I'm reading, in the NYT, "Hillary Clinton’s Master Class in Distraction/Democrats need to be focused on the midterms." by Michelle Cottle. The headline makes no secret of the staunchly partisan reason for pushing back Hillary after giving her a pass all these years.
President Trump being a pig and an alleged sexual predator in no way excuses Bill Clinton from being a pig and an alleged sexual predator. In fact, by declining to re-examine her own husband’s acts, Mrs. Clinton only makes it easier for Mr. Trump’s defenders to ignore the current president’s. (Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation that she was raped by Mr. Clinton in 1978 can be revisited in a recent episode of the Slate podcast “Slow Burn.”)...You're referred over to Slate for the damning details, and it's significant that Slate is doing this now. But on a fundamental level, nothing new is happening. The top priority is Democratic Party power, and the sexual subordination of women matters when it serves that interest and gets brushed aside when it doesn't.
[I]t is no secret that Mr. Clinton’s response to sexual scandal was to try to trash the reputations of the women involved. And while the degree to which Mrs. Clinton joined in such efforts may remain in dispute — in the CBS interview, she denies having played any role — her fundamental complicity is beyond reasonable doubt.
But why does Democratic Party power matter? The argument I've been hearing is that it matters because of the interests of women! Does that make sense? The interests of women are highlighted or hidden depending on whether it helps the Democratic Party amass power, and we're supposed to care about that party's power because it's for the good of women. It's laughable.
One way to attempt to make sense of it is that there are 2 different big women's issues at play. There are other issues that can be framed as woman-oriented, and just about anything can be reprocessed as gender politics. But there are 2 main issues: sexual subordination (rape, sexual harassment, etc.) and abortion. For as long as I can remember — at least 40 years — the Democratic Party has starkly distinguished itself from the Republican Party by supporting abortion, and — because no party is for rape and sexual harassment — the Democratic Party has given priority to abortion.
That priority was shown most memorably in the ludicrous, horrible case of Nina Burleigh:
In a 1998 essay for Mirabella, Burleigh described an occasion aboard Air Force One when she noticed President Bill Clinton apparently looking at her legs.... Approached by a Washington Post media reporter to discuss the Mirabella article, Burleigh stated, “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”I distanced myself from the Democratic Party during the Clinton impeachment, because I saw that the sexual harassment issues that had been so important in the Clarence Thomas hearings were turned into nothing when the party's own man was threatened. It's not a serious issue if it's only used selectively. It would be better to do nothing with it at all than to wheel it out when it works for your side and stow it away again when it doesn't. But if abortion is important enough to you, you might, like Burleigh, think it's worth it to turn sexual harassment and rape into nothing when it works to maintain access to abortion.
But what a kick in the head when it doesn't even work to keep your access to abortion! What if the Democratic Party is losing the midterms because the embodiment of its selective concern about rape and sexual harassment decides to go swanning about on the public stage 3 weeks before Election Day? Time for the liberal media to finally take her to task.
AND: 3 afterthoughts:
1. Male privilege can explain the priority of abortion over sexual harassment and rape. We see these as women's issues, and we might imagine that freedom from sexual harassment and rape is the stronger interest, because many women oppose abortion and only a minority want abortion completely legal. But men have an interest in abortion. Many men urge women to have abortions and pay for women's abortions. The availability of abortion is part of the agenda of sexual freedom. Hugh Hefner was a big supporter of the abortion rights movement. And the expanding definition of rape and increasing vigilance about sexual harassment in the workplace threaten the sexual freedom of men. Ask Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer. Gender politics-propaganda is designed to get women to vote for the party, so it's going to obscure the interests of men. But those interests are there, and they have their effect even — and especially — when they are not talked about.
2. Blowjobs deserve better than Nina Burleigh's famous quote. Her unstated proposition is that blowjobs are indeed jobs — work that you do for some sort of pay or because you owe a debt. It's not a pleasure for you, but a sacrifice. Worse than that, she's expressing the idea that women want something other than sex and they give sex to get those extraneous things. She's saying: Sex is not intrinsically valuable for a woman — it's a form of currency. We can buy what we want with it. In that construct, what's the sense of "buying" abortion rights? If you don't think sex is good in itself, don't have sex, and you won't ever need an abortion... unless you are raped. Which brings us back to the question which is the more important interest: access to abortion or freedom from rape and sexual harassment?
3. When I say that now is the time for liberal media to take Hillary Clinton to task over rape and sexual harassment, you might hear resonance with #TimesUp. I didn't intend that, and I want to stress how wrong it would be to make that connection. "Time's Up" means that in the past it was possible for men to get away with rape and sexual harassment. It was done in private spaces, hidden away, lied about. Women who objected were ignored, paid off, suppressed. But that's all in the past. We don't do that anymore. That's what "Time's up" means. It's an idealistic assertion that embodies optimism. But when I say, now is the time for liberal media to take rape and sexual harassment seriously, I'm being sarcastic and cynical. I'm not saying the obscuring of the problem is a thing of the past and the future looks bright. I'm talking about party politics in the present, and I think the issue is forefronted in the run-up to the elections now because it seems useful. That's a transient and political motivation. Time isn't up. There's plenty of time in the future to do whatever people think works. I'm not a complete cynic: I'm saying these things harshly and openly because I think it can save people from getting taken in by political propaganda.
पोस्ट्स
२६३ टिप्पण्या:
263 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The 'Why?' is easy.
The Democrats are fighting to position themselves for the 2020 nomination.
These are warning shots, meant to convince Hillary not to run again.
You're rich, powerful and soft, Althouse.
When are you going to stop this awful, horseshit lying about the sexual subordination of women?
Get off the idiot Marxist crusade and be a mensch. Stop fostering hatred between men and women.
You're laughable when you bullshit like this.
This is a detestable, vicious part of your game.
Before any comments were posted, I was going to say, "Wow, Althouse, that was stark!"
Then I saw ST's comment when I clicked on Post a Comment.
Two quite different views.
It will be very interesting to see how things change after the election: Will the Clintons still get negative press then?
There seems to be a pause in the decades long conspiracy of silence.
"You don't know what I think of Bill Clinton." - Inga
With all the rapey bastards in the Democrat Party, they have to have abortion.
"why does Democratic Party power matter? The argument I've been hearing is that it matters because of the interests of women! Does that make sense?"
I assume the Democrats will argue that all their other positions are Good For Women, while the Republicans positions are of course Bad For Women.
"Wow, Althouse, that was stark!"
Why? As far as I can tell this has been her position for as long as I have been reading her.
Situational ethics are always suspect. That's why I have principles I live by and respect. Then the ethical thing is always the "right" thing. To put it in Biblical terms, the Golden Rule hasn't lost any luster after 2000 years, and virtually always works.
Hillary is 1/1024 honest.
It's important to address Bill now. Otherwise, we may have to address Keith Ellison's abuse of women before the election.
clint is correct. Hill gettin the band back together for another tour. She’s still got that crazy wall with the organization chart for when she wins. Gotta be a player today or risk ending up lost in the crowd. The serious grappling began a few months ago.
So, Althouse claims not to be a Marxist feminist.
Remember the "Denounce Your Husband" bit?
That's the classic Marxist interrogator's demand, right? The demands of the party override even the most personal and intimate relationships... even marriage (and whether or not you approve of the Clinton's marriage is immaterial).
You know why Althouse doesn't know she's a Marxist? Because her faculty lounge was full of Marxists of one sort or another. It was considered impolite to mention the obvious and it sure wouldn't help your career. And compared to the other extreme Marxists, she's sort of a lukewarm Marxist.
But, she's still a Marxist feminist and loyalty to the party is her first priority.
