Survey: did you watch the inauguration?

Who are you addressing? Generic "Dems" out there in the world, or people here on this board?

I criticize Bill Clinton for the things he did. I don't give him a pass for the Lewinsky scandal, for a bunch of reasons. Most us here probably, to varying degrees, think that trying to impeach him or make him out to be a horrible human being and/or president because of it is an overreaction, but nobody here thinks it was okay.

Better or worse than Trump? That is subjective. You seem to have bought into the "Clinton was a rapist" narrative, for which I think there is very scant evidence. I tend to be less horrified than many on this board at Trump's antics, and his "pussy grabber" speech, because yeah, I think he's a guy in the company of guys who talk like that, and if you have never in your life been in the company of guys who talk like that, you have existed in rarified society. That doesn't mean I approve of that kind of speech, and it certainly says something about Trump's respect for women, but honestly, to whom was it news in the last 25 years that Trump is a egotistical jackass who objectifies women? Really, he's been saying shit like this all his life - the infamous "grab em by the pussy" comment was just a little more explicit.

But that is some seriously sexist shit and I think you would be outraged and incredulous at anyone minimizing it if it came from the mouth of a Democrat. So throwing stones at others for being hypocritical seems... well, hypocritical.

Yes, Clinton had a rape allegation made against him. But Trump actually had a rape lawsuit (with a 13 year old victim) filed against him.

Given the paucity of evidence I've seen in the rape cases, I have to give each man the benefit of the doubt on the rape allegations. (I'm a lawyer, you know.) But if anything, the one against Clinton is less credible, given the victim never did bother to file suit, never told her then-husband about the alleged rape, and three weeks after the alleged rape went to a fundraiser with Hillary Clinton.

On the horndog front, at least Clinton has remained married to the same woman, one known for her brains rather than her beauty. Trump is on wife number three, and cheated on them all (and bragged about it). In between, he slept with a zillion models, bragging about it to shock jocks and tabloids.

On the sexist front, it doesn't even compare. Trump has made so many sexist remarks it's difficult to keep track. And Clinton, to my knowledge, never bragged on tape about grabbing women without their consent.

I don't even think it is close as to which man is worse, characterwise.  

I'll also note that Trump's excesses were well known before he was elected.  Not so much Clinton's.  (There were some rumors, apparently, but not widely known to the public at large.  Trump's you'd have to have been living under a rock not to know, not to mention actual evidence of some of it was in the public domain -- e.g., that videotape.) 

ETA:

My brother is an avid Trump supporter who spent years railing against Clinton's horndog propensities, which he felt should have disqualified Clinton from the presidency.  He still thinks so.

I asked him to explain he then voted for Trump, who is at least as bad on those fronts.  Crickets.  Or deflection. 

I've found that quite frustrating.

I think many people have found it frustrating to see those on the right who've been screeching about Bill's sexual peccadillos for a quarter of a century shrug at Trump's.  Or else say "if Bill was a horndog, it's fine for Trump."  Which might be OK if you also thought it was OK for Bill.  But if not, what gives? 

If the very worst accusations about both men (that they are rapists) are true, then they should both be disqualified.

If Clinton is just guilty of being a serial adulterer who had a particularly inappropriate relationship with a White House intern, then while it's not behavior I approve of in a POTUS, it doesn't really reflect on his capacity to do the job or necessarily on his non-sexual ethics.

Trump's behavior, and speech, suggests not just serial infidelity and seeing women pretty much exclusively in terms of whether or not they give him a boner, but a pretty brutal attitude. Some might consider that a dealbreaker, others might not, but I don't think it's hypocritical to perceive a qualitative difference between him and Clinton. Personally, I agree that if your entire position on both men revolves around their sexual behavior, they are both terrible models of a CiC. But I don't think a lot of people are against Trump only because of his pussy grabber comment. Just like no one wanted to impeach Clinton only because he got a blow job in the Oval Office.

You left out my previous sentence, in which I said I gave both men the benefit of the doubt, since in both cases the allegations are unproven.

As for the sentence you cited -- 

I know very little about the alleged Trump victim, though I understand Trump did hang with Epstein, so it isn't hard to imagine him dallying with women there, and I also understand Epstein was notorious for having underaged girls at his parties. But that doesn't prove Trump raped anyone. And indeed, the forcible and knowledgeable rape of a 13 year old seems unlikely to me (though I can picture him dallying with a gorgeous underage girl and not asking her age). But I just don't know enough to assess the credibility of the allegations. I've never heard the victim tell her story.  All I can say is, "not proven; Trump gets the benefit of the doubt."

I know a lot more about the Clinton rape accuser, and for me, she and her accusations do not seem very credible. I know rape victims do not necessarily behave in a logical manner. Still, she has a whole bunch of fishy aspects to her story (a couple of which I mentioned above). I've seen interviews with her, too; frankly, I don't believe her story.

Since I feel I have some ground to find the Clinton story not credible, and nothing with regard to Trump (who, after all, has bragged about grabbing women's genitals without permission, and bragged he'd be dating 10 year olds in a few years...), I actively disbelieve Juanita Brodderick's allegations against Clinton, while with Trump, I can only give him the benefit of the doubt -- he is innocent until proven guilty.

But of course, that is a matter of opinion. We can agree that the allegations against both Clinton and Trump are unproven and therefore both men get the benefit of the doubt. We can agree to disagree on the exact degree of unbelievability attached to the respective allegations.

My main point in mentioning it was that c.e. had said that Clinton had rape charges against him, which was worse than the allegations against Trump. That's not accurate, since Trump also had rape allegations -- indeed, an actual lawsuit -- against him.

There's more than that makes me disbelieve the Brodderick allegations (I once went into it in great detail on another forum). I'm not sure it belongs in this particular thread, and anyway, I need to wrap up some work before I go out to dinner.

Suffice to say, my own gut, having read a great deal about it, including interviews with Broaddrick and having heard her speak about it, is that I don't believe her and I don't think her story hangs together. You're welcome to come to another conclusion. I'm not a particular Clinton defender (at least not on this front) so it isn't that I just can't believe poor old Bill would do such a thing -- it's that I find Broaddrick not credible. And for the record, I'm generally inclined to believe women when they allege rape. This woman is an exception. But that's my own assessment. No one else is obligated to agree.

If you want me to go into detail on why I don't believe Brodderick, I'll do so, but not tonight. I'm not sure it's relevant, though, since either way both Clinton and Trump get the benefit of my doubt, and my main point is simply that you can't say Clinton is worse than Trump on the "rape allegation against him" front.

We can also agree that Epstein slime is on both men, that you can't justify Trump's actions by Clinton's or vice versa, and that neither has anything to do with the other. We probably also agree that all presidents and presidential candidates get all kinds of sleaze alleged about them that might or might not be true.

Finally, I think we agree that the things Trump SHOULD be hammered on are not unproven allegations, but rather, the things he has unquestionably done.

It's not how I meant it. Actually, I agree with what your assessment on Bill's character. He's no saint, by any means, and it frankly doesn't stretch my imagination much to picture him getting too aggressive with his advances. My doubts about Brodderick are about her and her particular story, not about him.

Also, surely you've seen that I'm happy to attack "my side" -- e.g., I ultimately voted for Clinton, yet spent much of the election taking my ax to her on her email handling and other stuff I don't like about her, irritating the hell out of many Clinton supporters. Let's face it -- I'm just a pain in the ass.

That Melania shot is something. I've wondered how she feels about all this -- him winning, the stuff that came out during the campaign. I have a feeling she's not really into it.



But...that's how Mommy and Daddy have fun.