A Third Woman Alleges She was Sexually Assaulted by Donald Trump

[Revoltingest]

Forgive me, I am not from the US so, I do not understand the local morals.
Do you seriously want to tell that a women who is victim of her husbands indiscretions and put up with them like a good loyal wife, is considered in the US on par with a sexual predator?

"On par" sounds like I'm being set up for the cry of "False equivalency!".
I suspect mischief because to describe Bill's predations as mere "indiscretions"
is to sanitize what his victims allege....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

The real issue here is that in using a heavy hand to silence the victims,
Hillary enabled Bill's assaults. This is analogous to clergy who protect
priestly child molesters. One who is complicit in a crime perpetrated by
another is also guilty of a crime, & responsible for the harm done.

What we have is evidence of Hillary's penchant for flouting the law &
the spirit of the law, leading to suffering by innocent parties. This is
significant. The allegations about Trump are also significant.
So all must be weighed when evaluating these two candidates.

 

[Cassandra]

"On par" sounds like I'm being set up for the cry of "False equivalency!".
I suspect mischief because to describe Bill's predations as mere "indiscretions"
is to sanitize what his victims allege....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

The real issue here is that in using a heavy hand to silence the victims,
Hillary enabled Bill's assaults. This is analogous to clergy who protect
priestly child molesters. One who is complicit in a crime perpetrated by
another is also guilty of a crime, & responsible for the harm done.

We seem to come from different planets.
In Europe we differentiate between allegations and convictions.
Is this different in America or just for you?

I realize that I am talking from a different cultural background, but do you really expect a wife to feel sorry for all the women that want to have affairs with her husband? People with fame are constantly surrounded by women that hope to take advantage. It is very unlikely that someone as attractive and good looking as Bill Clinton had to rape women to fulfill his needs. If they want sex these people have women arranged for them by bodyguards (and drugs by their doctors if have a habit). Just like Elvis did.

It seems in the US it has become normal to make any sexual allusion look like a violation and any physical contact like rape and try to blackmail famous people with court cases and slander in the media. In Europe we can only laugh about that. Every French president has his concubines and people love the stories. And giving a pat on the buttocks? Italian women feel unattractive when men stop doing that. That is healthy heterosexual behavior. From a European viewpoint Evangelicals are more like closet homosexuals trying to limit sexuality to procreation as much as they can.

But for a wife it is a terrible ordeal to have a husband cheating on her with younger women, and they hate these women. Can you blame them? But women can accept the inborn promiscuous nature if the man is discrete and stays loyal to them and can have otherwise good marriages. But few women can bare the shame when it becomes public. It shows exceptional courage and loyalty that Hillary put her families interest above her own feelings and did not seek revenge on her husband like so many others do. This is a woman of character in my book.

 

[Revoltingest]

We seem to come from different planets.

I'm actually from Titan, a moon around Saturn.
Perhaps you're from Europa (orbiting Jupiter)?

In Europe we differentiate between allegations and convictions.

We do the same.

I realize that I am talking from a different cultural background, but do you really expect a wife to feel sorry for all the women that want to have affairs with her husband?

I'm not addressing her sorrow, or any other emotions.
What matters to me is the ethics of her behavior, & what it portends if she becomes prez.

People with fame are constantly surrounded by women that hope to take advantage. It is very unlikely that someone as attractive and good looking as Bill Clinton had to rape women to fulfill his needs. If they want sex these people have women arranged for them by bodyguards (and drugs by their doctors if they are drugs addicts).

One could make the identical argument about Trump.
But I don't buy it.
Victims made the allegations in both cases.
They shouldn't be dismissed just because the accused is "attractive & good looking".

In the the US it has become normal to make any sexual allusion look like a violation and any physical contact like rape and try to blackmail famous people with court cases and slander in the media. In Europe we can only laugh about that. Every French president has his concubines and people love the stories. And giving a pat on the buttocks? Italian women feel unattractive when men stop doing that. That is healthy heterosexual behavior. From a European viewpoint Evangelicals are more like closet homosexuals trying to limit sexuality to procreation as much as the can.

I'm not addressing voluntary dalliances which are so admired in Europe.
Juanita Broaddrick claimed that Bill Clinton Raped her.
Surely, even in sophisticated Europe, sexual assault is frowned upon, & perhaps even illegal.

