There is a lot of really evil stuff going on and they still want to talk about Bill and Monica.

The last 48 hours has seen the most radical shift in US international relations since WWI, and they have people talking about the sexual picadillis of a POTUS a quarter century ago.

helped football coach Art Briles cover for numerous rapists while being President and Chancellor of Baylor University.

And he gets a pass on it in interviews, despite the huge hypocrisy.

His tenure at Baylor was a disaster, and his inaction put its students at risk.

for the GOP mid terms by Comcast Media.

or prevented- by the POTUS.

She did not have to do anything she did.

they should see that he had far more power than she had. He was the most powerful and supposedly wisest person in the room who then watched as she was brutally victimized in an investigation, while loyalists cheered the standard rapist defense tactics that were carried on on his behalf.

He didn't use his power to try to get anything.

one believes "boys will be boys" and that the POTUS lost all agency in her presence. He was the leader of the Free world, and a much older adult man in the West wing and out of it. But poor pitiful Clinton was at the mercy of a 22 yr. old intern according to him and people who will continue to embrace a system that coddles men who exploite their power for their own sexual gratification.

For what he did and he was wrong in many ways with biggest being he was married. So, no. There is no boys will be boys defense for him.

But not for victimizing her since it was consensual.

or is it only okay is Democrats and Clinton loyalists do it?

Your implication that he did is disgusting. It was consensual and there's no indication it was anything less.

Discredit using past history, then demonize and blame the woman on behalf of the man who exploited her. If he really lucky he will have people who are ready to destroy he in the interest of protecting him. It's the system me too is tryiing to disrupt. There are men who get it and are proving to be allies or willing to admit their wrongdoing. Some still want protection.

married older man, she was a trophy wife wannabe, not some innocent girl who had no clue what she was doing. Women like her aren't exactly an endangered species, as many wives of successful men know all too well.

This is a systemic problem and people who pretend to care about women's rights and equality are happy participants in treating a woman the way the most vile defense attorneys treat victims under some conditions.

But believing in gender equality requires one to treat both equally.
they both could have saved this nation a heap of pain by just being responsible instead of acting the way they did. But Ken Starr and the Republican hypocrites deserve the most blame, since they were all doing pretty much the same thing.

Yet

that spectacle, especially since they were all hypocrites of the highest order. We didn't need to know.

I do.
I also prefer the less puritanical views of Europeans, or of America in the 60s.
And freedom.
Not busybodies who think they have a right to dig into other people’s sex lives.

Demonized women, point to puritanism, it's a family matter, are all tactics and rhetoric employed by those defenders of a misogynistic system. It's amazing to see how people who are allegedly allies to women are so forgiving when it is Clinton.I had the same conversation with a Cosby defender recently.

Maybe they should just raise the age of consent to 25 for women? Or require a father’s blessing?



F*** people who want to cage everyone into little cages. Relationships (consensual) are like bright red roses pushing up through broken sidewalks.

one of them.

for his failures at Baylor U.

[link:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/kenneth-starr-and-the-bay_b_10262894.html|]

The dude covered up rape! F' that guy.

I think they'd say they couldn't ask him about covering rape accusations because there was no has-been who covered up rape on the liberal side. So, since they couldn't be "fair and balanced" they just left that out.

And, on top of that, if they did ignore the first reason, they would have to lose the "both sides" narrative.

Lazy journalism.