You cannot, as you very often do, slam Democrats for supporting Bill Clinton and then call it meaningless when they say condemn him. I mean, you can, because you frequently like to have it both ways like that, but it's not consistent.
-
-
Replying to @craigcalcaterra
So, if someone votes for Trump in 2016 & 2020, defends him at every turn for 8 years, votes for Melania for president in 2040, then denounces Trump in 2043, does that get credit?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I dunno, Dan. You want credit for "opposing" Trump while doing absolutely nothing of consequence to oppose him, asking no one in your party to effectively oppose him and supporting basically everything that empowers him, so you're not the most reliable authority on such things.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @craigcalcaterra
I see you have no intention of addressing in good faith the obvious point that bitter-ender Clinton supporters are only willing to turn on him when he's been out of office 19 years & after supporting his return to the WH just 3 years ago. Evading that is not a good look.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
"His return to the White House" would not have been as president. Stop being disingenuous about what support for Hillary Clinton means. But when you're the one who brings up the nature and genuineness of condemnation, yeah, I think your own stance on such matters is relevant.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @craigcalcaterra
I will take that as a "no, I have no intention of responding in good faith." You know I'm right, which is why you're deflecting instead. Also, is it your contention that Hillary Clinton was never in any way responsible for enabling/defending her husband's misconduct?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Your original point was a deflection. JF noted, quite correctly, that Trump's supporters would never turn on him, and you assert, incorrectly, that there has not been considerable reassessment of Clinton by many (but not all, sadly) on the left.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @craigcalcaterra
My original point was that Fugelsang is pushing the obviously false narrative that Democrats would turn on Clinton while Clinton still held power & turning on him would benefit Republicans. You know full well that's not so, never has been, never will be.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
It's an impossible to test theory in that Clinton has been out of power for almost 20 years and we lived in very different times with very different attitudes about his ugly nature in the 1990s. I'd like to think they would. As it is now, many have turned on him FWIW.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @craigcalcaterra @baseballcrank
I disagree we live in different times in that context. Being an adulter and sexual predator was hardly condoned in the 1990s. I was furious at women Clinton supporters back then for giving him a pass. Still can't understand it. Seems like it's the Dems who want it both ways.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The Democrats were full speed ahead on sexual harassment being THE central issue of the 1992 Senate races. They just suddenly forgot all the stuff they said then as soon as Clinton got in a jam. As usual.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @RickAdamczak
Now do Republicans on obstruction of justice, adultery, perjury, the debt/deficit, executive power, ethical oversight and any number of other things you have abandoned since 2017.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But as for the issue at hand: I can and do think Bill Clinton is scum and oppose any remaining influence he has in the party. As do an increasing number of Democrats. Other than some performative "I didn't vote for Trump" stuff, how is the GOP repudiating his moral bankruptcy?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.