The liberal media, which is almost all of them, is just printing what the Democrat party operatives tell them to print. And, denying anyone access to abortion is not the objective of the Republican party, or at least the majority of Republicans I know. The objective is putting some type of bounds on abortion as does the rest of the world, save Canada and North Korea. Most of my European friends were astonished when I told them in the US abortion was legal right up to the moment of birth, as opposed to the first or second trimester as is the case in the civilized world, and they were repulsed when I described partial birth abortion to them. They had never heard of such a thing and didn't believe me until I showed them the procedure in print. The feminist movement in the US is not about the right to choose. It's about ensuring that no unborn child ever has a right to anything. US feminists are animals.
Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation that she was raped by Mr. Clinton...
Why phrase it in terms of her accusation rather than just stating the fact that he raped her? It's almost as if believe all women is situational...
Sexual harassment is a women's fantasy problem. Actual crimes are the crimes, the other stuff isn't.
Nevertheless a fantasy problem works as well on women as a real one, and hence the rhetoric.
It's first of all a MSM business model thing, and only secondarily a political free-riding event. Soap opera rules.
For anyone paying attention, Hillary's efforts to destroy the credibility of accusers of her husband is part of the Democrat playbook. Nothing matters, but winning. If your preferred candidate is an immoral reprobate, destroy the detractors, and push for them to win. If that reprobate is becoming a burden, destroy them, if it's necessary for winning.
Hillary isn't useful any longer, and becoming a problem. They'll crucify her in public, if necessary. It's how they work, and serves Hillary right. She is a reprobate, and deserves anything that happens.
Whether a man is a pig or not depends on how horny he is at the moment.
Whatever dude. Get a life.
"[I]t is no secret that Mr. Clinton’s response to sexual scandal was to try to trash the reputations of the women involved."
Not necessarily. During the 2016 election cycle our youngest's set of friends largely included kids in college and recent graduates.
The women were entirely "With Her". In large part because college youth = liberal, but specifically because of the notion that Trump was degrading to women.
I asked our son about Bill's checkered past and Hillary's bimbo eruption actions.
He responded they didn't know about anyone but Monica and considered that consensual. When I asked about all the other accusations he said, they didn't know of them, denied them and refused to even do an internet search about them.
"Hillary's efforts to destroy the credibility of accusers of her husband is part of the Democrat playbook."
yep, it's not just Hillary. It was made very obvious with the Kavanaugh hearings because of the media coverage. The truth doesn't matter to them - you can see that in virtually every issue: education, climate change, race relations, the economy.
Think of rape as assault and it clears the mind as to what's a crime and what isn't. Take the sex out of it.
"looking at her legs"
It's her legs that are sending out photons, not his eyes. The light goes from her to him. No eye rays.
Women don't know physics, is the problem.
Whether a man is a pig or not depends on how horny he is at the moment.
And whether the current object of his horniness finds him attractive.
A day or so after the November 2016 election, I posted (on FB and Twitter) something to this effect: "Who is now the leader of the Democratic Party: the Clintons or the Obamas? Let the game of thrones begin."
I'm a bit surprised that two years later, it still hasn't been resolved. Amused, but startled.
rhhardin said...
Whether a man is a pig or not depends on how horny he is at the moment.
Whether a man act like a pig or not depends on how horny he is at the moment.
Whether he is classified as a pig or not depends on how horny the woman is at the moment ( which, oddly enough, depends a lot on the man's wealth and status. )
"[I]t is no secret that Mr. Clinton’s response to sexual scandal was to try to trash the reputations of the women involved."
Part 2.
Recall that Graham was lambasted for saying, "If you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park..."? Anyone that was familiar AT ALL with Hillary's efforts to demean women knew that was a Carville quote. Yet LG caught heat on it. Pretty clear many were not in on the "no secret".
You are, of course, right when you say abortion is paramount. The legal right of women to kill their children in the first 9 months of the child's life is probably the single highest priority of the Democratic Party behind winning. (Everything, absolutely everything, takes a back seat to winning.) But everything else is as nothing compared to abortion.
Shew won't go away because she feels entitled to power.
Plus, all this butt-hurt party on her behalf feeds that fire.
I think it was just seeing it encapsulated in this post, too much cofveve this morning, and even some of the MSM agreeing. My eyes widened.
Dear Feminists, Why does Hillary get a pass?
This does not bode well for the effort to promote Chelsea as a viable political scion. That might make Hillary back off when she sees the backlash. Or rather when Bill sees it, Hillary being legally/politically blind.
Sure, she's a lightweight with her mother's political skills, but hope sprang eternal. And, after all, what other options are there for the dynasty.
[Gotta be a "Hillary Puts the Nasty in Dynasty pun in there somewhere.]
The priority of abortion is the priority of abortion with women, meaning mostly young women. On the other hand there are annoying men trying to date them too, so sexual harassment is a big issue. The division is between men they like and men they don't like.
In Games We Play, the game of Rapo - Come hither, get away from me you brute.
The split is in women's minds and they're not deep structural thinkers.
"But, she's still a Marxist feminist and loyalty to the party is her first priority."
Pfffft. She can't help where she's been all her life. She's more interesting for that. I certainly wouldn't come here first thing every morning just for some reliably right-wing Coulter rant.
She is ready for run again, because of her addiction to power and because she still owes all those dirty insider money players.
Podesta group - be reborn!
Women mostly would be okay with Bill hitting on them. So it's not really a problem for them, feelingwise. He's a man you want man.
ot: Twitter is run by a leftist twit.
need more proof?
I certainly wouldn't come here first thing every morning just for some reliably right-wing Coulter rant.
Coulter never seems to say anything unexpected. Rush's genius was that while he said a lot of things everybody was thinking, he added unexpected insights into the mix.
Remember how locally women think. Everything is of the instant. That's why feelings work on them as political rhetoric.
Guys think what the fuck, the country would fall apart if you did that, and are less vulnerable. But women are the Dem target and the MSM target. Screw the men.
Coulter has a very annoying fake laugh and has no sense of humor about herself. "I am, as you see, amusing you with my wit, but I am not myself in any way ridiculous."
Walburton said the elephant was the only animal having no ridiculous aspect.
Crooked Hillary Clinton received 65,844,954 votes in the last Presidential election. I have to surmise that the people who voted for her could care less about what role she played in the trashing of women that BJ screwed/harassed. She's running again, so, get used to it.
In Games We Play, the game of Rapo - Come hither, get away from me you brute.
Take your hand off my knee! Not you, you.
Leave Ann Coulter alone, Spectrum Boy.
Games People Play
My respect for women has greatly dropped, I admit, due to this kind of obvious "rational" buffoonery. The question, I guess, that remains, is are women really incapable of understanding the consequences of the things they "think"? Or is it really the low opinion of women's reasoning abilities by Democrat political operatives and their MSM arm that is making women look stupid as a group?
Both of the Clintons are criminals.
Why won’t the Dems just say that and rid themselves of them?
Hillary is being sexually subordinated, by Althouse and by the NYT and Slate. And what did Hillary do? She called out Juanita for having sex with her husband. Juanita didn’t tell Hillary she was raped, so Hillary is supposed to be complicit. And how terribly anti-feminist of her to point out Monica’s agency.
It's interesting that Hillary and Warren are both intruding on the message the Democrats are trying to send.
Since the message seems to be insanity, it doesn't matter.
Speaking of insanity, my local paper is endorsing Sinema because she is such a moderate.
This is what you get in college towns.
"Why won’t the Dems just say that and rid themselves of them?"
Because they have been riding on their coattails for so long, doing that would be admitting complicity.
Blogger David Begley said...
Both of the Clintons are criminals.
Why won’t the Dems just say that and rid themselves of them?
For the same reason they keep crazy Pelosi around.
Keys to the money chest.
But why does Democratic Party power matter?
This one is easy to answer. The Democrat Party is perhaps the world's largest organized crime ring. Politics is their means to an end. Look at the places where Democrats have ruled for a long time. You'll see widespread, institutional corruption. This isn't a coincidence.
I don't feel good about this at all but I will say it - I'm feeling sick and tired of hearing about 'woman's issues'.