But for a wife it is a terrible ordeal to have a husband cheating on her, and they hate these women. Can you blame them? But women can accept his promiscuous nature if the man is discrete and stays loyal to them and even can have otherwise good marriages. But few women can bare the shame when it becomes public. It shows exceptional courage and loyalty that Hillary put her families interest above her own and did not seek revenge on her husband like so many others do. This is a woman of character in my book.

There is loyalty, & then there is criminal behavior.
If Hillary knew of the assaults, & took steps to help him evade prosecution,
& to continue his predation, then I say this is highly unethical, & significant
in weighing her candidacy against her opponents'.

I'm sure priests who helped shield child molesters in their midst evade
prosecution thought they were being loyal to the church & their fellows.
But the result was criminal complicity in abusing children IMO.

Btw, you seem to ask if my views are typical of Americastan.
Ask around....you'll find that few Americastanians would say that I'm typical.
(Most wish I'd just leave. Maybe I should move to Europe, eh?)

 

[Cassandra]

We do the same.
...
here is loyalty, & then there is criminal behavior. If Hillary knew of the assaults, & took steps to help him evade prosecution, & to continue his predation, then I say this is highly unethical, & significant in weighing her candidacy against her opponents'.

IF.
First: I have no respect for people that use allegations as if they where proven facts. I consider that gossip or slander. And even if they were proven later such people would remain gossipers and slanderers for me, because the did not have such proof when they made the allegations.

Second: A woman can not be made to testify against her own husband in a court of law and for good reason. Because it is totally inhumane an unethical to even suggest people should testify against and thus harm their own loved ones. These are the kind of things the Nazi's and Communist made children do and demanded from people.

Whether it is cultural background or not our values seem to differ fundamentally.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, I have no respect for people that use allegations as if it where proven accusations. I consider that gossip or slander.

Some thoughts......
- I don't seek out respect by conforming to expectations of others.
I have the opinions & values I have.
Other people will approve or disapprove.
Meh....
- Slander is spoken. You mean "libel", which is written communication.
- Adjudicated claims certainly carry more weight.
But I say it would be to abdicate one's responsibilities to ignore all claims which haven't been tried in court.
- I shamelessly love gossip.
Nothing beats the drama of the human condition.
So sue me!

Tell me....do you find the allegations against Trump equally invalid (because there's no conviction)?

A women can not be made to testify against her husband in a court of law. There is good reason for that, because it is totally inhumane an unethical to even suggest people should testify against and thus harm their own loved ones. These are the kind of things the Nazi's and Communist made children do. They brainwashed them to betray their own parents.

I'm not suggesting that Hillary should've testified against Bill.
But I nonetheless judge her by her actions, & their consequences.

Whether it is cultural background or not our ethics seem to differ fundamentally.

On this we agree.

 

[Cassandra]

- Adjudicated claims certainly carry more weight.
But I say it would be to abdicate one's responsibilities to ignore all claims which haven't been tried in court.
...
I shamelessly love gossip.
Nothing beats the drama of the human condition.
So sue me!

Tell me....do you find the allegations against Trump equally invalid (because there's no conviction)?On this we agree.

Whether the allegations are valid is to be proved in a court of law. An ethical person will refrain from using them to slander people. As much as to protect other people as to protect himself.

However, If you like to throw around gossip and slander, it is no longer befitting to cry out scandal! when people do the same to you. "What goes around, comes around". Be a big boy, and eat the dinner you serve.

Take Trump, he connected Ted Cruz father with the assassination of Kennedy without giving any proof. He also deeply insulted his wife. Trump is throwing mud around, even in his own party. And then expects these people to support him? And they do! How little self-respect these people have that they do.

Would an ethical person want to protect such a person being unjustly accused?

If he is made to choose, yes, but he will rather stay away from the whole turmoil. Why? Because a decent person will refrain from unproven accusations, but he will see justification in that people throwing mud also becoming muddy themselves. That he will see as "a higher justice".

In fact it is rather unethical to want to protect the good name of people of low ethics. Ted Cruz of course also showed what kind of a man he is by his remarks of Trumps hands. So no reason to feel sorry for either one of them. Snakes live in the snake pool and are bitten by the other snakes. But decent people should not step into the snake pool to save one from the other.

