#I AM FUCKING WRATHFUL!
Bill Clinton is not running for president. So why are ALL THE FUCKING SHITS trying to call out Hillary as if she is her husband?
HURR DURR so what if Trump casually brags about sexually assaulting people? Someone who isn’t running for president did the same thing! DUUUUUR.
Christ what a pile of assholes.
Because she’ll do whatever he says, as she doesn’t have any mind of her own. When a woman enters into a relationship with a man, she immediately loses all agency and becomes his property for as long as that relationship lasts. And until he says so.
/s obviously. But there are enough people out there that think like that to make it a very sad /s.
While that may be hyperbole, I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to expect that the policies of Spouse #1 are likely to be highly similar to the policies of Spouse #2. Or for that matter, parent and child, as we saw in the administration previous to this one. And yes, I feel the same way about the Bushes and Kennedys.
Personally, I think we have term limits for a reason, and Hillary has already had 16 years in the White House. I’m sorry, but I just feel that’s too much power to put in the hands of one family across multiple administrations.
“First Ladies” in the past didn’t seem to bring this level of scrutiny when their husbands ran, and don’t get me started on the Bush dynasty. ETA: Yes we can expect their policies to be close, or have been close at some time. That is a given. Why the constant need to call it out all of the sudden? (and all the time.)
That’s besides the point.
What I’m getting at is that what Bill Clinton has said and done is NOT what Hillary Clinton has said and done. They’re not the same people. Don’t pretend that Bill’s shitiness is the same thing as Hillary’s. Hillary didn’t “talk pussy” out on the golf course. Hillary didn’t have an affair with an intern. In fact
#SHE’S THE VICTIM OF THAT AFFAIR
This isn’t a thread talking about why you should or shouldn’t vote for Hillary.
We already have one of those
https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/why-or-why-not-to-vote-for-hillary-clintonIf you want to talk about policy concerns, take it to a thread where it matters.
Previous topic post on this subject:
http://bbs.boingboing.net/t/a-quick-lesson-on-relevanceThank you for the cross reference.
Sexism.
I know I’m not the best ally, but I’m good enough to spot shit this blatant and I’ve been ignoring it for long enough. This is just too gross for me to put up with it.
If I get banned for getting all angry and shouty so be it.
I’ll probably get creamed for this, but some people have a dim view of Camille Cosby.
I suspect that current GOP theory goes the other way.
The original basis for anti-Hillary dementia was the claim that she was the power behind the throne of Bill’s presidency. The Alex Jones set are likely arguing that Hillary commanded Bill to torture women for her amusement.
I can’t tell whether you’re serious or not…
My impulse is that I’m missing the sarcasm.
Fair enough. As a general rule I think that anything between consenting adults which may or may have not involved anyone’s genitalia really has no bearing on what kind of job they’d do as President.
Also, Trump is obviously a worthless shitbag who doesn’t have a full understanding of the term “consenting adults”, and the world would probably be a much better place if he had been drowned at birth. That generally goes without saying. Using Bill’s past behavior to deflect from his own is absolutely a dick move, and there is a world of difference between a consenting affair and a sexual assault. That also goes without saying.
But like it or not, when we are tied to people, they are tied to us. You marry the person, you get the inlaws. Bill is one more piece of Hillary’s baggage. You are perfectly free to argue that he’s not an important or relevant bit of baggage- But you don’t get to pretend that baggage doesn’t exist, or that it isn’t ripe to be exploited by the opposition.
Because we’ve never had a First Lady who had formerly been a US President. Being a female candidate is not the only uncharted ground here.
Rhetorical question, but thank you.
I may be very wrong about this, but my sense is that @jerwin is pointing out that some people, especially misogynistic puritans, will blame the wife if a husband isn’t faithful. At it’s core, it’s an especially perverse version of victim blaming. And even where they can’t exonerate the husband, as in Bill Cosby’s case, or don’t want to, as in Bill Clinton’s case, they still latch onto it as an excuse to blame the wife along with the husband. It’s basically the Scarlett Letter with more sexual predators.
I, for one, wholeheartedly support your shoutiness. I’m getting hoarse myself from shouting at screens of all sizes and types whenever Bill comes up: “Jesus, Mary and all the fucking saints, how is this relevant?!?!?”
Well, frankly, it was a thought that occurred to me as I was hiking incommunicado to work at the campaign headquarters for my shift–I had just heard that Trump had planned some sort of press conference with the “Bill Clinton accusers”. and I was trying to figure out the odds of this stunt succeeding.
I figured that Trump would probably roll a fumble, when he really needed a critical success.
Perhaps I was dehydrated, and my brain was trying to tell me to drink some water, in the best way it could.
I don’t think you will, but I’ll whip up a solidarity avi just in case 
I had to look up Camille Cosby just to confirm that was his wife. She’s got no name recognition for me, and I haven’t seen anything about her, so I was thinking you were just trying to juxtapose the situation.
I get that part to some extent, but it’s also why I said don’t get me started on the Bush clan. If you think they didn’t all have private chats about policy you have to be daft.