If the only point of this exorcism of the Democratic party is to strengthen their Left Flank so they can line up more allegedly Lying Feminist Accusers who wipe their social media accounts to throw around evidence free accusations, color me unimpressed at their antics.
The division is between men they like and men they don't like.
In Games We Play, the game of Rapo - Come hither, get away from me you brute.
The split is in women's minds and they're not deep structural thinkers.
The Kavanaugh circus doesn't do anything to make this seem wrong in any way.
Weird, BTW, that Kavanaugh still doesn't spell-check. Almost like somebody in big tech is still mad. I am guessing there is a woman involved in approving new names to the spelling dictionary. It would be a good job for a woman, men tend to be more of the school of "I have little respect for a man who only knows one way to spell a word."
What Warren did to herself on the DNA thing reminds me of how Trump destroyed Marco.
The Democratic Party is either flush with cash--$over 1 Billion--or they're dead broke--less than a $Million.
The Party of honesty, they are.
I don't think Obama wants to be the head of the Democrat party. It's too much work. He just wants to be a celebrity and spend his days on rich people's yachts.
Think about it. He's been engaged in the mid-terms about as much as Taylor Swift.
Juanita didn’t tell Hillary she was raped
Perhaps not then, but there certainly is "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence that she was at this point, and still Hillary calls her a liar.
But props to LBoTC for coming up with a story that exonerates Hillary if you can just keep enough uncomfortable facts out of consideration!
I think of the Democrats as the party of rakes and the sluts that enable them.
Every person who voted for Hillary voted to put rapist Bill back in the white house.
I don't think Obama wants to be the head of the Democrat party. It's too much work. He just wants to be a celebrity and spend his days on rich people's yachts.
You mean sort of like the way he treated the job of president of the Harvard Law Review? Like as Senator when he voted 99% party line? It's easier that way than thinking!
Somehow, a woman is not a human being if the majority of her fellow citizens can say her 'please make up your mind on an abortion in the first 3 months.'
Nope, that kind of boundary suddenly makes her an ugly hat wearing Handmaid and chattel.
So when the IRS demands that a woman post her tax returns on April 15, is that ALSO as enslaving?
Why or why not?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Juanita didn’t tell Hillary she was raped
What do you mean by that statement? Do you mean that Juanita didn't call The Crooked One up on the phone and tell her? Or, Juanita didn't drive over to The Crooked One's house and tell her to her face?
Pretty neat image at the Times link.
Also an interesting phrase:
someone needs to perform an intervention before she further complicates life for her fellow Democrats
This is the language of "mom is crazy."
It is indicative that with Mr. Obama's voluntary vanishing act the last adults in the Democratic Party are the Clintons and the Clintons are horrible adults. All the kids are sending emails and texts and saying, "can we get these two put away? Does someone have power of attorney? They're burning through the inheritance."
"and it's significant that Slate is doing this now"
Not really. Not only are the Ds desperate to get Hillary the Harridan off the stage, but there's nothing lost, from the lefty/D point of view, from exposing all of this stuff. It would have been significant had a lefty magazine widely exposed Bill's behaviors and Hillary's executioner actions in say Springtime of 2016. THAT would have been significant.
Steve Sailor's contribution seems important here.
I suspect, instead, that the most important difference on campus between 2012 and 2013 was that in 2013 the Obama administration no longer had to worry about reelection and thus didn’t have to continue to put up a moderate front. As I had predicted in my 2008 book America’s Half-Blood Prince, in their second term the future was now for the Obamaites, and it was time to get while the getting was good.
Some outbursts of campus activism might be genuinely bottom-up, but the mania we saw during the second Obama administration is more reminiscent of Chairman Mao’s top-down Cultural Revolution.
Haidt and Lukianoff report on one example of how the White House helped unleash the demons lurking within diversity worship:
In 2013, the Departments of Education and Justice issued a sweeping new definition of harassment…. By eliminating the reasonable person standard, harassment was left to be defined by the self-reported subjective experience of every member of the university community. It was, in effect, emotional reasoning turned into federal regulation.
We must believe the woman, even if, in the case of Blasey Ford, those who know her best don’t seem to believe her.
The authors point out that one big difference in the new morality of implicit bias is that sinners don’t even have to want to commit a sin:
Sounds about right to me.
Hillary should have divorced Bill, but that would have meant divorcing his political contacts in the deep state. He planted a lot of them. Where would she bee if people weren't scared of her? And who knows whether their good friend Harvey Weinstein, with his bags of Hollywood money and access to the levers of star power wouldn't take Bill's side in a divorce?
Hillary was born with a scepter in her hand and it's just not right that America denied her! The only throne she will ever sit on is stamped American Standard.
in the case of Blasey Ford, those who know her best don’t seem to believe her.
Actually, her "life long friend" was pressured to add that "I believe her" to the statement. It was not there originally.
Bill's sexual deviancy is mt Everest compared to anything piggish by Trump.
Yeah - Trump might have been unfaithful and he might have walked thru a dressing room, but the rest of it are suspicious accusations from a Blasey-Ford-Swetnick level of smell.
So when the IRS demands that a woman post her tax returns on April 15, is that ALSO as enslaving?
Supposedly, Colorado is amending their constitution to outlaw all forms of slavery. I wonder if this will be interpreted to include imprisonment?
in the NYT, "Hillary Clinton’s Master Class
Minitru publication says that a famous Member of the Inner Party is becoming an unperson. It's so exciting!
Sexual abuse only mattes when the left can weaponize it.
Otherwise, it does not matter. Hitlery is the walking talking living history embodiment of that.
I can't believe that Dickin attempted to change this subject, but that tweet is hysterical when you take into consideration that they banned 1500 accounts for using the NPC avatar as dehumanizing to liberals.
Here's a great example:
Why won’t anyone believe me — when I’ve provided corroboration?
Ann said:
But why does Democratic Party power matter? The argument I've been hearing is that it matters because of the interests of women! Does that make sense? The interests of women are highlighted or hidden depending on whether it helps the Democratic Party amass power, and we're supposed to care about that party's power because it's for the good of women. It's laughable.
Worth a big hearty repeat.
If I understand Althouse on private spaces, #TimesUp would conflict with #GetARoom.
Tim in Vermont - The elite left's complete inability to see their own anti-free speech totalitarianism is laughable.
DickinnBimbos
Nah. I believe Trump grabbed them in the nethers. He's that kind of a-hole. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump and Clinton has a 'history' of this.
BUT...I also believe they let him. Remember, he's been alive a long time and before this latest Puritanical surge by Feminism, women were a lot more...forthright. Legs up for a 'Leg up', as it were. Not all women were academic sexual scolds, particularly in the 80s.
Blogger rhhardin said...”Sexual harassment is a women's fantasy problem. Actual crimes are the crimes, the other stuff isn't.
Nevertheless a fantasy problem works as well on women as a real one, and hence the rhetoric.”.
I think we need a new principle. The sexual harrassment bullshit principle. Rape is a crime, of course, but all claims of sexual harrassment are just bullshit meant to wield power. ALL claims.
2. Blowjobs deserve better than Nina Burleigh's famous quote. Her unstated proposition is that blowjobs are indeed jobs — work that you do for some sort of pay or because you owe a debt. It's not a pleasure for you, but a sacrifice. Worse than that, she's expressing the idea that women want something other than sex and they give sex to get those extraneous things. She's saying: Sex is not intrinsically valuable for a woman — it's a form of currency. We can buy want we want with it.
Yep. Got that too. I was surprised. Women seldom allude to this in real time. To quote Ian Malcolm, "Well...there it is."
Supposedly, Colorado is amending their constitution to outlaw all forms of slavery. I wonder if this will be interpreted to include imprisonment?
Just from the nugget I saw, one of the states (Colorado?) still had a law on the books that enslaving CRMINIALS was still allowed within the penal system.
Very like ChiComm Doctrines.
