Epstein apparently were familiar with each other enough to be on each others' phone lists.
Being on a phone contact list seems to be different than being engaged in making sure a pedophile gets away with a slap on the wrist, no? Where are you reading that Clinton was involved in this coverup?
I think framing this as a tit for tat between democrats and republicans is not productive. The fact that Bill is a democrat and has connections to this demonstrates that the issue is broader.
I think framing this as a tit for tat between democrats and republicans is not productive.
The fact that Bill is a democrat and has connections to this demonstrates that the issue is broader.
Regardless about how you feel about this context (which, by the way, was clearly disclaimed as a possible recontextualization for discussion purposes), your response to that sentiment was bizarre...
Regardless about how you feel about this context (which, by the way, was clearly disclaimed as a possible recontextualization for discussion purposes), your response to that sentiment was bizarre and difficult to derive your meaning from because Clinton was mentioned in a completely different context and manner than you suggested, and are still suggesting, and from what the person you are replying to is speaking about. Again, being on someone's phone contact list is not the same thing as helping them cover up pedophilia.
I don't see how pointing out that Bill Clinton was in this guy's phone contacts disputes the idea of a conspiracy theory that far right types have perpetrated were actually done by the other party is notable. Not unless you demonstrate how Bill Clinton was involved in a similar capacity as the Republicans mentioned in this article.
I was thinking more about Clintons 26 trips to Epsteins island. You're right to question it, the evidence for the implication is certainly circumstantial and the article didn't mention it. It is...
I was thinking more about Clintons 26 trips to Epsteins island. You're right to question it, the evidence for the implication is certainly circumstantial and the article didn't mention it.
It is an assumption that Clinton and Epstein engaged in any criminal behavior together, period.
My point was that politics is less important than power to focus when engaging the issue of powerful people doing evil things.
when I replied to your comment, it only said Which confused me, I was hoping you would expand your point. The comment you replied to talks about how the wealthy can escape justice. I couldn't give...
when I replied to your comment, it only said
Bill Clinton is a democrat.
Which confused me, I was hoping you would expand your point. The comment you replied to talks about how the wealthy can escape justice. I couldn't give less of a crap about Bill, but he was impeached on some borderline bullshit and his wealth didn't get him out.
I said that in response to the person because I didn't agree with the connection they made to politics. Bill Clinton being a Democrat seemed to contradict that.
I said that in response to the person because I didn't agree with the connection they made to politics. Bill Clinton being a Democrat seemed to contradict that.
Technically speaking, it was congress that tried and impeached him and congress is not a branch of the legal system. Testifying before congress is not the same as testifying in court. It's a weird...
Technically speaking, it was congress that tried and impeached him and congress is not a branch of the legal system.
Testifying before congress is not the same as testifying in court. It's a weird distinction, but important because congress does not have to abide by the same rules as courts in the legal branch.
Great reporting, absolutely terrible chain of events being reported on. Reading the details makes me sick to my stomach. Not to be "that guy" but I'm gonna make this about Trump. We need to know...
Great reporting, absolutely terrible chain of events being reported on. Reading the details makes me sick to my stomach.
Not to be "that guy" but I'm gonna make this about Trump. We need to know the extent of his perversions that so far we've only caught glimpses of: From partying with Acosta, to the Russian golden shower story, to Stormy Daniels, to the Miss Teen USA allegations, to the Access Hollywood "grab 'em" quote, to his comments about being attracted to Ivanka... this list of purported offenses is way, way, way longer than it should be. And still nothing substantial has come of any of it.
I have no idea how deeply the Mueller investigation is diving into that aspect of Trump's life but there's simply no way there could be such a preponderance of evidence of his lechery and none of it be true. What we know is just the tip of the iceberg. What I want to know is how his base, particularly the family values and Christian right, can continue to cast a blind eye toward the man's absolute lack of decency or character. What possible thing could he do that would make them say "now he's gone too far?" Where is their line in the sand?
This story can be set in the context of "blame the opposition for crimes you're guilty of" tactics, e.g. the Pizzagate child sex trafficking ring conspiracy theory.
