Video of Bill Clinton groping a stewardess between her legs

Wow. That's what, four frames being looped over and over sans audio, sans time, sans names. It doesn't look like the description is correct, but if it wanted to be taken seriously, it should have had a normal speed read sample with audio and date and time.

Oh, and Bill Clinton is not up for election here.

I don't think there's any question that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator--quite how far he's gone is open to some question however (and it's mainly a degree of mutual consent question) and he's not running for President like Mr. Trump who seems to be pointing the finger at him (after his recent sleazy audio revelations) and saying: 'Him too'. I can only say that Trump is dragging all those millions of voters still hanging on to his words and his campaign even further into the gutter--leaving them hypocritically grasping for avenues in which to defend him. It's true that Bill did the same for his. Never defend a fuckhead---it only makes you look like a jerk too.

So to #2--FWIW there's no point in defending someone who has a long history of misconduct.

Bill Clinton, as we all know, is a sexual predator, and Donald Trump is not.

#4--the argument that Bill's not running for president still applies. I'm not sure what Trump is beside a demagogic asshole. The kind of sleazy conversation that he's apparently so at ease with and with apparent strangers (like Billy Bush) is pretty creepy--don't you think? It's showing off as well--something he cannot not do. There's literally nothing good that I've seen from him. His billionaire celebrity allows him to get away with shit almost people nobody else could. There's no doubt that he thinks himself something special which is par for the course with most politicians, billionaires and a whole lot of sport and media celebrities.

He's got the Lawrence Welk/Ted Nugent crowd all locked up. Not a lot to be proud of.

You could say the same about Bill Clinton, but you voted for him.

#6--are you talking to me?--because if you are (par for the course) you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. In 92 and 96 I did not vote for Bill Clinton and I didn't vote for Papa Bush or Dole either.

What did Hillary Clinton say about Trump's words?

What did she say about Bill's actual groping of a woman between her legs?

>2 prosfilaes: Bill Clinton is not up for election here.

>5 lriley: the argument that Bill's not running for president still applies.

Sorry, that ship has sailed. It sailed when, e.g., Trump was pressed (repeatedly) to repudiate David Duke, even though David Duke is not running for President, and Trump is not married to him.

Therefore, the prinicple that a candidate is responsible for everyone who supports their run for President has been established.

Hillary Clinton is responsible for Bill Clinton.

>9 Carnophile: Sorry, that ship has sailed. It sailed when, e.g., Trump was pressed (repeatedly) to repudiate David Duke, even though David Duke is not running for President, and Trump is not married to him.

Therefore, the prinicple that a candidate is responsible for everyone who supports their run for President has been established.

Um, could you unpack that, please, for those of us who are a bit slow-witted? Also, what does 'A is responsible for B' mean?

>9 Carnophile:
"Therefore, the prinicple that a candidate is responsible for everyone who supports their run for President has been established."

Hark! Do I hear a troll's stomach rumbling?

I dislike Trump and Bill Clinton, but their treatment of women isn't identical, unless you mean generally not all that great.

According to what Colin Powell said last month, Bill Clinton never got over his cheating and using of women. Maybe he and the missus have an understanding, but that doesn't justify his treatment of them. I'm not saying he's a rapist. Maybe he is, I don't know. I've forgotten what was concluded 20 years ago. The subject would have to be addressed case by case.

Trump is right that some women will allow wealthy men to do whatever they want. As long as it's consensual, he hasn't done anything wrong. But it's one more reason to dislike the guy who has never been all that likable.

But that doesn't matter to people, does it? No more than it did to Democrats with the Clintons.

Now if it were Bill Cosby...

#9--I would hardly say I was a fan of the Clinton's. I have never voted for either of them and that includes Hilary as senator as I'm a NYS resident. I really don't like the Republican party though--so I've always had to opt for third party choices.

We should keep in mind that it's not very unusual for major party politicians to run on dirt they pull up on their opponents and not on the issues. I think the Clinton's, the Bush's and Trump are more comfortable going to the gutter than they actually are at credibly speaking to the problems of the masses of the population. And case in point right now. I've turned it all off. They disgust me. I don't expect anything really that good from either of the major party candidates--though Trump IMO is the worst option of all and that he's worse than Hillary Clinton is really saying something.

You put the Bushes in with Trump and the Clintons. I think there's a huge difference. So do most Americans.

As strong as you dislike the Republican Party, I dislike the Democrats, but I will repeat myself in saying that I doubt Obama would pull the kinds of shenanigans that the Clintons have. I don't know if I would call Obama an honorable man, but he doesn't seem to be a scumbag. Maybe it's because his wife would kick his ass if he stepped out of line.

That video doesn't look like much to me. He briefly touched her knee. It didn't look sexual. Flirtation maybe, but not a big deal. Keep in mind I hate the guy.