In a 1998 essay for Mirabella, Burleigh described an occasion aboard Air Force One when she noticed President Bill Clinton apparently looking at her legs.... Approached by a Washington Post media reporter to discuss the Mirabella article, Burleigh stated, “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
The eternal democrat party platform, in a nutshell. It's living history, baby.
Burleigh was willing to give Bill a blow job and dismiss his sexual assaults for the exact same reason you were willing to believe Ford over Kavanagh.
I didn't intend that, and I want to stress how wrong it would be to make that connection. "Time's Up" means that in the past it was possible for men to get away with rape and sexual harassment.
"I think the norms have really changed in terms of what you can do to a woman against her will...." - Bill Clinton
But as Althouse's trenchant analysis shows, either Burleigh can't think systematically, as rhhardin claims, or she has zero regard for other women's ability to think systematically.
Feminists are now attacking Snow White because the Prince kisses her without her consent.
Nice try. Trying to make she-devil Hillary the issue in the midterm erections won't work. This coming erection is to slam Trump and take back the House. Trump and the GOP are real villians. The GOP is the party of liars, thieves, traitors, environmental rapists, murderers, rapists, drug addicts such as @Michael K, and The Deplorables. Let's not forget the monstrous NRA with its cadre of killers. The Republicans are bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Three weeks in front of any election, pregnancy by rape goes up 150% in America.
It drops back to .0000000001 the next day.
"President Trump being a pig and an alleged sexual predator in no way excuses Bill Clinton from being a pig and an alleged sexual predator."
Great.
"In fact, by declining to re-examine her own husband’s acts, Mrs. Clinton only makes it easier for Mr. Trump’s defenders to ignore the current president’s."
She's his wife, Moron.
"[I]t is no secret that Mr. Clinton’s response to sexual scandal was to try to trash the reputations of the women involved."
As almost any wife would.
"And while the degree to which Mrs. Clinton joined in such efforts may remain in dispute — in the CBS interview, she denies having played any role — her fundamental complicity is beyond reasonable doubt."
So what? She swore an oath with the man. She's not breaking it for you. He's a rapist. Go get him and quit harping on her.
Is this you trumpit?
Kind of looks and talks like you.
The will to power (German: der Wille zur Macht) is a prominent concept in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The will to power describes what Nietzsche may have believed to be the main driving force in humans – achievement, ambition, and the striving to reach the highest possible position in life. . - Wikipedia
Machtlust is a kind of greed and it explains most of this.
Strupitfor-brains. Then why is she still inserting herself?
Why is Hillary out stumping for Bob Menendez?
Sleazy Bob Menendez’s Sinking New Jersey Campaign
Hillery- the female Bob Menendez...Two peas in a pod.
“The top priority is Democratic Party power, and the sexual subordination of women matters when it serves that interest and gets brushed aside when it doesn't.”
#MeToo was always going to be a non-starter for the Democrats. They hadn’t made the necessary sacrifices of atonement as they believed the MSM would provide cover for their arrant hypocrisy. For a party that’s always congratulating itself on how hip and tech-savvy they are, they don’t seem to understand the first fucking thing about the Internet.
"on a fundamental level, nothing new is happening. The top priority is Democratic Party power, and the sexual subordination of women matters when it serves that interest and gets brushed aside when it doesn't."
Glad you're on board with the Universal Theory of Progressive Instrumentalism. You, your sensibilities, are a mere tool.
"But why does Democratic Party power matter? The argument I've been hearing is that it matters because of the interests of women! Does that make sense?"
Why wouldn't it make sense? Progs want power. They want to lord it over us. They'll let us know soon enough, but no sooner, how they want to use their power. Gotta pass it to see what's in it.
Divining deep prog purpose is beside the point. The question is why the Althouses of the world let progs get away with their lust for power and the degrading of everything and everyone that stands in their way.
As long as liberal women believe abortion protects women's bodies and Dems care more about sexual harassment, as long as women prefer the morality tale, the earth will continue to be scorched, with only the occasional discordant note, as in Hill's case, when the pursuit of power requires the instrumental disdain for some women.
I read the other day that married or single was the most accurate predictor of attitudes on political issues - far ahead of gender or race. Sorry I can't find the reference. But I often feel that the biggest predictor is: reads MSM or reads blogs. The MSM readers I know are quite predictable because they only know one set of facts which point in one direction. Blogger types are far less predictable - though there are commentators on here who seem to fairly burn with a desire to stereotype everyone in range. They seem, like Laocoon and his sons in the famous sculpture, to to be writhing in agony and pushing away in despair evidences of free thought. Perhaps Democrats are beginning to feel that same agony as they denounce Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh and then whirl to defend Bill Clinton. So far, they hide it well. But maybe.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iVNBKgGfDTA/UOyv3luxcLI/AAAAAAAACwk/QaxeRHPCfys/s1600/laocoon_cast.JPG
As almost any wife would.
We have a classic dual loyalty problem here, her loyalty to her rapist husband outweighs her loyalty to the country as a whole? I would have no problem with her taking her positions if she didn't want to rule us like the Red Queen of Communist Romania. There is no "right to be president" to anybody who hasn't won the Electoral College vote.
”In fact, by declining to re-examine her own husband’s acts, Mrs. Clinton only makes it easier for Mr. Trump’s defenders to ignore the current president’s.".
Actually, I don’t need any help. I ignore all sexual harrassment bullshit.
The Clintons go on tour soon. Get your tickets.
“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
Talk about bowing down to the Patriarchy.
tim in vermont said...
"... are women really incapable of understanding the consequences of the things they "think"? Or is it really the low opinion of women's reasoning abilities by Democrat political operatives and their MSM arm that is making women look stupid as a group?"
The Left Fascists have a very strong interest in keeping women unmarried, because married women see their husband's interests as their own, while unmarried women want the government to rob men on their behalf. The LFs hate the family, because they want to replace it as the fundamental institution of society.
“"[I]t is no secret that Mr. Clinton’s response to sexual scandal was to try to trash the reputations of the women involved."
As almost any wife would.”
Ah, Crack. The problem isn’t that she stood by her man. The problem is that her entire political career (including a couple of stabs at the Presidency) is predicated on being his enabler.
Althouse said...”The top priority is Democratic Party power, and the sexual subordination of women matters when it serves that interest and gets brushed aside when it doesn't.”
IOW, sexual harassment bullshit.
Hillery- the female Bob Menendez...Two peas in a pod
Let's not go overboard. HIllary has never been credibly accused of using under-age trafficked girls for sex.
"... that had been so important in the Clarence Thomas hearings were turned into nothing ... "
Never forget: If Thomas was guilty it was of improper talking. No one accused him of groping let alone penetration.
tim in vermont said...
"We have a classic dual loyalty problem here"
"We"? She don't.
"I would have no problem with her taking her positions if she didn't want to rule us like the Red Queen of Communist Romania."
You play no role in her marriage.
"There is no "right to be president" to anybody who hasn't won the Electoral College vote."
Agreed, which has nothing to do with Bill's rapes.
Althouse said: And the expanding definition of rape and increasing vigilance about sexual harassment in the workplace threaten the sexual freedom of men.
Silly me. And here I thought I was worried about mere accusations being able to destroy men MULITIPLE DECADES after the fact and without evidence, when REALLY what I was concerned about was being stopped from my workplace droit de seigneur to dick new interns.
I'm glad Althouse clarified my concerns for me.
Rape is being weaponized as a political tool. Men are noticing. When a stolen kiss is now a sexual assault, people are going to look askance at your movement...and wonder about your relationships.
Blowjobs deserve better than Nina Burleigh's famous quote. Her unstated proposition is that blowjobs are indeed jobs — work that you do for some sort of pay or because you owe a debt.
Here is a bit of projection. The implication is that it was a GIFT! A 'Thank You' for defending little old Nina, and that if women had any sense of gratitude, they would feel the same way.
