this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
622 points (97.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7177 readers
1156 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's the whole goal of the "both sides" attack, for those who do actually deploy it. It takes an issue that people might actually care about and makes it irrelevant. A Republican that cares has no reason to abandon a sexual predator to vote for another. (Or in Hillary's case a supporter of a sexual predator.)
Also, if anything, the attitude of the Democratic party towards Bill Clinton indicates that Democrats don't care about sexual crimes. I don't think it's really that simple though.
It's weird that you're willing to accept any rumor about Clinton as fact. Hmm...
The only thing I know for sure is he had inappropriate but consensual sex with an adult. It looks bad on him being a friend of Epstein but it's also not proof like you asset it is. It continues to be weird also that you're fixated on someone irrelevant to American politics for 20 years or more. But yeah totally I'm "protecting" him
It's weird that you ignore the power balance, and all the other credible accusations. LOL, yeah, his friendship with Epstein looks bad. I never said it was proof of anything, but it strains credulity to think that he wasn't involved. It's also politics, so we need Democrats with better judgement.
You still seem to think I'm making a both sides argument and trying to draw some equivalence. My point is that Democrats are unnecessarily burdening themselves by tacitly excusing bad behavior from it's leadership. The Republicans are shit from top to bottom. Democrats have other choices.
Clinton is irrelevant in the national conversation. He is not irrelevant in Democratic leadership.
Epstein was connected with plenty of people from both parties, and in ways that implicate, not just associate. Bill is just the biggest example. There is no vast conspiracy to bury the story, but rather a tacit understanding in mainstream media that this story is radioactive and best left alone. Better Democrats wouldn't have put us in this position.
Also relevant is the fact that Biden appears to have steered almost entirely clear of such scandal over a very long career, and he gets full credit for that. I am only aware of one purported incident, and there is enough room for doubt in it that I would defer to his otherwise clean record. Between Biden and Trump, it's damn clear who is better. It's just too bad that Biden is hampered in benefitting from that by a history of scandal he has nothing to do with.
I am not a prosecutor or detective so it's not my job to investigate it. And I'm not a conspiracy psycho either. Just how exactly is Clinton a party leader? Because he attends events or..?
I've not said anything that even borders on conspiracy theory. It seems like you just throw that label at anything you don't, or don't want to, understand.
Former Presidents typically have tremendous influence in their parties. Biden went from near the back of the pack to a clear first place on one super Tuesday due in large part to Obama's influence. Every establishment friendly candidate dropped out on the same day and endorsed Biden due to deals made or brokered by Obama. Likewise, in 2016, Hillary had the machinery of the DNC behind her candidacy long before the primary even began. Leadership in the DNC, DCCC, and a myriad of other organizations that collectively make up the Democratic party is chosen largely through back room deals and endorsements. Then there are the lobiests, Democratic consultants, and wealthy interests who all benefit from their relationships with former presidents. Soft power may be difficult to nail down, but is undeniably a huge driver of Democratic leadership.