Quantcast
How Do Hillary Clinton Feminist Supporters reconcile her record of attacking/intimdating ....

Forums - Politics Discussion - How Do Hillary Clinton Feminist Supporters reconcile her record of attacking/intimdating ....

binary solo said:
I assume feminists would be highly critical of people who make false accusations of rape. Given no one has managed to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence applies to Bill, in terms of rape. Therefore Hillary has every right to go after Bill's false accusers.

If you think Hillary knows Bill is an actual rapist and she's still going after these legit victims then yeah that's bad. But that's all in your mind, because you don't know the truth, you just want it to be the truth so much you've decided it is the truth.

Having an affair is not illegal. And also there is nothing at all wrong or unusual for the scorned wife to have a lot of anger towards the other woman. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." People have heard of that saying right? If the other woman comes out publicly then I see no problem with going after them as long as you don't break any laws in what you do (like paying to get them kneecapped or something). Coming out publicly only serves to give the other woman (or man as the case may be) 15 minutes of fame and serves as fodder to political opponents. If they were willing participants in the affairs at the time then I have no problem with Hillary hounding them for going public.

Clearly Hillary was not going to publicly castigate Bill for his part in it, but I bet behind closed doors some harsh words were spoken, and Bill probably spent a lot of time on the couch.

I do know some feminists who think Hillary played the whole thing wrong and they wish she wasn't in line to be the first woman president. But they certainly think she's a miles better option than ole misogynist Drumpf. And not in a lesser of two evils way, in an actual materially better person, better candidate and better ideology way.

The rape acusation was /is credible but you are right it has not been proven in a court of law because it never made it that far- but the rpae acusatinons are a small part of the history of Bill sleeping w awomen, the news coming out, Hillary going after the "rodeo queens"  in every manner that feminists despise including trying to discredit them and the affairs alltogether-  but evenutaully they were actualy proven true- 

Whichh accussed rapists (other than Bill Clinton)  have feminists come to the defense of?  

So someone who says they are with the feminissts but whose actions are diametrically appossed is better than a person that does not pander to them?

Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewensky are 2 of many that she went after that were proven to be telling the truth-  in case you are too young to remember or don t know much about the Clintons history- 



Around the Network
Dunban67 said:

The question in the thread is "how do feminists supporters of Hillary reconcile her well documented actions V what she says she stands for and what many of her supporters consider a major issue-     So far most of the answers have been something about Trump or lesser of 2 evils kind of thing and/or some type of Faustian bargain-  but none of the answers make an effort to reconcile her actions V what she says she stands for -  I think the reason is, it would be difficult if not impossible to do- 

You do recognize that those two are completely different things, right? 

As for her actions vs. words, I agree with your criticism of her attacks on Bill's lovers (which she did before they were proven true), but that does not invalidate for instance her policy positions etc.  Suppose she had been super anti-gay before she supported them (which is not true; she didn't support gay marriage but it would be wrong to say she was fighting on the other side).  That would complicate her political character, but it would not erase the fact that she is wholeheartedly supporting gay rights now.  In a similar sense, her attacks on women involved in Bill's affairs is bad but does not mean she cannot be good for feminist policy, especially when that stuff happened decades ago. 

What kind of "reconciliation" are you imagining, Dunban? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Dunban67 said:
binary solo said:
I assume feminists would be highly critical of people who make false accusations of rape. Given no one has managed to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence applies to Bill, in terms of rape. Therefore Hillary has every right to go after Bill's false accusers.

If you think Hillary knows Bill is an actual rapist and she's still going after these legit victims then yeah that's bad. But that's all in your mind, because you don't know the truth, you just want it to be the truth so much you've decided it is the truth.

Having an affair is not illegal. And also there is nothing at all wrong or unusual for the scorned wife to have a lot of anger towards the other woman. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." People have heard of that saying right? If the other woman comes out publicly then I see no problem with going after them as long as you don't break any laws in what you do (like paying to get them kneecapped or something). Coming out publicly only serves to give the other woman (or man as the case may be) 15 minutes of fame and serves as fodder to political opponents. If they were willing participants in the affairs at the time then I have no problem with Hillary hounding them for going public.

Clearly Hillary was not going to publicly castigate Bill for his part in it, but I bet behind closed doors some harsh words were spoken, and Bill probably spent a lot of time on the couch.

I do know some feminists who think Hillary played the whole thing wrong and they wish she wasn't in line to be the first woman president. But they certainly think she's a miles better option than ole misogynist Drumpf. And not in a lesser of two evils way, in an actual materially better person, better candidate and better ideology way.

The rape acusation was /is credible but you are right it has not been proven in a court of law because it never made it that far- but the rpae acusatinons are a small part of the history of Bill sleeping w awomen, the news coming out, Hillary going after the "rodeo queens"  in every manner that feminists despise including trying to discredit them and the affairs alltogether-  but evenutaully they were actualy proven true- 

Whichh accussed rapists (other than Bill Clinton)  have feminists come to the defense of?  

So someone who says they are with the feminissts but whose actions are diametrically appossed is better than a person that does not pander to them?

Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewensky are 2 of many that she went after that were proven to be telling the truth-  in case you are too young to remember or don t know much about the Clintons history- 

The rape accusations are not credible. If they were then Bill would have been prosecuted. If prosecutors have found there is insufficient evidence to convict then for all purposes Bill is innocent. Accusations of rape that only lead to trial by media should be ignored. You can't tell me there isn't enough money and political influence on the right to get a rape case going in the courts. Do I believe Bill ever raped anyone? I have no idea, and neither do you.

Ask any feminist what they think about false accusations of rape? False rape accusations are very damaging to women's causes, and they create a cry wolf mindset where actual rape victims are viewed with suspicion among police and prosecutors, especially in cases where there are no obvious signs of violence.

You've failed to demonstrate that Hillary's actions are diametrically opposed to feminism. The rape thing is irrelevant. And how is it that Hillary's actions against women who did her wrong is unfeminist? Feminism does not require you to be all sweetness and light towards women who have wronged you? The way I see it, when there's an affair there are two guilty parties. The married person may arguably share the greater blame, but the other person is not without blame. A morally upstanding person will say no the advances of a married person, and also will not pursue a married person. Where is the solidarity of sisterhood in someone who knowingly has sex with a married man? Surely the first betrayal of feminism was in dishonouring Hillary by having sex with her husband. 

But you could say that the mere fact that Hillary entered into marriage with a man is anti-feminist. So feminists whould not vote for a married woman, unless it's a lesbian marriage.

What makes you the appropriate judge of consistency with feminism in Hillary's actions? About the only thing you can reasonably say  is a betrayal of feminist principles is that Hillary didn't leave Bill. But does that make her persona non-grata with moderate feminists? And when it comes to the implementation of policy that will actually affect your life I would think voting for somone who panders to you but who's personal life does not live up to the ideal is better than voting for somone who regards you as an irrelevance. The perfect feminist candidate does not exist, therefore you vote for the one who is both realisitcally electable and least imperfect. If they want to vote for Jill Stein as a better feminist candidate that only serves to make trump getting in more likely.

BTW, I imagine radical feminists are largely sitting this election out or voting Stein, since they probably do think Hillary is just another puppet of the patriarchy, who happens to have female plumbing.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

For starters, they're all sketchy allegations against Bill Clinton to start with. And as far as I can see, there's only one case where Hillary supposedly silenced someone.

What does it mean to me? Well I don't think as much of Bill Clinton anymore, but I think the allegations(if true) means that Hillary is power hungry. Is that a bad thing for a US President? I don't really know. Either way, it's a drop in the bucket compared to Trump's list. You wanna tell me how you defend those?

Heck Trump has rape allegations too. Why doesn't that bother you? His wife wrote in a book that Trump once raped her but later had it retracted. I think the retraction came around the time of the primaries.

This is the problem with Trump supporters.  For every criticism you have, we have ten far more serious, and scary criticisms against Trump.  Half your criticisms are against Bill, another quarter of them are debunked.  The only real thing you have is the email scandal.  What does that mean?  She's an old woman who doesn't like technology.  Now that she's gone through all this trouble, I'd be shocked if she ever did anything similar again.  

Now if it was Trump?  I can honestly see him taking top secret information out of the white house and using it to blackmail the government with later.  That's the kind of person he strikes me as.  



Clinton is far from a good candidate, but the hate speech spouting bigot that is her opponent doesn't have a very good track record with women either.



Around the Network

I have problems with Hillary Clinton. Aside from the fact that she is a liar, an incompetent Secretary of State, an incompetent senator who voted with Republicans on a lot of issues, and someone who's been associated directly or indirectly with quite a few people who have been murdered or have died under mysterious circumstances, she is someone who is completely in denial about everything. She, like Donald Trump will never admit to changing her mind about anything or saying something that contradicts what she said years ago. The few times she's called out on it in interviews, she'll accuse the interviewer of putting words in her mouth or twisting her words, which is something a typical politician loves to say. How does one go about trusting someone like this.

The truth is Trump is a liar. Hillary is a liar. Gary Johnson is the honest candidate. This isn't just an opinion. Those who worked with him during his tenure as Governor of New Mexico reported that they were surprised by just how honest he was. When he said he was going to do something, he wasn't kidding. He did it. Unfortunately, voters can't handle honesty. The American voter loves bs and that's what the Democrats and Republicans are giving them.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Dunban67 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Which one still actively imtimidates and berates women every day?

Hillary with out a doubt- she will intimdate threaten discredit ect any woman that has slept w her husband that she see s as a threat just as she always has-  She has done exactly what feminist have said for years (even peole who are not feminists) have fought against for year and that is blaming the victim, slut shaming, discrediting ect-  

The question in the thread is "how do feminists supporters of Hillary reconcile her well documented actions V what she says she stands for and what many of her supporters consider a major issue-     So far most of the answers have been something about Trump or lesser of 2 evils kind of thing and/or some type of Faustian bargain-  but none of the answers make an effort to reconcile her actions V what she says she stands for -  I think the reason is, it would be difficult if not impossible to do- 

Are you trying to tell me that Hillary actively intimates and berates more women today than her opponent?