There is indeed a group of highly placed conspirators with the power to subvert the law, they just happen to be big-name members of the Republican Party, not Democrats
I have a particular repugnance for the ability of the wealthy to escape due justice, more so in vastly corrupt South Florida (see also this gem from today), and in the face of other events this week that I'm not yet at liberty to disclose.
Bill Clinton is a democrat.
His political party doesn't really matter to me in this case. That seems secondary to the factor of great wealth removing a lot of risk and scrutiny.
Who was impeached for his "crimes" 30 years ago.
20 years ago Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice relating to attempts to hide his misconduct from the legal system.
Math is hard. but I don't understand what your point is.
I didn't understand your point to begin with so I posted the specifics.
I'm with him, I don't understand what you think pointing out Bill Clinton's namedrop does to contradict the point that while the far right were throwing around a conspiracy theory about the Dems covering up pedophilia, Republicans actually did do that. I read your comment back when it was just "Bill Clinton is a democrat" and I didn't understand what you were getting at. With your edit, I understand it less.
Someone is pointing out that despite a bunch of right wingers insisting on a pedophiliac conspiracy by Dems existed, current notable Republicans actually did engage in one. Your response of simply "Bill Clinton is a democrat" doesn't exactly respond to, add to, or dispute what was said. Sure, Clinton is mentioned in the article but in a completely different context entirely: he and Epstein apparently were familiar with each other enough to be on each others' phone lists.
Being on a phone contact list seems to be different than being engaged in making sure a pedophile gets away with a slap on the wrist, no? Where are you reading that Clinton was involved in this coverup?
I think framing this as a tit for tat between democrats and republicans is not productive.
The fact that Bill is a democrat and has connections to this demonstrates that the issue is broader.
Regardless about how you feel about this context (which, by the way, was clearly disclaimed as a possible recontextualization for discussion purposes), your response to that sentiment was bizarre and difficult to derive your meaning from because Clinton was mentioned in a completely different context and manner than you suggested, and are still suggesting, and from what the person you are replying to is speaking about. Again, being on someone's phone contact list is not the same thing as helping them cover up pedophilia.
I don't see how pointing out that Bill Clinton was in this guy's phone contacts disputes the idea of a conspiracy theory that far right types have perpetrated were actually done by the other party is notable. Not unless you demonstrate how Bill Clinton was involved in a similar capacity as the Republicans mentioned in this article.
I was thinking more about Clintons 26 trips to Epsteins island. You're right to question it, the evidence for the implication is certainly circumstantial and the article didn't mention it.
It is an assumption that Clinton and Epstein engaged in any criminal behavior together, period.
My point was that politics is less important than power to focus when engaging the issue of powerful people doing evil things.
This is very true, and I think something the US seems to finally be reckoning with, face to face.
when I replied to your comment, it only said
Which confused me, I was hoping you would expand your point. The comment you replied to talks about how the wealthy can escape justice. I couldn't give less of a crap about Bill, but he was impeached on some borderline bullshit and his wealth didn't get him out.
I said that in response to the person because I didn't agree with the connection they made to politics. Bill Clinton being a Democrat seemed to contradict that.
Technically speaking, it was congress that tried and impeached him and congress is not a branch of the legal system.
Testifying before congress is not the same as testifying in court. It's a weird distinction, but important because congress does not have to abide by the same rules as courts in the legal branch.
Great reporting, absolutely terrible chain of events being reported on. Reading the details makes me sick to my stomach.
Not to be "that guy" but I'm gonna make this about Trump. We need to know the extent of his perversions that so far we've only caught glimpses of: From partying with Acosta, to the Russian golden shower story, to Stormy Daniels, to the Miss Teen USA allegations, to the Access Hollywood "grab 'em" quote, to his comments about being attracted to Ivanka... this list of purported offenses is way, way, way longer than it should be. And still nothing substantial has come of any of it.
I have no idea how deeply the Mueller investigation is diving into that aspect of Trump's life but there's simply no way there could be such a preponderance of evidence of his lechery and none of it be true. What we know is just the tip of the iceberg. What I want to know is how his base, particularly the family values and Christian right, can continue to cast a blind eye toward the man's absolute lack of decency or character. What possible thing could he do that would make them say "now he's gone too far?" Where is their line in the sand?