Why should I sue you? The same goes for everyone. What goes around comes around. There are those that know that, and those that think they are smarter. They believe that all the way to the bottom. I guess that is why they want to be "saved" all the time. Save me Lord, I am a sinner. Hell is misunderstood as a punishment, but it really is the natural environment of lowlifes. It is where they belong. It is the harsh unloving environment they create themselves for others. "Higher justice" is when people finally get what they deserve.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whether the allegations are valid is to be proved in a court of law. An ethical person will refrain from using them to slander people. As much as to protect other people as to protect themselves.

However, If you like to throw around gossip and slander, it is no longer befitting to cry out scandal! when people do the same to you. "What goes around, comes around". Be a big boy, and eat the dinner you served.

Take Trump, he connected Ted Cruz father with the assassination of Kennedy without giving any proof. He also deeply insulted his wife. Trump is throwing mud around, even in his own party. And then expects these people to support him? And they do! How little self-respect these people have that they do.

Would an ethical person want to protect such a person being unjustly accused?

If he is made to choose, yes, but he will rather stay away from the whole turmoil. Why? Because a decent person will refrain from unproven accusations, but he will see justification in that people throwing mud also becoming muddy themselves. That he will see as "a higher justice".

In fact it is rather unethical to want to protect the good name of people of low ethics. Ted Cruz of course also showed what kind of a man he is by his remarks of Trumps hands. So no reason to feel sorry for either one of them. Snakes live in the snake pool and are bitten by the other snakes. But decent people should not step into the snake pool to save one from they other.

Why should I sue you? The same goes for everyone. What goes around comes around. There are those that know that, and those that think they are smarter. They believe that all the way to the bottom. I guess that is why they want to be "saved" all the time. Save me Lord, I am a sinner. Hell is misunderstood as a punishment, but it really is the natural environment of lowlifes. It is where they belong. It is the harsh unloving environment they create themselves for others. "Higher justice" is when people finally get what they deserve.

One might ask why in a thread about Trump's sexual assault,
you do not defend him, but instead defend Bill & Hillary?
Are all untried allegations against both candidates irrelevant?

 

[Cassandra]

One might ask why in a thread about Trump's sexual assault,
you do not defend him, but instead defend Bill & Hillary?
Are all untried allegations against both candidates irrelevant?

Personally I do not take these allegations as true, unless they are found proven in a court of law (not the convictions in the press). Until then they are irrelevant.

If we take mere allegations as relevant, we invite and reward slander, we do not want to do that

If Hillary would call Trump a rapist on the basis of mere accusations I would strongly condemn that. I hope she never falls that deep. It is Trump who has become the champion in using allegations to slander adversaries in his campaign. Many of his followers do not seem to find this an objection, but rather join in.

I have not seen anyone here use these allegations to slander Trump. Nor did I see people suggest here that Trumps wife has been asisting Trump in getting away with raping women.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally I do not take these allegations as true, unless they are found proven in a court of law (not the convictions in the press). Until then they are irrelevant.
If we take mere allegations as relevant, we invite and reward slander, we do not want to do that
If Hillary would call Trump a rapist on the basis of mere accusations I would strongly condemn that. I hope she never falls that deep. It is Trump who has become the champion in using allegations to slander adversaries in his campaign. Many of his followers do not seem to find this an objection, but rather join in.
I have not seen anyone here use these allegations to slander Trump.

Slander, or more correctly "libel" gives your claim a couple possible inferences.....
1) A poster may criticize Trump for it, & claim it's true, making it not libel.
2) You might not have seen posters making a big deal of claims that Trump is a rapist.

Nor did I see people suggest here that Trumps wife has been asisting Trump in getting away with raping women.

This isn't about Trump's wife.
It's about Trump & Hillary.
But Hillary's spouse is part of this picture because of her enabling his sexual predation.
You don't believe his many accusers.
But I strongly suspect where there is that much smoke, there is fire.
Moreover, when the Clintons are involved the fact that some misdeed didn't result in a
trial is a big part of their problem, ie, their corruption insulates them from prosecution.

I suppose one could invoke the "vast right win conspiracy" against them.
But that fails to meet your standard of needing a conviction in court.

 

[fantome profane]

One might ask why in a thread about Trump's sexual assault,
you do not defend him, but instead defend Bill & Hillary?
Are all untried allegations against both candidates irrelevant?