But one ladies gift is another ladies labored obligation...and some women are refuse to admit any sense of sexual obligation because...Chattel Slavery, I presume.
Sometimes people just do nice things for each other. What a concept!
Tim in Vermont @ 8:39.
By campaigning for it, she excuses it.
You play no role in her marriage
What if she helped him to bury a murdered body? We are talking abut forcible rape, and she has used the power of government, entrusted to her husband. You are just being obtuse.
- Menendez flew the crony skies on multiple luxury flights to the Caribbean with wealthy donor pal Salomon Melgen on taxpayer dime and time.
- Sleaze-Bob in turn used his Senate influence to push a lucrative port-security deal benefiting Melgen.
- Creepy doctor Melgen was convicted of bilking sick old people on 67 counts of massive Medicare fraud totaling $90 million.
- And in my favorite mendacious Menendez-engineered scheme, which I dubbed the 36DD visa program, Menendez and his staff pressured the State Department to expedite the foreign-tourist and student-visa approval processes for a bevy of buxom foreign beauties. As I previously reported, one of them, Brazilian actress and porn pinup star Juliana Lopes Leite (a.k.a. “Girlfriend 1”), had her F-1 student-visa application moved to the top of the pile in 2008 after Menendez and his staff intervened as a favor to model-lovin’ Melgen. [sweet! Clintonian! Madness!]
- Another 36DD visa beneficiary, Rosiell Polanco-Suera, testified that her rejected visa application (along with her sister’s) received reconsideration and instant approval after Melgen promised to “fix it” by reaching out to Menendez.
Hillary is A-OK with that.
The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...
"The problem isn’t that she stood by her man. The problem is that her entire political career (including a couple of stabs at the Presidency) is predicated on being his enabler."
But that's a "problem" for who? He's a rapist. Bust him for rape and - Viola! - she has no enabler nor a reason to be on the world stage.
Yes, I did take some rudimentary rocket science, as a child - but this ain't it.
I notice that crack is cutting directly through the crap this morning. No pass Go, no $200.
This is when he's at his best, imho. Like he would give a [fill in blank] what I think...
Sorry. I am stuck in the Age of Gentlemanliness. A gentleman has a slight proclivity for heroism and a preference for discretion over honesty in social situations.
Hillary Clinton and Nina Burleigh both present challenges, but the one time I met Hillary socially, I was extremely polite.
Since the Clinton's refuse to get off the stage or face consequences for their criminality... They ARE our business. We should never stop hounding them. Ever.
Her loss was not enough. She needs 10 years in prison for her mis-handling of classified information using a private server while head of the State Dept.
He belongs in prison for his sexual misconduct. 10 years would be fine with me.
“But that's a "problem" for who? He's a rapist. Bust him for rape and - Viola! - she has no enabler nor a reason to be on the world stage.”
Rudimentary for anyone with an ounce of decency. Which rules out the Clintons and their Democrat supporters. Which is the whole point of the conversation.
If someone suborned perjury, intimidated witnesses, paid bribes, and strong armed victims, she is called an ACCESSORY, not a 'wife'.
Being a wife is standing up at a press conference or going on 60 minutes and saying nice things about hubby.
Doing those other things are what we like to call in Whitelandia 'CRIMES'.
So going after him includes very likely going after her.
There's a downside to abortion. Women, minorities, and Down syndrome hardest hit........There are millions of non existent females in China and India. Why is this not a feminist issue that takes precedence over abortion?.......I won't live to see the fullness of time, but I wonder how future generations will look upon abortions done because of Down's syndrome. It might become the standard procedure as in Iceland, or it might be looked at as simply wrong, the way we look upon frontal lobotomies now...........,Technology favors early abortions. There's no way you will ever be able to outlaw abortificient drugs. In like way, technology favors the prohibition of late term abortions. Those sonograms look a lot like babies, and abortion looks a lot like infanticide.......You read it here first. Abortion is a thorny issue.
Long ago, the women's movement wanted a chance for women to succeed. Not in traditional women's work as teachers, nurses or librarians, but as CEOs, engineers and astronauts.
A lofty goal one would say.
It's gone so far now that women are going to be shunted to women's work again. Men want nothing to do with the hysteria of the #metoo movement and are beginning to actively discriminate against women again for fear of their careers and families.
Sad.
Oh wait- the Clintons are white, rich, D and privileged. 145,000,000 Russian rubles for them, pass jail immediately.
tim in vermont said...
"You are just being obtuse."
Am not: she's done exactly what I expect a devoted spouse to do - not testify against their spouse. You expect something unreal - which is why you don't get it.
Bust Bill for rape and leave Hill out of it. She's already disrespected herself while respecting her marriage. If he goes to prison, her career's over, so bust him already.
The Brewers can't hit but Althouse knocks one out of the park.
The accusations of her activities are a bit stronger than not testifying.
Last night there was only one stool at the bar, and on each side of it, crowding it closely, were younger attractive women talking to their dates or whatever they were, I knew I was in trouble, but the game was on, and I wanted to watch it over dinner. I slide in and one of the girls is either joking, or dead serious because I bumped into her purse hanging off the back of her chair. I couldn't tell. I just said "sorry" and didn't talk to her or look at her, but focused on the game completely 'til she left. When she did leave, I think she made a genuine joke about "it was just like me to try to sit in guy's laps" but I wasn't taking the chance so I just ignored her, what might have been an apology. #NotWorthIt
Crack is having trouble thinking systematically. It is turtles all the way down, but you have to be able to see more than one turtle or why play the game?
Last night there was only one stool at the bar, and on each side of it, crowding it closely, were younger attractive women talking to their dates or whatever they were, I knew I was in trouble, but the game was on, and I wanted to watch it over dinner. I slide in and one of the girls is either joking, or dead serious because I bumped into her purse hanging off the back of her chair. I couldn't tell. I just said "sorry" and didn't talk to her or look at her, but focused on the game completely 'til she left. When she did leave, I think she made a genuine joke about "it was just like me to try to sit in guy's laps" but I wasn't taking the chance so I just ignored her, what might have been an apology. #NotWorthIt
I read since I am not a sports guy. It is always awkward when female bartenders send me free drinks. I feel so objectified...but somehow I find a way to live with it.
Bobb at 7:22 wins the Internet for today.
It's a low bar, but I think Trump's sexual morals are superior to those of Clinton. He's never been accused of rape or of sexually exploiting his corporate underlings. I don't think you can credibly accuse him of taking advantage of Stormy Daniels' youth and naïveté as happened with Monica.
But on a fundamental level, nothing new is happening.
Completely true. Their treatment of Bill caused a weapon to be less effective. Attacking Bill and Hillary now is an effort to make the weapon more effective against their current enemies. Netted down Dems have judged this weapon's future value greater than Bill and Hillary's future political contributions.
I don't doubt they are right since Hillary's political contributions are negative.
The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...
"Rudimentary for anyone with an ounce of decency. Which rules out the Clintons and their Democrat supporters. Which is the whole point of the conversation."
I don't expect Democrats to bust those on their side, since that's not their job, but the Republican's.
Same goes for the previous repeated enablers of known sexual predators.
Or spouses for spouses.
None of those scenarios would look promising to anyone using common sense.
This post raises an interesting question, and one I'm hard put to answer: Does the Democratic party have any objective other than to bring down Trump? ("Bring down" encompassing anything from removal from office, eroding his reputation in history, retarding his ability to make policy changes he wants.) And perhaps, Democratic power for its own sake, with the capacity to reward supporters with good paying jobs. Even things that Democrats are sincerely fighting for (open borders, higher taxes on corporations, universal health care) can be seen without much squinting to be simply means to an end of more Democratic power. I realize that there is a bit of "begging the question" in my comment here: Democrats only want power, so anything Democrats do is interpreted as a means of achieving power.
