Why must I believe that Bill Clinton raped someone in order to credibly believe that Trump's "base" is hugely racist? The two things have nothing to do with each other. I guess we don't have any way of knowing to a 100% certainty whether Clinton raped someone because we haven't been in the room with him all his life. Fortunately, we don't have to resort to any guesswork when assessing whether Trump is a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic asshat, because he isn't making any effort to hide it. And as someone posted earlier, if you insist on going to a Klan rally because you love the food at the potluck dinner, you can't really complain when people conclude that you are a racist.

Also, one of these guys is currently running for President, and the other is not.

To elaborate on the lols you are receiving:

I remember when he announced the plan, and I remember reading several early news articles about it, like the Politico one, breathlessly repeating his comments about how it was going to cost him a fortune and how the emphasis on closing loopholes distinguished his plan from the other Republican plans...

Then everyone read the actual plan and realized everything he'd said about it was false. It's basically along the same lines as all the other GOP candidate plans, but with larger cuts.

Neither beliefs are even close to plausible, and there's a lot of evidence to show both beliefs are completely wrong. It's just willful ignorance to protect the instilled beliefs that liberals are amazing and republicans are bad.

I think Bill Clinton might have raped someone. I think the idea Hillary knew about it and delivered a cryptic message to the victim a few days later is far-fetched lizard people stuff.

Here is why while I think it's entire possible Clinton raped her, I don't think it's "overwhelmingly likely":
1. The woman didn't come forward for 20 years
2. She recanted her original affidavit
3. She was having an affair at the time with her current husband. So we certainly know she's capable of major lies if properly motivated. Also it gives her a motive to paint the encounter as an attack lest she be caught basically triple-timing.
4. She says the original husband saw the bloody lip and she made an excuse. Original husband has no recollection of this. I don't know if this proves anything but I feel like a husband would remember something like that.

That said if I had to bet, I'd probably bet even money he did it. The fact that another woman reported his lip bite proclivities seems pretty damning. And that her roommate and current husband all corroborate the story.

But this whole conversation is silly. Lots of politicians are ****ty people. You don't have to vote for someone you think will destroy the country just because the alternative is an *******.

Do I think Trump represents a real threat to American Muslims? Yes absolutely. Trump will stir up even more unrest against Muslims and try to pass draconian laws in which millions of innocent American Muslims will suffer.

Do I think Hillary represents a real threat to women? No of course not. It's not like Bill is going to go on a raping spree if she becomes president.

I can't wait for this Trump ad

Lower income tax does not necessitate that the wealthiest would pay lower taxes overall, and in fact the wealthiest don't have have high incomes which is a main point he's getting at. His plan would also encourage more domestic investment and production whereas the left's ideas on how to "fix" the economy would only further encourage investment capital to leave the U.S..

If you mean that -- logically speaking -- lowering tax brackets does not necessarily entail lower effective tax rates on the wealthy, then you are correct but changing the subject as that is not the claim. These groups analyzed Trump's actual tax plan, not some hypothetical one, and found that under Trump's specific plan the wealthiest would pay far less in taxes. This is not a controversial fact.

Suzzer victim shaming itt! Guess we just have another frat bro rape apologist.

Lolol now Thayer gone full Clinton conspiritard. No wonder he's sold on Trump. Has his thumb on Alex Jones pulse! Nothing gets past Thayer!

-believes Trump won't attempt to do the things he says & has based his only ad on
-believes Trump will be great for economy with plan that will hurt him personally despite that not being consistent with the actual plan he put out
-pushing conspiracy theories

Bro you have lost touch with reality. You should take an objective step back and try to catch it before further escalation into coming on here claiming the govt is sending Aliens to track your movements

They have nothing to do with one another though. Rape claims should always be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, if Bill Clinton is a rapist he should go to jail end of. Trump's supporters are overwhelmingly bigoted racists and every time he makes a racist statement his poll numbers go up. There is no dissonance that I can detect.

At what earliest point does TRUMP become the 50.1% betting favorite vs. field?

- Wins Iowa?
- Wins Iowa and then New Hampshire?
- Wins Iowa, New Hampshire, then South Carolina?
- Wins Iowa, NH, SC and then NV?
- Even if he sweeps all 4 February primaries, TRUMP is not the 50.1% betting favorite going into the SEC primary?

IMO, if TRUMP wins IA and then NH, he is the betting favorite vs. field.

If someone is having an affair, lying every day to their spouse, it's definitely fair game to call their veracity into question. Especially when that affair could potentially be motive to fabricate a story that a consensual encounter was actually an attack.

just takes IA imo because if IA then NH. he is fairly big fav in NH now. give him IA momentum and NH goes trump 95%

Source: A defense of the truthfulness of Bill Clinton's version of events.

Is this the same trump who will stop isis, target the fighters family members, carpet bomb Iraq and Syria and take "their" oil?

That guy is against involvement in Iraq and Syria?

If Trump wins Iowa and NH, he should be consensus favorite.

Main focus for me would be to see how the rest of the field shakes out. If there is a clear consensus number 2 candidate, than some of the other also ran candidates will have to start dropping out and their money and support starts flowing either to Trump or the challenger (my hunch is the challenger). If the anti-Trump support starts to get funneled towards one candidate, then we could have a long, protracted race between the two candidates.

If, otoh, Iowa and NH give different results with scattered support, more folks stay in the race, and Trump can scoop up a bunch of delegates in the next set of primaries w/o needing to get a majority of votes. I think this would actually be a good scenario for Trump because his high unfavorables don't hurt him as much in a multiway race, and because his preexisting name recognition is a bigger advantage in a crowded field than a smaller one.

Sounds like more victim blaming to me. Take this same situation and add that the person is also willing to lie under oath about these things, why should we believe their veracity? Because they're a Democrat?


Trump has been clearly against US intervention in the Middle East and has been very outspoken about the waste of money spent getting involved, yes. It's indisputable.

have you read her version of events? One second, he's pointing out a jail or trash dump, the next he flies across the room and is inside her immediately.

Unless Bill is super turned on by municipality stuff, I don't get how this plays out like she says it did.

That's not to say that a rape didn't happen. It may have. The obvious definition of rape that we're all aware of now wrt coercion and such was, for lack of a better phrase, a lot more acceptable back then. Kind of like how at one point some people thought you couldn't 'rape' your wife.

Being certain everyone willing to vote for Trump is a bigoted racist and also being certain Clinton never raped anyone is just beyond ridiculous, imo, and shows clearly a willful ignorance to support their own beliefs. Quibble over whether it's cognitive dissonant or not, I don't care.

I have no idea what happened. It's just the most obvious sexist double standard imaginable to say that Broadrick's version of events is untrustworthy because she was having an affair, living a double life, deceitful, etc., without mentioning that the other side of the story is being told by Bill Clinton, who was actually impeached for perjury relating to one of his own extramarital affairs.

I never said Bill Clinton's word had any weight. Obviously it doesn't.

Who's believing anyone's veracity? We know Bill Clinton is an inveterate liar and Hillary probably is too. She's the epitome of a career politician. I just don't think she's going to wreck the country or throw Muslims into camps, so given her vs. Trump I hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

You still don't get it. This isn't about character. It's about not wanting a president who will turn this country into a xenophobic hell hole.

Not sure what these have to do with each other, but what about being certain of the former and uncertain of the latter (which is more likely than people itt being certain of Bill's innocence)?

Do you think a Muslim cares more if a) Bill is a rapist or if b) Trump is going to keep them from re-entering the country?

Follow up question: Assuming the answer to the question above is overwhelmingly b), do you think there's any reason I as a non-Muslim should care?