Whiny Mormon Cultist says what?
Blah, blah, blah--lame excuses that ignore the central fact that Clinton paid her off to settle the case. She "suffered no consequences" from having an authority figure bring her up to his hotel room and expose himself to her and ask for a sexual favor? Really? How do you know? My, my, your far-left crocodile weeping for women harassed by sexual predators disappears when a Democrat is the perp.
How do I know? Because it was established in court. She wasn't demoted. She wasn't denied job opportunities. She wasn't fired. They did mover her desk, because she spent all day talking to other employees instead of doing her work. The supervisor who moved her had no idea she ever met Clinton.
Clinton settled because she was willing to drop her asking cost to 1/3rd, and stopped demanding an apology, and Clinton's insurance company was happy to pay it rather than pay for three more years of litigation that would go nowhere.
Jones Lost. Deal with it. The next year, she was doing nude pictures in Penthouse (proving that most people look better with their clothes on) and boxing with Tonya Harding.
I kind of feel bad for her, because she was ill-used by the men in her life.
And, once again, we see that when you like a verdict, you cite it as absolute and convincing truth, but when you don't like a verdict, you find all sorts of reasons to attack the jurors and to dismiss the verdict as invalid.
Except I was fine with the verdict in the Jones case. The verdict was that she had not been harrassed because Clinton was not her supervisor, nor did she suffer negative consequences to her actions. I'm good with that verdict.
I'm also good with Trump's verdict. He did have co-service sex with Daniels; he did falsify business documents to hide the money he paid her. I'm happy as a clam.
Not to say that there are cases where the courts didn't **** things up, because they do.
What else would we expect from a guy who has repeatedly claimed that Mao Tse Tung, one of the worst mass murderers in human history, deserves admiration, and that Joe Stalin could not have murdered tens of millions of people because Soviet census records don't show a corresponding drop in population.
The John Birch Society called; they want their lame propaganda back.
Mao is admired by a billion Chinese, most of whom weren't alive when he was. Deal with it.
Here's my standard of whether a leader was effective. Not that he was a nice person. Jimmy Carter is one of the nicest people on the planet, but even I admit he was an ineffective president.
Mao was a ruthless bastard. He had to be. He had to deal with Japanese invaders, a fascist dictator backed by foreign governments, and a lot of local warlords with their own private armies. And at the end of the day, he took this broken, shattered country and converted it into a military and economic powerhouse. He reasserted central authority China had not enjoyed since the height of the Qing dynasty. It's why he's admired and Deng Xiaoping (who I think also deserves a lot of credit for advancing China despite Tiananmen Square) is not really admired as much.
