Trump's comparison of sexual misconduct allegations as compared to Bill Clinton's

[s_stabeler]

With the recent allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump, He has compared the allegations to the ones against Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky Affair. Frankly, I find this both disingenuous of Trump, as well as revealing of his attitude towards women. The allegations against Clinton was of an inappropriate consensual affair- Monica Lewinsky was fully consenting, but it was inappropriate since she ultimately worked for him. The allegations against Trump are of non-consensual sexual conduct in a position of authority. ( basically, Clinton had the stereotypical affair with his secretary ( yes, I know Lewinsky wasn't his secretary. The comparison is still valid, since the point is that Lewinsky was freely consenting but it's improper since Clinton was, ultimately, Lewinsky's superior) while Trump felt up people without their consent.)

In essence, if Clinton wasn't Lewinsky's boss, the relationship would only be illegal due to laws criminalizing adultery (I don't know if DC has a law criminalizing adultery, but it was fairly common at the time for the male partner to commit adultery) whereas even if Trump was not- at the time- in a position of authority (real or perceived) over those he abused, it would still be illegal. And he sees no difference between the two. THAT is an issue independent of the truth of the allegations, since it implies he thinks that consent is irrelevant.

[HYHYBT]

It's not Lewinsky he's referring to so much as the ones that accused Bill Clinton of some form of sexual assault, making it much more similar. But unlike Donald Trump, Bill didn't BRAG about assaulting anyone. There's a difference between succumbing to temptation and not even recognizing it as wrong (at least not for you.) And, of course, Bill isn't running for president.

[Greenday]

Clinton has a lot of allegations of forceful rape against him so...

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Not to be that guy (but I'm totally going to be that guy), but Clinton has exactly one allegation of rape against him and that's Juanita Broederick. What he has in addition to that are two sexual harrassment/assault allegations that have been made.

It's not like that's light years better, but Clinton has enough polemic speech going on about him that we don't need to make things up.

[s_stabeler]

One thing to bear in mind is that by my read of things, Clinton never deliberately put women in a position to be harassed- or assaulted- by him, while some of the allegations surrounding Trump sound suspiciously like he took actions with the intent of being able to at least ogle women without them being able to stop him ( he's outright himself said he walks into the dressing room of the Miss USA Pageant unannounced while they are changing. It's by no means as bad as actual assaults, but it shows an exceptionally poor attitude to women. It also implies it may have been at least part of his motivation for owning the pageant)

[jackfaire]

That's funny I thought Hillary Clinton was running for office and not Bill Clinton.

Wait she is.

That's the difference Trump is losing to Hillary badly. The only crap he's got to go after her with is "Dammit why did you do your job"

So instead he goes after her husband and the media is letting him. I mean seriously since when did spouses and families become part of any election.

It's like when Sarah Palin on getting the VP nod instead of saying "here's why I am qualified" went "Hey here's my family that you don't give a shit about"

Can you imagine any other job interview where you ask the applicant "So what skills do you bring to this position"

"Hey btw I am married and I have two lovely kids I even brought them with me to the interview I am sure you want to meet them"

NO no I don't now get the hell out of my office.

[Greenday]

One thing to bear in mind is that by my read of things, Clinton never deliberately put women in a position to be harassed- or assaulted- by him, while some of the allegations surrounding Trump sound suspiciously like he took actions with the intent of being able to at least ogle women without them being able to stop him ( he's outright himself said he walks into the dressing room of the Miss USA Pageant unannounced while they are changing. It's by no means as bad as actual assaults, but it shows an exceptionally poor attitude to women. It also implies it may have been at least part of his motivation for owning the pageant)

Clinton never deliberately put women in a position to be harassed or assaulted? What? IF the allegations are true, then that statement is patently false.

Paula Jones was forced (allegedly) to see his dick. She didn't put herself in a position to see it. He made her see it.

Willey went to Clinton to ask for a paying job. Bill kissed and fondled (allegedly) her against her will. She wasn't in a position for those things to happen. It was forced on her.

As for Broaddrick, it would appear Clint set the whole thing up to force her into the situation (Allegedly).

So do not even try to say that Trump's words are worse than Clinton's alleged actions. Trump said some absurdly stupid shit and is a complete douchebag. Clinton went a whole step further and raped/assaulted women. This is the kind of apologist BS that we complain about when people say a woman deserves it for what she wears or for drinking.

[s_stabeler]

what I was saying is that by my read, Clinton assaulted women that were working around him for reasons unrelated to him wanting to abuse them. However, particularly with the Miss USA Pageant, it seems suspiciously like Trump went out of his way to be able to at least make them uncomfortable ( I don't know for certain if he ever actually assaulted a contestant, but it's not much better that he- by his own admission- went inot their changing rooms to leer at them.

again- Bill Clintons' actions- regardless of if thye were rape, or more minor sexual assault- were unacceptable. I simply think that Trump is even more of a scumbag for, as far as I can tell, engineering him being in a position to at least leer at women, if not actually assault them.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Clinton went a whole step further and raped/assaulted women. This is the kind of apologist BS that we complain about when people say a woman deserves it for what she wears or for drinking.