First, the allegations of intimidation are tenuous and they alledgely happened over 2 decades ago.  Trump still treats women as second class human beings every single day.

Second, some bargaining is at play.  They are more likely to forgive Hillary for her intimidations 2 decades ago than Trump for his intimidations that seem to happen every 5 minutes.  

If the Republicans or Democrats provided a better candidate that feminists could support, you might find them giving Hillary a harder time about her past.  But they didn't. 

Third, why would they want to give Trump any ammunition to work with?  Turning their back on Hillary opens the door for Trump.  You can't ignore that and look only in a vacuum.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

WolfpackN64 said:
Clinton is far from a good candidate, but the hate speech spouting bigot that is her opponent doesn't have a very good track record with women either.

So speach deemed hateful by his adversaries  from Trump is worse than actions that have actually effected many women  by Hillary



I don't think any reasonable person would say that someone is not allowed to defend themselves or their family.



binary solo said:
Dunban67 said:

The rape acusation was /is credible but you are right it has not been proven in a court of law because it never made it that far- but the rpae acusatinons are a small part of the history of Bill sleeping w awomen, the news coming out, Hillary going after the "rodeo queens"  in every manner that feminists despise including trying to discredit them and the affairs alltogether-  but evenutaully they were actualy proven true- 

Whichh accussed rapists (other than Bill Clinton)  have feminists come to the defense of?  

So someone who says they are with the feminissts but whose actions are diametrically appossed is better than a person that does not pander to them?

Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewensky are 2 of many that she went after that were proven to be telling the truth-  in case you are too young to remember or don t know much about the Clintons history- 

The rape accusations are not credible. If they were then Bill would have been prosecuted. If prosecutors have found there is insufficient evidence to convict then for all purposes Bill is innocent. Accusations of rape that only lead to trial by media should be ignored. You can't tell me there isn't enough money and political influence on the right to get a rape case going in the courts. Do I believe Bill ever raped anyone? I have no idea, and neither do you.

Ask any feminist what they think about false accusations of rape? False rape accusations are very damaging to women's causes, and they create a cry wolf mindset where actual rape victims are viewed with suspicion among police and prosecutors, especially in cases where there are no obvious signs of violence.

You've failed to demonstrate that Hillary's actions are diametrically opposed to feminism. The rape thing is irrelevant. And how is it that Hillary's actions against women who did her wrong is unfeminist? Feminism does not require you to be all sweetness and light towards women who have wronged you? The way I see it, when there's an affair there are two guilty parties. The married person may arguably share the greater blame, but the other person is not without blame. A morally upstanding person will say no the advances of a married person, and also will not pursue a married person. Where is the solidarity of sisterhood in someone who knowingly has sex with a married man? Surely the first betrayal of feminism was in dishonouring Hillary by having sex with her husband. 

But you could say that the mere fact that Hillary entered into marriage with a man is anti-feminist. So feminists whould not vote for a married woman, unless it's a lesbian marriage.

What makes you the appropriate judge of consistency with feminism in Hillary's actions? About the only thing you can reasonably say  is a betrayal of feminist principles is that Hillary didn't leave Bill. But does that make her persona non-grata with moderate feminists? And when it comes to the implementation of policy that will actually affect your life I would think voting for somone who panders to you but who's personal life does not live up to the ideal is better than voting for somone who regards you as an irrelevance. The perfect feminist candidate does not exist, therefore you vote for the one who is both realisitcally electable and least imperfect. If they want to vote for Jill Stein as a better feminist candidate that only serves to make trump getting in more likely.

BTW, I imagine radical feminists are largely sitting this election out or voting Stein, since they probably do think Hillary is just another puppet of the patriarchy, who happens to have female plumbing.

Hillary Clintons derogatory/damaging attacks on a long line of women whom Her husband had affars is not an opinion-  They are well documented and With the possible exception of Hillary, I don t think anyone denies the affairs continue-  

Like I said - it seems a certain amount of denial, maybe some ignorance of the Clintons history is oe way in which some people and prob many feminists reconcile these two differing messages-   Or 1 is a message the other actions   - 

The other question i would think most feminist would struggle with is the fact that many of  Bill Clinton s affairs have been public and over many years-  Yet Hillary stays with him anyway-   It woudl appear she is either very cio depedent or she has been/is afraid she can t realize her political ambitions with out holding tight to Bill s coat tails-   again representing the opposite of what feisist say they stand for

The Clinton Foundation has also accpted tens of millions of dollars from Country s like Saudia Arabia and other who have (caopared to American feminists belefs) TERRIBLE human rights record and even worse policies toward women- 

If anyone looks in any direction re Hillary Clintons ACTIONs relating to women they are the excatly what femisnts are strongly appossed to-  That is not an opinion-  A substantial record over a long period of time confirm her actions-  even many of the Clintons biggest sppporters don t deny the contridictions-  they may ignore them r try to recast them (Like the Washington Post article did)