President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

A couple of things:

A. Bill Clinton said he, "couldn't be elected now because I don't like embarrassing people the way Trump does."

2. Bill Clinton can't campaign for anybody right now because, in the current #MeToo environment, no candidate wants an accused rapist standing by them.

So, is there any argument to be made that Bill Clinton couldn't get elected for the reason he stated, as opposed to the reason I stated?

 

When or if that happens, I'll concede you're right.

 

So, OOP, what do you think of these, "I'm not saying he hit her, but he probably hit her," posts?

 

Why would I concede it's possible? If something can be asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence.

 

So, if they weren't able to bring criminal charges against Cosby or Weinstein, because of the time lapsed, you would not believe either of them to be rapists?

 

I think the evidence against them is much stronger than the evidence against Bill Clinton.

 

Huh?

 

Of course you do.

 

There's no evidence Obama ordered anyone to spy on the Trump campaign. If Trump thinks there was, it's up to him to prove it.

 

Why wasn't Clinton prosecuted then?

 

The question was whether a former president could be impeached. We've shown that they could be.

But, for some reason, you can't/won't concede that one point. It makes it difficult to want to engage you, if you can't admit when you're obviously wrong.

 

For the same reason a lot of rapists don't face prosecution.

Do you follow the news at all? This isn't a new phenomenon, or one that hasn't been explored extensively.