You seem to forget that this is 2016. And in this year Donald is running for president. Bill is not. It only makes sense for us to be looking more closely at Donald at this time.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to forget that this is 2016.

No, I'm acutely aware of that.
I write the year down quite often in various documents & other communications.
I have to be careful in early January though, lest I date checks incorrectly.
But by February, I have the year down pat.

And in this year Donald is running for president.

I'm acutely aware of that too.
Isn't everyone?

Bill is not.

I've not disputed this at all.

It only makes sense for us to be looking more closely at Donald at this time.

It only makes sense to look at both candidates, & their records, their proffered agendas, & their likely effect in office.
Democrats & sympathizers would like us to look only at Trump's negatives,
while sweeping Hillary's under the rug. That just will not do.
As I read some arguments, Hillary's enabling Bill's sexual predation is not an
issue because, it was only Bill (her spouse) doing the physical deed. Her
actions are therefore irrelevant. I strongly disagree. To enable assaults is
also very very wrong.

 

[fantome profane]

As I read some arguments, Hillary's enabling Bill's sexual predation is not an
issue because, it was only Bill (her spouse) doing the physical deed. Her
actions are therefore irrelevant. I strongly disagree. To enable assaults is
also very very wrong.

Yet if I understood a previous post of yours, you acknowledge that this enabling that Hillary is accused of is not a crime on par with the raping that Donald is accused of.

The case against Donald and in the case against Hillary both involve assumptions. But the case against Hillary involves much more in the way of assumptions.

For Hillary to be guilty of the accusation against her you need first to assume that Bill was guilty, then assume that Hillary knew of it, then assume that Hillary is guilty of doing something that would enable Bill, and then assume Bill committed further crimes due to Hillary's actions. That is four assumptions.

For Donald to be guilty you only need one assumption, that the accusations are true.

Again admitted both are based on assumptions, but that is four assumptions to one. And still you end up with Hillary being guilty of a lesser crime. Don't tell me the two cases are equivalent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet if I understood a previous post of yours, you acknowledge that this enabling that Hillary is accused of is not a crime on par with the raping that Donald is accused of.

I say only that the offenses differ.
Which is worse?
That's a tough one to analyze.
Which accusers are more credible.
Which assaults are worse?
How many were there?
I sense a refusal by many of Hillary's supporters to acknowledge what she did, or is at least accused of doing.
To make it about who is worse is legitimate concern, but doesn't defeat the problems of either.

The case against Donald and in the case against Hillary both involve assumptions. But the case against Hillary involves much more in the way of assumptions.

I disagree.
Assumptions of both are based upon the word of the accusers.

For Hillary to be guilty of the accusation against her you need first to assume that Bill was guilty, then assume that Hillary knew of it, then assume that Hillary is guilty of doing something that would enable Bill, and then assume Bill committed further crimes due to Hillary's actions. That is four assumptions.

With the victims being the accusers of both Bill's & Hillary's actions, this doesn't introduce additional doubt.

For Donald to be guilty you only need one assumption, that the accusations are true.

You quantify (dubiously) the assumptions, but not the number of accusers.

Again admitted both are based on assumptions, but that is four assumptions to one. And still you end up with Hillary being guilty of a lesser crime. Don't tell me the two cases are equivalent.

This is a very strained attempt to quantify things in Hillary's favor.
I just don't buy it because your assumptions are flawed & don't address the many claims against Bill.
It isn't so black & white as Trump is guilty & Hillary is innocent.

 

[Cassandra]

No I was speaking in general, Trump is obviously a fascist and his supporters are supporting fascism.

I am not so sure about the first thing. He is obviously a corporatist and fascism has historical connections with corporatism. But Fascism is also an ideology and you can hardly accuse Trump of being ideologically driven.

I rather expect Trump will build the multi-billion Trump-wall as a monument to himself and make a fortune in the process. It will be build by Trump industries by raising the state debt and it will be guarded by Trump Security at a cost of tens of millions a day at the tax payers expense. In the same way that the prison industry is now collecting 500$ a day for every trespasser that is confined and locked up.

Of course the Mexicans will find ways to enter the country. Like drugs, if you raise the stakes, everybody makes more money and the supply only grows. It is only the taxpayer that will be losing. The simplest and cheapest way to stop Mexicans from migrating is to raise living standards in Mexico as people do not voluntarily leave their land and family but by necessity. But the rich want cheap labor. The wall can be an obstacle to trade and a help to keep the Mexicans poor.