But here's a very tiny example: Washington, DC, does not have Congressional representation. That could be remedied by retrocession of (almost all of) DC to Maryland (as Arlington and Alexandria, VA which were once part of DC were returned to Virginia in 1847). But this remedy is universally rejected by Democrats because it would fail to give two more Democratic Senators.
FIDO said...
"The accusations of her activities are a bit stronger than not testifying."
Yeah, but we know why she did it, and we make a place for that in our society, so - if we "respect marriage" - then do so, and leave her alone.
This post is why I read Althouse first every morning. Fantastic take down. You should make a tag that says Women's rights BS, because most of the pontificating done by politicians and the chattering classes is not sincere.
then do so, and leave her alone.
As soon as she stops preaching #BelieveAllWomen.
Yeah, but we know why she did it, and we make a place for that in our society, so - if we "respect marriage" - then do so, and leave her alone.
Who GIVES a flying fuck what her motives were? If she is intimidating witnesses and paying people off not to testify about CRIMES against them, she is a criminal! If a Crack Dealer is selling drugs to pay for his mom's cancer operation, he is still a drug dealer, and his MOTIVES only matter in the sentencing.
One does not get to ruin other people's lives because you happen to like someone else better. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
You think motives are exonerating. They are not! And her motive isn't 'protect my husband' as much as 'protect my political prospects'. So your assertions and analysis are quite a generous, perhaps disingenuous, stretch.
The GOP put two "confirmed" sex offenders, Clarence "Shouting" Thomas and Brett "Bad Boy" Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court without beating around the Busch. Beer is at it apogee in cultural importance after K's lying testimony before the Senate that he "still likes beer." I know for a fact that he doesn't; he prefers Kool-Aid. It's unbeerable hypocrisy to bring up old rape allegation against Bill Clinton to gain raw political advantage. The GOP never met a rapist that it didn't want to win an erection. Who can forget Alabama's own favorite son, Roy Moore?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations
rhhardin said...
Women mostly would be okay with Bill hitting on them. So it's not really a problem for them, feelingwise. He's a man you want man.
Nope. My wife, for one, would slap Billy Jeff into the next county if he came on to her.
If Bill was taken to the pokey, a la Bill Cosby, Hillary's humiliation would be complete and the world would be, partially, reset to right, but - until then - the Right is (almost) as guilty as the Left when it comes to "playing politics" with this.
The Democrats turning on the Clintons in 2018 has all the moral weight of Khrushchev turning on Stalin 3 years after the latter's death. Or post-war Nazis saying they had to follow orders.
None. The crimes are not as large, but the moral calculus is the same.
What do they take us for, fools? (Rhetorical question, of course they do.)
In short for the hard of thinking.
A wife is not called upon to destroy her family by testifying against a spouse. While not a legal precedent, asking her to rat out her children or parents is also a stretch.
One does NOT allow a wife to commit CRIMES for her family just because they are her family.
tim in vermont said...
then do so, and leave her alone.
As soon as she stops preaching #BelieveAllWomen.
Bust her husband and she will.
The whole issue only arose once Hillary’s usefulness to the Democrats faded. Has she won there would have been no #metoo. Not due to a conspiracy but the culture of the MSM, the social media quasi monopolies, the NPC mob.
Trumpit said...
The GOP put two "confirmed" sex offenders, Clarence "Shouting" Thomas and Brett "Bad Boy" Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court without beating around the Busch.
..."confirmed" sex offenders...
Trumpit is proof that you can still post blog comments in the complete absence of cognitive function.
men have an interest in abortion. Many men urge women to have abortions and pay for women's abortions
Thank you.
President Trump being a pig and an alleged sexual predator in no way excuses Bill Clinton from being a pig and an alleged sexual predator.
Alleged.
Open up the impeachment files! But I’ve been saying that since she ran in 2007.
FIDO said...
"Who GIVES a flying fuck what her motives were?"
This is the same thinking that makes Liberals lose: ignoring reality because it doesn't matter - to them.
"If she is intimidating witnesses and paying people off not to testify about CRIMES against them, she is a criminal!"
Or a devoted spouse, doing what we expect devoted spouses to do when their spouse, or children, are attacked.
"If a Crack Dealer is selling drugs to pay for his mom's cancer operation, he is still a drug dealer, and his MOTIVES only matter in the sentencing."
How did we get from Hillary, reacting to Monica in her marriage, to a crack dealer?
"One does not get to ruin other people's lives because you happen to like someone else better."
Somebody doesn't understand what a marriage is - which is quite revealing.
"Why is this so hard for you to understand?"
I was married.
"You think motives are exonerating."
No - I don't expect spouses to line-up with others - that's why they got married
"They are not!"
You are not!
"And her motive isn't 'protect my husband' as much as 'protect my political prospects'."
Now you know her motives? Funny how that works.
"So your assertions and analysis are quite a generous, perhaps disingenuous, stretch."
You just made an assumption about her motives - as though they were true - which makes you delusional.
I'm sorry to be the one having to expose it. Sincerely.
@Molly, I see on my social media agitation for Statehood for both DC and PR. 4 more Democratic Senators is the only reason I can think of behind that agitation. It's not for the good of the people in those two geographic locations, that's for sure.
Ann, when I saw you had afterthoughts I thought you'd include one which you didn't (I hate to be wrong):
4) Since JFK there has been a media-enabled double standard on sexual behavior where any male Rep who mistreats women will be ostracized by both Dems AND Reps who (genuinely and always) don't like it, but Dems accept Kennedys and other Famous Successful Dem men who lie, cheat, and even drive women to their death (Mary Jo has no comment), without much loss of position, as long as they support abortion. This double standard means Reps, today, are much much cleaner / more respectful to women than Dems have been. (Maybe that's a secret reason RICH men become Dems? So they can play Christian Grey with a 50 Shades girl of the week?)
A lot of what Reps who don't like Trump don't like about him is his prior promiscuity, adultery, and divorces. But many many rich guys are leaving their older wives for a newer / younger "model" (Larry King comes to mind) - the Dem dominated media have normalized this. If Dems keep accepting it, the Reps are accepting that they've lost this part of the culture war. Not like Trump on this doesn't mean they think Hillary & rapist Bill are better. I don't like Trump on this - I think the Clintons are worse, and that HRC continues with the cheating / faux marriage so as to get political power.
HRC allows Bill to get blowjobs, sex, and other diversions - which is fine if the other women are adults and consent; if they allow it.
4b) Trump was bragging about what lovely women allow him to do ... anything ... because he was rich and famous. They allow anything??? ya, kiss them ... grab them by ... anything.
If the issue is consent, allow, it doesn't look like many women involved are not consenting.
Women mostly would be okay with Bill hitting on them. So it's not really a problem for them, feelingwise. He's a man you want man.
I threw up a little on that one.
When he was newly ordained I think no more than a year into his presidency, there was a photo of him in jogging shorts talking to the ladies and they were swooning.
I thought BLECH, who wants that?
But supposedly he’s very or was very charismatic in person.
Trumpit said...
"The GOP put two "confirmed" sex offenders, Clarence "Shouting" Thomas and Brett "Bad Boy" Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court without beating around the Busch."
Not true. (It's amazing people believe this stuff enough they'll say it in public.) There is no - NO - evidence either of these men are anything but accused of crimes under politically suspicious circumstances.
The willingness, to carry that over to guilt, is why liberals are currently unfit for leadership.
And as others have said, I never took Hillary's comment about helping Bill as an acknowledgement of the rape the way others have. She thought she was just another of Bill's good times. But it's become obvious now that is not the case. It's hard to square the party and candidate of Believe all women with Broadrick is a liar. Hypocrites.
Shorter Trumpit:
but but but Roy Moore, and some unfounded and un-corroborated allegations against people the left don't like.
FIDO said...
"A wife is not called upon to destroy her family by testifying against a spouse. While not a legal precedent, asking her to rat out her children or parents is also a stretch."
Every time I hear a liberal screaming "Melania, leave your husband!" I think "Liberalism, die a faster death!"