Notice the part where you jumped from "allegedly" to "did"? This is the sort of BS part that tends to filibuster every conversation about believing victims, because its hard to have a serious discussion about allegations when people present allegations as facts regarding what happened. Double the believability issues when said people mysteriously only show up in the context of political campaigns. If you want additional facts on the individual allegations, I suggest wikipedia because those cases were far from open and shut.

For me Clinton's possible most damning issue not only because of the severity but because of plausibility is Broederick. Willey and Jones had extremely suspect cases with the only real problem for Bill actually being that he tried to lie about a consensual affair with Lewinsky. The rape charge remains a straight he said / she said but because it's also the one that never came under legal scrutiny, its entirely because there are things about it that seem plausible. In fact Starr flat out couldn't use her because she wasn't cooperating at the time. But ultimately my stance on it is this - I don't know and we're not going to trial and even if we did, the evidence is pretty much gone other than the whereabouts.

Don't pretend he did it. Don't pretend he didn't. We won't know. Using an unknown to try to make moral judgements against other unknowns is kind of silly. And the fact the same three women tend to be on the RNC's speed dial doesn't help their believability, especially when Bill isn't running. And specifically they answered Trump's call - that's the part that really stretches credulity. Why? Bill isn't running. I get the Republicans' spin on this, but since all the facts in the actual cases points to Bill actively hiding his affairs from his wife, why on earth would they think she is an appropriate target?

[jackfaire]

I will be honest I kind of Doubt Clinton did it. Why well simple it wasn't what they went after him with when he was President.

Congress was trying to Impeach him they actually had an impeachment hearing and he survived it.

The topic of the Impeachment hearing? He lied under oath.

Now here's the thing lying under oath is like Al Capone not paying his taxes. It's not something you go after them for it's what you settle for.

Big difference here is that then President Bill Clinton had Congress a collection of law school graduates whose jobs it was to know every little bit about the law and the only thing they could bring to an impeachment hearing was that he lied under Oath.

They had been digging up every bit of dirt on this guy all through my high school years and all they could find that was provable was the fact he lied under oath.

Now they want to bring up all of the stuff as things to tarnish his wife. Because now they don't have to prove what they couldn't prove then. Now they can just whip the court of public opinion into a frenzy.

Even the public distancing themselves from their candidate. There are a bunch of Republican leaders that think just like Trump and were all for him until it bit them in the ass now they are throwing in every bit of dirt about Hillary's husband to try and sway voters while being all "yeah uhm no Trump's bad"

Even media outlets who are all "We left traditional media because it's bias" are trying to set Clinton non-Scandals up as Scandals.

Here's the biggest difference. Clinton's allegations are mostly from 20 years ago. Donald Trump's are coming to light now. People who hated Bill and wanted him out of the White House spent millions of dollars trying to convict him on something anything.

It's why they named him Slick Willy because everything "slid off" or rather they couldn't get enough evidence on anything that actually made him guilty of wrong doing because holy shit did they try.

I was only in high school but even I thought "wait so he lied about cheating on his wife? Wtf does that have to do with him being president"

But Donald Trump's remarks and actions do have a lot to do with him being president because it speaks to his opinion on women's rights.

Bringing up anything about Bill Clinton has 0 to do with this election. Bill isn't running.

Donald is.

[Greenday]

Notice the part where you jumped from "allegedly" to "did"?

If you are going to compare Trumps comments to Clinton's alleged actions, we are going to treat those actions at face value and actual rape will be worse 100% of the time than jokes about rape.

[Kheldarson]

If you are going to compare Trumps comments to Clinton's alleged actions, we are going to treat those actions at face value and actual rape will be worse 100% of the time than jokes about rape.

Except Trump has a list of alleged actions now, too. Plus a pending rape case.

[Canarr]

There's an article here discussing that question - why Bill seems to get a pass.

Except Trump has a list of alleged actions now, too. Plus a pending rape case.

Are you talking about "Katie Johson", who sued Trump first in California, then in New York? That case where even Jezebel wrote that it seems questionable?

Honestly, I'm about as horrified as the next European at the thought that Trump might be elected POTUS. But I'm still kind of baffled how, after all the horrible, awful things he's said over the past year, the fact that he'd be an asshole to women seems to come as some sort of shocking surprise. "Oh no! I knew he's a racist bastard, who built his fortune on exploiting and cheating contractors and craftsmen, but I thought he'd at least be a gentleman!"

I don't know, maybe it's an American thing? But looking in from the outside, it's just one more horrible statement from a long, long list of horrible statements made by a horrible human being. And it's not even the worst.

[Kheldarson]

Are you talking about "Katie Johson", who sued Trump first in California, then in New York? That case where even Jezebel wrote that it seems questionable?

I'm also referencing the number of women who have come forward to say that Trump had assaulted them at some time.

As to the rape case, well, it's still pending and we'll see what happens.

I was just pointing out that Trump also has more than words behind him.

[Canarr]

You're right, of course; I disregarded the context of your post. Sorry about that.

Personally, I would have more faith in this rape case if it weren't a civil suit filed by an anonymous person, instead of a criminal charge.