Before this topic was created, I published a blog post titled "Democratic Party = Mob".

Here is the post.

Democratic Party = Mob



What is the difference between the Democratic Party and a mob?

Answer: Nothing.

The Democratic Party has entered the Twilight Zone, one in which everything is in reverse.



In a just society, a person accused of wrong-doing is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the accuser.

In contrast, in the Democratic Party, a person accused of wrong-doing is guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof is on the accused. Well, that is if the accused is a Republican politician or selected for public office by a Republican politician.

When the accused is a Democrat, the Democratic Party says, "Please disperse. Nothing to see here."



In the case of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats incited an angry mob to attack him and anyone who dared to defend him. All that was missing was Democratic Party leaders handing out torches.



Granted, Kavanaugh is no angel. Still, the brouhaha about him pertains to something that he allegedly did while he was a minor.

Meanwhile, several women accused Bill Clinton of committing sexual assault while he was an elected public official. How did Democrats respond to those accusations?

Answer:



Attorney Laura Hollis has a message for the mob that is rampaging because of Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court:

There are reasons our legal system requires proof of allegations. Conviction by accusation has a horrific pedigree. The terms “witch hunt” and “lynching” are not hyperbole: In Salem, in 1692-93, 20 people were hanged — most of them women. Nearly 4,000 blacks were lynched in the U.S. between 1877 and 1950 — many for false accusations of sexual assault against white women.

People whipped into a fervor of righteous indignation, unconstrained by process and the rule of law, do unspeakably evil things. False accusations can destroy someone’s career, livelihood and reputation. (This is why we have defamation laws.)

We cannot punish one man for the sins of others. We cannot countenance the abolition of the presumption of innocence. Nor can we — even out of commiseration with the victim of an alleged assault — say her accusation is enough to convict someone, whether in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.

This isn’t cruel. It isn’t heartless. And it certainly isn’t patriarchy. It’s self-preservation. Women have been hanged. Women have been lynched. Women have been falsely accused and have been the false accusers.

If Brett Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, then Bill Clinton is one, too, and in 2016 the Democratic Party had a presidential nominee who defended a sexual predator.

If those who defend sexual predators shouldn't be in public office, then it was good that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Hypocrisy is alive and well.

-----
------
In comparing Clinton to Kavanaugh, what one is forgetting is the BEHAVIOR under questioning was not combative nor uncooperative and the mistress never claimed an assault or even brought forth any complaints AT ALL, that was all CERTAIN republicans, who if the same standards are applied, USED Lewinsky and hung her out to dry after.

Another key difference is all women went to the PUBLIC media instead of authorities, with the allegations

Another key difference is in the grown women who accused Clinton did not appear to be doing so in an attempt to maintain anonymity,(all women went to the PUBLIC media instead of authorities), with the allegations so publicity was a potential motive there.

Another difference, The alleged incidents with Clinton were also at a time when they were GROWN women, one who met him in her hotel room.

Another difference is the proof of harm, which none of the women had either, as none (to my knowledge) had sought counseling or had evidence of any other sort that a trauma had occurred to them. One of the women signed an affidavit that nothing had happened to her (Broaddick) until interviewed by certain republicans, nothing fishy there.

and none of the women, to my knowledge, took or passed any lie detectors. There was PLENTY room for doubt, and much less to corroborate their claims.


PLENTY of difference in what happened then and now, except of course, the party allegiance in saving their 'guy'. (democrats and republicans)

A big difference you seem to conveniently forget is that Clinton was the President when he did what he did with Lewinsky in the Office where world decisions were made;
and Kavanaugh was a minor if he did what he did.
his acceptance may be a poor reflection of the Senate but still, men redeem themselves when in great offices.

Clinton's behavior destroyed men world over. Some people may have difficulties in understanding this. In Asia, work is worship. Clinton not only destroyed this great principle and moral fabric but by doing so made us all suspect and alien to our wives, our daughters' friends.
and that includes me - it's personal.

Now you may come back with statistics on Basic Instincts - which means you misunderstand me so allow me ...

I knew a boss (in US - Indian born - dead now) who destroyed a saleswoman in his chamber and she left weeping and the VP (American) didn't say anything.
I left the company, (new then to US & was on work visa). Many others left later on. For the boss, the company was a money printing machine
For us, we were working with technology. The sales woman was a technology woman.

Otherwise Clinton was a great man, did a great job. He halted a war between India & Pakistan after a botched attempt to blow up Indian Parliament that was in session. And I didn't like Starr chasing him down - the damage was already done.

Americans are forgiving but Clinton's gall in coming back to support Clinton for re-election - the sickness had become the corporate norm. Working America hurried on.

all respect, it seems if men can 'redeem' themselves, Clintons achievements in his actual Job reflects that redemption.

all respect, it seems if men can 'redeem' themselves, Clintons achievements in his actual Job reflects that redemption.

Men in powerful and political positions throughout history have had mistresses and have had sex. It doesnt destroy much except maybe their own marriage. It is wrong and an offense to their wife and their God (if they believe in one) but has little to no impact upon the performance of whatever their job is or the people they impact with it.

Yes, it is a difference. The lewinsky scandal was about a consensual affair while in office. and the Ford scandal is about an alleged NON CONSENSUAL assault while in school.

Lewinsky as a consenting adult made no allegations or complaints. Ford, who was a minor at the time who was allegedly traumatically impacted, tried very anonymously to bring it to light.

My point is the democrat republican divide did not change. Under Clinton, although he behaved in a much more 'interview' like manner when being questioned, the dems did not support the charge and the republicans did. Under Kavanaugh, the republicans did not support the investigaton and the democrats did. Both parties are made of HUMAN BEINGS. and human beings dont behave in some strict accordance with political stereotypes, except that blind party allegiance in positions of power.

Hypocrisy is alive and well.

First, it is interesting to note how quickly the overgeneralizations and tired political stereotypes have been used to blur and distract from the issue with what happened with Kavanaugh.

Democrats are an 'angry mob', but the white nationalists who rallied in Charlottesville had 'good people', interesting, but not surprising. Politics is a ridiculously "its the other guys' topic.


It is also interesting how 'the democrats are guilty' rhetoric is prevalent in these threads, yet I dont think ANYONE keeping this topic going is a registered democrat(just a hunch)

In comparing Clinton to Kavanaugh, what one is forgetting is the BEHAVIOR under questioning was not combative nor uncooperative, there was no LAME excuses like personal calendars, alleged virginity, evil look alikes, farts, or sensitivity to spicy foods

and the mistress never claimed an assault or even brought forth any complaints AT ALL, that was all CERTAIN republicans, who if the same standards are applied, USED Lewinsky and hung her out to dry after.

Another key difference is all women went to the PUBLIC media instead of authorities, with the allegations

Another key difference is in the grown women who accused Clinton did not appear to be doing so in an attempt to maintain anonymity,(all women went to the PUBLIC media instead of authorities), with the allegations so publicity was a potential motive there.

Another difference, The alleged incidents with Clinton were also at a time when they were GROWN women, one who met him in her hotel room.

Another difference is the proof of harm, which none of the women had either, as none (to my knowledge) had sought counseling or had evidence of any other sort that a trauma had occurred to them. One of the women signed an affidavit that nothing had happened to her (Broaddick) until interviewed by certain republicans, nothing fishy there.

and none of the women, to my knowledge, took or passed any lie detectors. There was PLENTY room for doubt, and much less to corroborate their claims.


PLENTY of difference in what happened then and now, except of course, the party allegiance in saving their 'guy'. (democrats and republicans)