I think it is wrong to think that people like Trump want to create a Nazi state. Why would they when they are doing so well? A corrupt democracy serves the rich much better then some dangerous megalomaniac. That is also why Republicans distrusted Donald Trump at first, he is not one of them. But Trump already reassured them. He going to raise defense spending, root out IS (read endless interventions) and lower taxes further for the cooperations. So continued fat contracts at the cost of government debt. Chinese are not worried either, this man is easily bribed, as he changes his direction quicker then the wind.

As much as we hate Mussolini and Hitler, these people were ideologically motivated. Hitler for instance made the rich pay 95% income tax. That is how he revived the economy in record time after the depression. He gave people things like child care, good health insurance among other things. He forced the rich to invest money in his state infrastructure programs that created jobs. That is why the Germans fought to the brink for Hitler. Sure big corporations earned a lot of money from the war as they always do, but they only supported Hitler because they feared Communism more, not because they favored fascism over corrupt party democracy. For them Hitler was just a corporal from Bohemen.

Calling Trump a fascist is not wise as it creates more attraction than fear with disappointed people who secretly hope he will be the extreme Nationalist leader who will do exactly what Hitler did. Get rid of immigrants anyway possible and create a military nationalistic Christian state. Tell them he is a second Hitler and they flock to him. People in need or fear seek these strong leaders. They hope they will magically solve their problems for them.

But that is not something any of the billionaires want. They just want low taxes and profit from government spending at the cost of tax payers, not some social reform program. No just continue the policy that has been so beneficial for them. Only if a real social reform threatens they may support a strong nationalist movement, but it would be fairly dangerous to them too.

 

[Acim]

For Hillary to be guilty of the accusation against her you need first to assume that Bill was guilty, then assume that Hillary knew of it, then assume that Hillary is guilty of doing something that would enable Bill, and then assume Bill committed further crimes due to Hillary's actions. That is four assumptions.

Assumption: Bill Clinton did have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Assumption: Hillary knew of it
Assumption: Hillary, after knowing it, sought to disparage Monica, blame the matter on 'vast right wing conspiracy' so Bill Clinton could be seen as innocent of the allegations

Which leaves the last assumption, and thus makes the claims on Trump vs. claims on Hillary where it is one on one assumption.

But let's just add this National Review article to the mix for some context.
And for sarcasm sake, let's just assume that the Lewinsky scandal is the only time Bill went astray, and that Hillary knew about it, and is only time she said anything about these women and their allegations.

 

[fantome profane]

Assumption: Bill Clinton did have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Assumption: Hillary knew of it
Assumption: Hillary, after knowing it, sought to disparage Monica, blame the matter on 'vast right wing conspiracy' so Bill Clinton could be seen as innocent of the allegations

Don't compare a consensual relationship between two adults to accusations of rape.

 

[fantome profane]

I say only that the offenses differ.
Which is worse?
That's a tough one to analyze.

I'm sorry rev, but if you can't see that one is clearly worse than the other I don't know what to say to you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't compare a consensual relationship between two adults to accusations of rape.

His linked article deals with Bill Clinton's alleged rapes.
There's just so much to cover, I can see why his post addressed just Monicagate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry rev, but if you can't see that one is clearly worse than the other I don't know what to say to you.

I think what you see is not what I'm saying,
ie, it's an erroneous inference problem.

 

[Acim]

Don't compare a consensual relationship between two adults to accusations of rape.

Why not, considering the type of "consensual" relationship? Many of politicians and others have been kicked out of their position for having such a relationship. Plus, in this thread, it is about enabling Bill's sexual predator status, which is intertwined a tad bit with his political power and a whole lot with her's.

And I do still think there is a case to be made that enabling it it is worse than, or as bad as, the predator behavior. The latter we all assume to be wrong, the former we assume wash our hands of any responsibility especially if it is one we like / love engaging in the latter. With the latter, it's really challenging to make a case for "rape culture" and see support for that. With the former (enabling), I would say it is precisely why the term rape culture exists. Hillary has, I'd say rather undeniably, contributed to that culture. Hate/disparage the victims (women), maintain loyalty/support to the perpetrator (Bill). Above all else, maintain the status quo.