Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?
Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.
Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.
Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.
If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.
Those are the facts.
Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.
[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]
It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?
Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true
prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.
The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.
By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.
Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]