About time the New York Times exposed the sham marriage [GREAT piece today]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most thinking women care less about a woman who stayed in a marriage with a cheating spouse whom she shares a child with, and care more about a philanderer who has 3 wives and a rack of kids by 3 different women who is also a sexist obese pig who comments on women's weight.

Most women also care if a woman tosses dirt onto other women in an attempt to make them look like selfish sluts when her husband has a lifetime of affairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm lol'ing at the hundreds of hypocrite lefties in the nytimes.com comment section saying "This is old news! This is 20 years old! Any woman would do the same to protect their family!"

The majority of women would have dumped him.

I agree - especially women who shared similar credentials.

Can you imagine some of our "best" DCUM female attorneys making excuses for their high-profile husbands?

wouldn't happen unless they were completely insecure or so into appearances that they'd be willing to share their husband's penis with the world

I do wonder about the women who support Hillary with these excuses that she "did it for the family" or that it was "their personal business." makes me think they married a Bill, too

Actually, I can seem many dcum high powered attorneys staying in the marriage for outside appearances.

When I was in Biglaw, I knew of partners who slept around and/or treated the staff inappropriately. Their wives either didn't know or, more likely, looked the other way.

Looking the other way is one thing. Proactively destroying the other women's life to bolster your hubby's career is a totally different story.

Exactly!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm lol'ing at the hundreds of hypocrite lefties in the nytimes.com comment section saying "This is old news! This is 20 years old! Any woman would do the same to protect their family!"

Are you now? Because the article does not have a comments section.

Yes it does. Over 600 right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Skipped your meds today, OP?

+ 1. Seriously OP sounds nuts.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's fair to judge Hillary on her actions in the 90s by the standards we have now.

We're usually much more careful about using a woman's past, especially her sexual past, to discredit her now than we were 20 years ago.*

That being said, if you believe that your political enemies are manufacturing adultery stories in order to ruin your husband's political career, wouldn't it make sense to try to discredit them? I'm not sure what I would have done in her situation.

Bill told Hillary that he hadn't been unfaithful and these women were lying, and she believed him. From the story, it looks like she was on board with trying to show that the women were not telling the truth, but she did not direct the efforts. Later, when she found out Bill had lied to her about affairs, she felt betrayed and had to take stock of her marriage.

* Donald Trump DURING THIS ELECTION has personally used a woman's sexual history in an attempt to discredit her. To my mind this is worse than what Hillary did.

I don't think it's wrong for this issue to be discussed. It's a good issue for feminists to think about, especially feminists who want to be politicians. This was sort of new ground when Clinton was involved in it in the nineties and I think she was in a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.

Know what's worse? Donald Trump's lewd and sexist behavior on The Apprentice set. I also think it's nuts that adulterer Donald Trump and his team of sexist adulterous advisors including Guliani and Ailes want to lecture a woman on how to behave when your husband is accused of cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most thinking women care less about a woman who stayed in a marriage with a cheating spouse whom she shares a child with, and care more about a philanderer who has 3 wives and a rack of kids by 3 different women who is also a sexist obese pig who comments on women's weight.

THIS!!! I just dont care that Hilary stayed with Bill. Whatever. Her decision. Doesnt effect me at all. Probably better for Chelsea. As for destroying the lives of the women who slept with her husband, dont have a problem with that either. They shouldnt have carried on with a married man. They get zero sympathy and anyone who feels sympathetic to them is an enabler and no better than they are. As for punishing him, I bet Hillary made his life miserable as far as she could too. Actually, staying married may have been her best revenge against him. Noone of this amounts to a hill of beans compared to what a nasty, ruthless, ugly, foul mouthed, classless, stupid, lying racist, misogynoistic, piece of sh!t Trump is either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm lol'ing at the hundreds of hypocrite lefties in the nytimes.com comment section saying "This is old news! This is 20 years old! Any woman would do the same to protect their family!"

Are you now? Because the article does not have a comments section.

Yes it does. Over 600 right now.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Skipped your meds today, OP?

NP Good sample of a nasty poster with zero content to share, not even an opinion on the topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's fair to judge Hillary on her actions in the 90s by the standards we have now.

We're usually much more careful about using a woman's past, especially her sexual past, to discredit her now than we were 20 years ago.*

That being said, if you believe that your political enemies are manufacturing adultery stories in order to ruin your husband's political career, wouldn't it make sense to try to discredit them? I'm not sure what I would have done in her situation.

Bill told Hillary that he hadn't been unfaithful and these women were lying, and she believed him. From the story, it looks like she was on board with trying to show that the women were not telling the truth, but she did not direct the efforts. Later, when she found out Bill had lied to her about affairs, she felt betrayed and had to take stock of her marriage.

* Donald Trump DURING THIS ELECTION has personally used a woman's sexual history in an attempt to discredit her. To my mind this is worse than what Hillary did.

I don't think it's wrong for this issue to be discussed. It's a good issue for feminists to think about, especially feminists who want to be politicians. This was sort of new ground when Clinton was involved in it in the nineties and I think she was in a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.

Know what's worse? Donald Trump's lewd and sexist behavior on The Apprentice set. I also think it's nuts that adulterer Donald Trump and his team of sexist adulterous advisors including Guliani and Ailes want to lecture a woman on how to behave when your husband is accused of cheating.

+ 1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skipped your meds today, OP?

NP Good sample of a nasty poster with zero content to share, not even an opinion on the topic.

The OP got the opinion s/he merited. Stick your whine where the sun don't shine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most thinking women care less about a woman who stayed in a marriage with a cheating spouse whom she shares a child with, and care more about a philanderer who has 3 wives and a rack of kids by 3 different women who is also a sexist obese pig who comments on women's weight.

Most women also care if a woman tosses dirt onto other women in an attempt to make them look like selfish sluts when her husband has a lifetime of affairs.

But they are selfish sluts. *shrug*

[Anonymous]

More are spore rly stepping forward. Will Hillary try to have them silenced too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

The media has been protecting this woman her entire career. She is a first-rate liar. Lies about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary even though he climb Mt Everest 3 years after she was born. Lies about flying into an area where they took sniper fire even though video footage shows otherwise. Lies about youtube causing Benghazi. Claimed to not know the large letter "C" on internal documents meant classified.

Covers for her husband's abuse of women. Instead of divorcing Bill she destroys the women. Anything to further her career. Treats her subordinates terribly. Using her Secretary of State office and her Foundation to raise money for a campaign and fund her family's private jet lifestyle. Should be in a orange jumpsuit right now and not waddling around in her $10,000 custom made tents.

The media have covered for this women her entire career and now the house of cards is about to fall. She has no soul. She has no foundation. Her life is completely based on lies.

You forgot that her father silk screened draperies for a living.

[Anonymous]

And yet? She has a 68% chance of becoming our next president. The majority of voters DGAF about Bill's affairs anymore, or what Hillary Clinton thought about them 20 years ago.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

So funny to watch conservatives twist themselves into pretzels to pretend they think a man with five kids by three different women is somehow morally more upright than a woman who stayed married to her cheating husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a feminist. This article handles her involvement in taking down the women Bill had affairs with with kid gloves. Hillary is ruthless as a politician and THE thing that makes me queasy about her is the way she relentlessly worked to destroy Flowers and Lewinsky. Women who did not deserve to have their names and lives muddied because of her philandering husband. As a feminist this makes me sick. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

+1

The article missed the alleged rape victims of Bill Clinton and Hillary's intimidation against them. She is an enabler.