Martin, 9:15:
"The Democrats turning on the Clintons in 2018 has all the moral weight of Khrushchev turning on Stalin 3 years after the latter's death. Or post-war Nazis saying they had to follow orders.
"None. The crimes are not as large, but the moral calculus is the same."
Remember the deal the Gestapo offered Rommel after his support for the coup was exposed? You bite down on this pill, and not only will we give you a hero's burial, we can guarantee your family's safety. (They didn't need to spell out the alternative.)
Over at Instapundit sometime back, I read this:
After Khrushchev became Party Secretary and made his "secret speech" denouncing the crimes of Stalin, he agreed to meet a delegation of Soviet news reporters and answer questions to be submitted anonymously. One question read, "What were you doing when Stalin committed all these crimes?"
Khrushchev flew into a rage. "Who dares to ask such a question! Let him stand up and show himself!" None of them did. Khrushchev said, "Well, now you know what I was doing."
Here's one difference in the moral calculus: All the Democrats ever risked was the temporary diminution of their power, which they convince themselves amounts to, Millions of Lives are at Stake!
on. Many men urge women to have abortions and pay for women's abortions
SUCKERS!
Isn’t abortion “free” now?
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
"Shorter Trumpit:
but but but Roy Moore, and some unfounded and un-corroborated allegations against people the left don't like."
Even linked to an article clearly marked "allegations" - as though that means anything. I think a big part of our problem is arguing with people who don't understand what anything means - as Thomas Sowell laments, they "don't know how to think" - so we're stuck in the wash with them, unable to accomplish much because we're always debating The Mad Hatter.
Crack @ 9:29
Boom.
The left don't like the idea of due process.
The left don't want to play by any rules unless the game and the goalposts are rigged for their game.
Worse than that, she's expressing the idea that women want something other than sex and they give sex to get those extraneous things."
Translation: All woman are whores for the right price. Reminds me of the old Churchill observation about women and price haggling.
One pretends a thread is not a sweater.
Prosecutor: "Why didn't you come forward and file a police report?"
Clinton Rape Victim (hard to choose from): "A state trooper came by with a bag of money and a warning."
Prosecutor to State Trooper: "Why did you bring CRV a bag of money and a warning?"
ST: "I was told to by Lawyer X."
Prosecutor to Lawyer X: "Why did you tell State Trooper to do such a thing?" (There is no attorney client priv in commission of a crime)
Lawyer X: "Hillary told me to."
The sweater which starts at Bill leads to Hill.
Crack at 9:29--thank you. I completely agree.
The left were desperate to keep a Black conservative off the bench.
Anita Hill and her pubic hair on a coke can is what they delivered. The grand allegation that had zero corroboration.
Worse than that, she's expressing the idea that women want something other than sex and they give sex to get those extraneous things.
Women use sex to get love, men use love to get sex.
When he was newly ordained I think no more than a year into his presidency, there was a photo of him in jogging shorts talking to the ladies and they were swooning.
I thought BLECH, who wants that?
But supposedly he’s very or was very charismatic in person.
It's power as aphrodisiac. That young Kennedy that looks like Carrot Top used to come in to Starbucks and so many of the young women in line would swoon...well, let's say swoon doesn't begin to cover it.
in the Mafia - you are 'made man' after you kill someone.
in the Democrat party you are 'made woman' after you 'kill a baby.'
Here's the rub for me.
Hillary did not just stand by her men. She actively worked to trash the women Bill abused.
Hillary did not just stand by her man. She made "A woman must be believed" a part of her campaign.
I expect a spouse to stand by their partner. I don't expect them to trash people doing what their spouse is accused of.
“Male Privilege can explain the priority of abortion over sexual harassment and Rape”? AYFKM?
And you, a law professor.
It’s intellectually lazy to blame so called male privilege. No points. Try again.
Sexual behavior and morality are not determined by political orientation. Age and, later in life, income are far more determinative. I have never fooled around with pornstars or Playboy models. Such exemplary behavior has nothing to do with my political leanings. I think my vices would be far more interesting if I were a billionaire.......I think Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to cheat on their wives, The historical record does, however, show that Dems are far more likely to survive a scandal than Republicans.......Also, your bigotry is far more forgivable if you're a Democrat. It took the Dems a hundred years to realize that Wilson was a racist. FDR never passed a law that the southern segregationists found fault with, barred the entry of Jewish refugees, and instituted the Japanese internment camps. I predict that in another fifty or sixty years FDR will have the same standing as Wilson and Jackson among liberals.
Bill Clinton is guilty of having an intern give him a blowjob, in the Oval Office, as he conducted business on the phone and had Yasser Arafat waiting in the hallway - this we know - and how Monica felt about it at the time, or how Hillary has felt afterwards, makes no difference next to the example of George Washington's "unyielding resolve and severe dignity" hanging in the White House's pride of place.
Forget Monica: We didn't consent to this.
This comment thread is a microcosm for political life today.
All but two posts are arguing about sexuality, which is understandable since Althouse made it the subject of her post.
Molly, OTOH, wonders if the Democrats have any issues that would make them a viable party worth voting for, and suggests the few that have surfaced -- open borders, higher taxes on corporations, universal health care -- are simply means to an end, e.g., more power.
This is actually the more important question: Why be a Democrat?
It's also the question no one asks.
Imagine if Trump had sex with someone not his wife in the Oval Office - circa while the president. Totally consensual, of course.
It's easy if you try...
Next, imagine the ear-numbing earth-shattering outcry. Imagine the nuclear explosion and earthquake that follows. The first tremor would start in George Clintonopolis' office.
This is a tale as old as time... or at least as old as Greece. Which play was it about the women of Athens setting up a conspiracy with the women of Sparta to not have sex until the war was over? Sex as a commodity.
Not for nothing is whoreing yourself out known as the "first profession."
The Democrat Party is in the midst of a generational shift of its own making. They educated those who are wresting control. Whether or not their issues and platforms create a more powerful Democrat Party or inspires a younger, newer wave of conservatism remains to be seen.
I have strong doubts about abortion for several reasons, but religion is not one of them. I do not believe that the fertilized ovum has a soul, nor do I believe the vagina is magical. The trip down the birth canal nearly all of us made didn't bestow humanity on us. We acquired our personhood gradually between conception and birth. ( Birth is such an ill-defined term, is it not?) I don't know when that process begins or when it completes, and I would oppose any attempt to legislate a "personhood timetable".
It's clear to me that a zygote is not a person, but it is also clear to me that a normal near-term fetus probably is, and should be granted some degree of protection by the law. If we accept the absolute Pro-Choice argument I do not see how we can make a logical distinction between abortion and infanticide. By the same token, the absolute Pro-Life argument is unacceptable. I tend to reject the arguments of both camps. When asked by a poll taker some years ago about the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice brouhaha I threw her a curve by stating I'm Anti-Choice, which confused her no end. By anti-choice I mean the woman's consent to a pregnancy is necessary but insufficient. In my Weltanschauung, a woman who wants autonomy over her body had better make the decision very soon after conception because the developing ovum is gradually but inexorably achieving personhood and as such is entitled to at least some advocacy on its part. If the idea of third-party advocacy on behalf of chickens being processed for Campbell's Soup is acceptable to most progressives, their opposition to advocacy on behalf of the unborn is inconsistent at best and monstrous at worst.
Obviously, rape is a heinous crime, and I understand a woman's horror at the prospect of giving birth to a child fathered by a rapist. Such a situation negates one of our cherished human freedoms of reproduction. These are for men, the right to not be forced to rear and provide for the offspring of another man, and for women, it is the right to choose the man who will father her offspring. Nevertheless, I'm troubled by the fact that the only completely innocent party by default in a case of rape or incest is the one who gets it in the neck without the benefit of trial. I have no solution, but I do know nitwits like Jena Friedman need to be sterilized for the good of the species.