#15--actually George Bush is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American servicemen and untold thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis with his preemptive wars. If anything he's a more proven ghoul. We torture and suspend habeas corpus at a whim now because of George W.

>17 lriley: Yes, that. Going to war in Iraq under false pretenses is a pretty big deal.

>16 barney67:. Dittoes

Wow. From Europe: Wow. Not even one book reference to how to interpret this silly election in which nobody knows what the policies of both parties are? Nobody yells 'it's the economy, stupid' anymore now? You have 3 weeks left to have a reasonably OK election debate on which the fate of the USA, hell the world, rests?
And that's that for my ramble, sorry, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to my books.

>20 Agnesium: What? That's a surprisingly inarticulate outburst for a bookworm.

>20 Agnesium: nobody knows what the policies of both parties are?

What's so hard? Hillary Clinton's policies are easy to find: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ . You can't tell me the Europeans haven't had populists who don't clearly articulate any feasible policies, in which case you don't vote for them.

Do a google search on European politicians...

>11 librorumamans: Um, could you unpack that, please, for those of us who are a bit slow-witted? Also, what does 'A is responsible for B' mean?

It's too late to dissemble now. The principle has been established.

>16 barney67: No, Barney, he didn't just put his hand on her knee. He put his hand between her legs.

>1 Carnophile:

I have little doubt that Clinton engaged in some pretty dodgy stuff. He's one good video away from a public shunning. But that's a really lame video. It's more convincing as a "did I leave my bag over here? whoops" moment than "groping." I've certainly blundered into people of both sexes in a way that, with the perfect three-frame capture, would look like something it's not.

>24 Carnophile: You can continue to see what you like on that video, but the stewardess' seat is set further back than Clinton's. He is just patting her knee, his hand, holding his pen, comes back promptly and they all three continue to chat and the stewardess snacks on her apple without any pause in the flow of the encounter.

If you want proof of Clinton's depravity, there's much better proof than that.

>27 barney67: Yeah. It's like the Bush letter from the 2004 that turned out to be a fake; nothing dissuaded me from the impression that Bush didn't take his National Guard service very seriously, but a cheap fake making that claim did nothing for anyone who touched it. A three-frame cut from a video just convinces people that if the context would blow your claim out of the water, and the fact you're waving it around says (correctly or not) you don't have any good evidence.

28> Gee, now that you put it that way. I don't know why I didn't see it before. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are identical.

>29 barney67: Except that Clinton is more charismatic.

>25 timspalding: ... But that's a really lame video... I've certainly blundered into people of both sexes in a way that, with the perfect three-frame capture, would look like something it's not.

I have more faith in you than to believe you've accidentally blundered into a person while you were sitting down, and your hand just happened to go between her legs.

>26 2wonderY: He is just patting her knee...

His hand is between her legs.

his hand, holding his pen, comes back promptly and they all three continue to chat... without any pause in the flow of the encounter.

Either the video is too jerky or we can accurately asses the flow of the encounter. Pick one.

>Barney67, you are right, it was pretty inarticulate. I think my main worry was that this election campaign (on both sides) was focused on not so political issues. Although action speaks louder than words, but whose actions matter? And yes, sadly, in Europe we have the same issues.

The one great outcome of this election will be the future irrelevance of discussions about Bill Clinton's perverse personality and behavior. The end of Bill Clinton "rape" threads will be a wonderful thing. One has to be concerned about what the obsessed will obsess over now.

How typical is this ? A bunch of guys comparing whose actions, committed by some "other" guy, are the worst.

Marriage does not mean we "become" the other person.

A woman is not responsible for her husbands behavior. A woman, or any person really, can only be responsible for their own. It would seem that some of you would count a mother of a mass shooter, just as guilty as the shooter ? While a relationship is a shared responsibility, one can only be responsible for one's own actions. Hillary did what many women do when faced with such a situation, first....denied, then got angry and eventually moved on. Her choice to leave or stay, with her husband, was hers to make and not the business of any one but herself. Some say she showed weakness by staying......to my mind it takes far more guts to stay. If she put up with Bill she can put up with a hell of a lot.

Hillary has been vetted, judged, criticized, called unspeakable names, her sexuality has been in question, her clothing has been discussed and found wanting. She has stood up to hours of cruel questioning and almost out right ridicule.......No matter her politics, as a woman, I find her to be an incredibly strong individual. She is not "new" to politics....she has played the game. She is just a few years older than I am and if she hadn't she would not be where she is today. If she were younger....I firmly believe she would have won. She may have any way. She was more popular and won the biggest margin of popular votes over an opponent in some time.

A lot can be said about her but, holding her responsible for Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior is NOT one of them.