Sex selection is deemed to be a major factor in evolution and is best seen among the birds where males often must grow wildly useless feathers like the various birds of paradise or engage in weird busy work like the constructions made by male bowerbirds to impress and keep a mate. Among mammals, especially primates, sex selection by females is not so clear. Female elephant seals get impregnated by the male who happens to dominate the stretch of beach she hauls out on. The only way the females can choose is to escape to another beach where another male will "rape" her or fight the male at hand. Since he's about five times her size resistance is futile, as the Borg are fond of saying. The same applies to gorillas and chimpanzees. A female chimp, call her Flo, might favor the company of David Greybeard because he's been gentle with her and hasn't killed any of her offspring lately, she nevertheless won't have any choice if Goliath comes among and beats David Greybeard to a bloody pulp when Flo is in estrus. In those situations, evolution favors aggression and strength, i.e. rape — like it or not. Perhaps it is true that in human evolution sex selection by females works. I'd say that's probable. Perhaps the smart male pre-human got his genes favored by using a weapon to equalize the equation against another male pre-human who could only rely on his strength and aggression to monopolize the girls. Who knows?
Lysisteria
Hillary represents the last grasp the Baby Boomers have on the demoncrap party. The sooner she is aborted, the better.
Typo alert. ...if Goliath comes among and beats David Greybeard to a bloody pulp should read ...if Goliath comes along and beats David Greybeard to a bloody pulp
FIDO wrote: Lysisteria
Cool.
Quastar: I know you have a good point in there somewhere like cutting off abortion at 8- or 12-weeks, but your obscession with sounding literary and grammatical makes it unreadable. We know you are smart, you don't have to hide your feelings of stupidity behind that smokescreen of words.
For me, abortion is the age old question of who 'bestows' humanity.
To wit, a slave holder had that broad and terrible power. A slave was not a person unless the Master said so.
It seems that abortion activists argue for that same dictatorial authority.
Granted: it is not any kind of easy choice. But I don't like that kind of exclusive power on such a basic issue as humanity. It has lead the DNC to demean the humanity of many of their fellow citizens.
And yet when the same lack of personhood is foisted on them, they yowl like scalded cats.
Bobb at 7:22 makes a stellar point. It distracts from Keith Ellison until the election.
Howard wrote: I know you have a good point in there somewhere like cutting off abortion at 8- or 12-weeks
That isn't my point. And if reading comprehension is your problem, as it evidently is given what you've written in reply, my advice is to comment on some other site where the median IQ is more close to your own.
Trump and the GOP are real villians.
This is the adult version of, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Shoot!
LysisTRATA
Damn my Ancient Greek is rusty
Damn my Ancient Greek is rusty
No, Lysisteria is perfect.
"swanning about" - love it!
This is the adult version of, “I know you are, but what am I?”
It's a version, but not adult.
"President Trump being a pig and an alleged sexual predator in no way excuses Bill Clinton from being a pig and an alleged sexual predator."
Well now..equivalency appears to be as simple as typing and publishing it.
In that construct, what's the sense of "buying" abortion rights? If you don't think sex is good in itself, don't have sex, and you won't ever need an abortion... unless you are raped.
For some women I think there is an irrational fear of pregnancy with a concomitant fear of being unable to terminate a pregnancy if it occurred as a result of rape. And rape, for some women, is a very broad category of sexual acts to which they did not affirmatively consent. The same timid temperament and stunted personal development that gives rise to irrational fear of pregnancy exists side by side in women who feel they lack the agency to say no when men pursue them for sex.
But let’s not kid ourselves either about other women, who very much value sex but not as a means of expressing love or exchanging pleasure, but rather as a currency for power. To you, Althouse, it makes sense to say that if sex is just currency and not pleasure then the women who feel that way should just avoid it...but that very much misses the point that these women DO value the power that it gives them over men.
Howard,
Looks like he's thinking much later than 8-12 weeks.
"It's clear to me that a zygote is not a person, but it is also clear to me that a normal near-term fetus probably is, and should be granted some degree of protection by the law."
Hillary represents the last grasp the Baby Boomers have on the demoncrap party. The sooner she is aborted, the better.
Roll over Pelosi, and tell Chuck Shumer the news.
Someone should write a play about Kavanaugh conformation affair in which the women withhold sex from their men unless they agree to ruin a nominee for the USSC because of an evidence-free accusation of sexual assault that allegedly occurred half a lifetime in the past. Lysisteria is the perfect title.
Trump is exposing and nullifying Clinton's "deep state" leverage, thereby rendering Clinton a "burden" rather than a joy to the Democrat Party.
Democrats' argument for power before action is based on the assertion that action will follow power. Republicans make/made the same argument, but vary based on their points of leverage and interest.
Human life evolves from conception (i.e. source) - the "big bang" of a human "universe" -- observable and reproducible. So, from conception, we have two human lives coexisting in close proximity, where one is wholly dependent on the other for her life. A rudimentary nervous system (i.e. structure) begins to develop in the second month.
First, the argument for elective abortion should not be justified by edge cases (e.g. rape-rape, undesirable genotype, undesirable phenotype). Second, the question for society, and, indeed, humanity, is when and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain her right to life?
Choice, Sex, Responsibility. Pro-Choice is two choices too late.
Remediation should be done through normalization, including education, moral reform, rehabilitation, and reconciliation, where the principals are mother, father, and child. Selective-child, unlike one-child, has the burden of moral responsibility shifted, and while still a minority failure, its normalization represents a general decay.
On a related note, the rate of immigration should not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before planned parenthood. Immigration reform has enabled denial of emigration reform and human rights reform for too long.
Althouse -- you analyze things to death, by the time you are finished you have taken majic and fun out of anything.
"Stand by your man --
And show the world you love him.
Keep givin all the love you can,
Stand by your man."
oh FFS-- none of these hot-button issues are sincerely, honestly, earnestly pursued by the Left. They are just tools to use when convenient.
...but that very much misses the point that these women DO value the power that it gives them over men.
More evidence of the fact that feminism, or let's say "post-modern feminism", is gnawing at the roots of civilization. If marriage is nothing more than hiring a long-term prostitute, as feminists like Nina Burleigh and Hugh Hefner strongly implied (Surprise! Hefner declared himself as such way back when.) then Hobbes is going to finally win out over Locke and republics will fall to autocracy.
Abortion was going to be rare, they said—only for cases of rape, they said.
Never mind that this incentivizes claims of rape.
What proportion of abortions is even for claimed rape?
Tim in Vermont:
AWALT.
Quastar: I don't sabe your estrogen inspired word salad.
Walter: Yeah, that was my point, he was being very obtuse rather than structural.
IOW, think white and make your point, we don't have all day to experience your precious feelings
Althouse dishes on the important topic of blow jobs -- let's explicate this a bit, shall we?
2. Blowjobs deserve better than Nina Burleigh's famous quote.
Yes. They transcend the irritating musings of bushleague feminist journalists.
Her unstated proposition is that blowjobs are indeed jobs — work that you do for some sort of pay or because you owe a debt.
Burleigh should focus more on the "blow", than the "job"
It's not a pleasure for you, but a sacrifice.
That has to change!
Worse than that, she's expressing the idea that women want something other than sex and they give sex to get those extraneous things.
Umm, Althouse -- you disagree with this? You've never seen a hot young woman with an ugly old rich guy?
She's saying: Sex is not intrinsically valuable for a woman — it's a form of currency. We can buy what we want with it.
It's probably both.
In that construct, what's the sense of "buying" abortion rights? If you don't think sex is good in itself, don't have sex, and you won't ever need an abortion... unless you are raped. Which brings us back to the question which is the more important interest: access to abortion or freedom from rape and sexual harassment?
The Left believes that access to abortion is the most valued thing in society. Conversely, any efforts to reduce abortion on demand greatly damages the collective psyche of these unhinged feminists. They really should stick to blow jobs.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा