Trump fans spam Buzzfeed’s “Share Your Trump Story” page with rape jokes, Pepe references

That is exactly what I thought too Buttercup.

And apparently Hillary can’t condemn Trump’s comments because she likes Beyonce.

Actually you’re all wrong. We’re offended at the hypocrisy shown by everyone who supports Hillary by instantly giving unquestioned credit to last minute claims with specious credibility, when they’ve essentially ignored the whitewashing Hillary herself has done to Bill Clinton’ victims.

Put another way, there’s as much evidence against Bill Clinton as there is Bill Cosby, and I’m fairly certain you all have a pretty strong opinion about Bill Cosby. Either be consistent in your outrage or expect the rest of us to not take you seriously.

Actually you’re all wrong. We’re offended at the hypocrisy shown by everyone who supports Hillary

How does sending horrible rape jokes to Buzzfeed serve to point the “hypocrisy” of Clinton supporters?

How does this so-called hypocrisy excuse Trump’s behavior? Why are we supposed to ignore the accusations against Trump but hold the accusations against Bill Clinton against Hillary Clinton? You do know that Bill Clinton is not the one running, right?

Speaking of hypocrisy, Trump supporters have been absolutely reveling in his misogyny and saying misogynistic things themselves throughout this whole election. It’s a little late in the game to switch to a tactic of concern trolling about Hillary Clinton supposedly not caring about rape victims. Do you really expect us to buy this?

Hillary is not responsible for her husband’s crimes. That’s ridiculous.

@This hurts us all
Those with glass houses
Should not cry hypocrisy
With rape jokes on hand.

Kay Blame Bill
But not the one running,
Much Hypocrisy.

Trump fans revel
In misogyny and hate,
Their raison d’être.

If you’re using
Bill to help dismiss rape,
You’re worse than I thought.

Jokey poetry aside, time for walls of text that you won’t bother to read, because that would destroy your strawman belief that feminists only care about victims of rape when it suits them, look in the mirror.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

The audio on these tapes is difficult to understand, but Clinton can be heard describing the case as “terrible.” She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about “knowing that the defendant was guilty” or “getting a guilty guy off” (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant’s favor (i.e., observing that the defendant’s passing a polygraph test had “forever destroyed her faith” in that technology):

Finally, Hillary didn’t “free” the defendant in the case. Instead, the prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a five-year sentence, of which the judge suspended four years and allowed two months credit of time already served towards the remaining year:

Additionally, according to Newsday it was the complainant and her mother who pushed the state to make a quick plea deal rather than have the former go through the ordeal of a court trial, with the mother actively interfering in the investigation to bring about that result:

The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police, Sgt. Dale Gibson [the department’s lead investigator] recalls.

“We both wanted it to be over with,” the victim told Newsday. “They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time.”

Even now, that outcome is not unusual for violent criminal charges: 2014 statistics show that 97% of criminal cases (including rape) are resolved by plea bargain, and only 3% go to trial. The ratio of plea bargains to trials was similar in 1970 [PDF].

Additionally, that 1975 criminal case came before the widespread adoptions of rape shield laws that now protect rape victims in court from some forms of questioning. A case brought in 1975 would have been subject to much weaker legal protection for the accuser than today.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape

CNN reported that during a campaign stop in New Hampshire in Dec. 2015, a woman asked Clinton what she would say to Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Clinton responded, “Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/05/turning_bill_clinton_into_bill_cosby_sorry_conservatives_theres_a_massive_difference_between_their_sex_abuse_allegations/

Either way, the equation of the Clinton accusations and the Cosby accusations simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Cosby has been accused by more than 50 women of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, and there’s no reason to think anyone would lie about it. Clinton, in contrast, has been accused of sexual harassment by Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, and the only substantive accusation of rape, made by Juanita Broaddrick, was thoroughly investigated in the ’90s. There simply is no evidence, one way or another, to tell if this was a sincere accusation or yet another incident of a wild-eyed Clinton hater with a grudge telling tall tales of murder and mayhem coming from those dastardly and satanic Clintons. Not all rape allegations are the same. And it’s not feminists who are suggesting they should be treated that way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/lifestyle/bill-cosby-women-accusers/

Is this enough damned data for you? Is this enough to make you say “you’re right, why the hell am I making Hillary responsible for what her husband possibly did?”

@Podkayne

Red Lobster is kind of cheap for a man with that much money (I think that applies to Beyonce too)

Whoa there, hol up. Them cheddar biscuits tho? Those are godlike ?

Besides, it’s not just Red Lobster. She buys clothes too!
“Yep, I put it on him, it ain’t nothing that I can’t do
Yep, I buy my own. If he deserve it buy his shit too
All up in the store, shorty, tricking if I want to
All up in the store, shorty, fly as we want to”
-Beyonce, Countdown

I mean, it’s less weird than furniture…

@This hurts us all:
Let’s go through that first paragraph a line at a time. I wanted to do both paragraphs but wow, there’s a lot to unpack here.

Actually you’re all wrong. We’re offended

Firstly, you use “you” and “we” without explicitly stating who they are.

Secondly, even if we take the principle of charity, then we have to read this as you separating the world into two halves, those who vote for Clinton and those who do not, and ascribing a single unified opinion to each group.

This is probably less true during this election than almost any other. Some people who support Trump are neoconfederates; others are the most loyal remnants of the establishment, or the burgeoning alt-Right, or just people who are so misogynistic that they’ve stopped voting Democrat because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a woman. There are also Greens, Libertarians, McMullin supporters, that weird old guy who refuses to vote for any of them because they’re all white devils… these are not a homogenous group, and you cannot assume a position as a spokesman for all of them without at least some polling data.[1]

Thirdly, if we do not take the principle of charity then this gets to be an even more dislikeable position. What you’re doing here is suggesting that everyone is unified in opposition to the people you’re speaking to right now, and that WHTM readers stand in isolation. This is a very common emotional abuse technique, in which one preys on the human desire to conform to the group. It’s also an utterly reprehensible thing to do.

at the hypocrisy shown by everyone who supports Hillary

Again, this is not the case. A large number of people who have decided to vote for Clinton are open about the fact that they hate her, but hate Trump even more. Even among people who don’t hate Clinton, many have serious misgivings about one or another aspect of her behaviour, but are adult enough to weigh it against the other aspects and judge her by the balance.

Some Clinton supporters, for example, dislike how close she is to the finance industry. Others (including myself) dislike how close she has been to the military. Some definitely feel that her husband is a creep who has troubling attitudes towards women. Some feel that Sanders would have been better. However, the majority of them agree that in the balance she’s unmistakeably the right person for the job.

Many people who’ve declared that they will vote for Clinton are Republicans or former Republicans. Several of them are currently in elected office with Rs after their names. These are people who have no love for either Clinton, and who would have voted against them in the nineties, but have now come around.

In short, “everyone who supports Clinton” is a very large group with diverse positions; and to accuse them all of hypocrisy is a large step which requires commensurate evidence. [2]

by instantly

Bill Clinton’s troubling behaviour towards women, and the one claim of rape that actually surfaced, came out in the nineties. A child who was born at the time would be old enough to vote. We have all had a very long time to consider this. If this is your definition of “instantly”, you need a better clock.

giving unquestioned credit

Nobody’s giving unquestioned credit to anything: we are weighing it in the balance of what else is known. If Trump were well known as a respectful man who keeps his hands to himself, we would have laughed this off. However, he is known as the cardinal opposite of that, and so we are judging the claims in that light.

If you’re into science, this is known as the Bayesian approach. That term is sadly frequently misused by some parts of the interwubz, but it’s useful here in its original context.

to last minute claims

Trump’s attitudes towards women are anything but last minute. This is not new news. Everyone has had the opportunity to know about it for ages, if they chose to.

with specious credibility

The court system doesn’t think that the claims against Trump are specious; which is why he will be standing in the defendant’s dock later this year, even if he wins the election. When one considers how difficult it is to get a rape charge to court, it becomes clear that this is the opposite of specious credibility.

when they’ve essentially ignored the whitewashing Hillary herself has done to Bill Clinton’ [sic] victims.

Firstly, on a point of grammar, one cannot whitewash victims. Well, one can but it would mean that one is making them out to be even more innocent in the hopes of presenting the crime as worse. I think you mean the opposite of this.

Secondly, did you miss the part where Clinton and Lewinsky embraced on stage?

Clinton has done the exact opposite of whitewashing her husband’s misdeeds: she’s been admirably open about everything. What she has done is show adulthood and maturity[3] about it, and chosen to not hide the problematic issues while still remaining married to the man she loves.

(As an aside, this is probably an interesting point: people often accuse Clinton of being an emotionless robot, but she gets viciously attacked for those precisely those situations in which she shows emotional responses. It’s almost as if she’s wrong in whatever she does.)

* * *

Wow, that was the IKEA of statements. It bulks so small and yet when you unpack it, it’s huge.

* * *

[1] Which you do not have.

[2] Which you do not have.

[3] Which you do not have.

McCraw then laid into Kasowitz and his client, writing, “The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a ‘piece of ass.’ Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.”

http://desunhospital.com/backend/en/uploads/images/BURNS%20UNIT.jpg

Actually you’re all wrong. We’re offended at the hypocrisy shown by everyone who supports Hillary by instantly giving unquestioned credit to last minute claims with specious credibility, when they’ve essentially ignored the whitewashing Hillary herself has done to Bill Clinton’ victims.

Put another way, there’s as much evidence against Bill Clinton as there is Bill Cosby, and I’m fairly certain you all have a pretty strong opinion about Bill Cosby. Either be consistent in your outrage or expect the rest of us to not take you seriously.

Gosh you’re right, I definitely won’t be voting for Bill Clinton this election, then!

This business of Hillary “whitewashing” Bill’s victims is BS. There’s no question she didn’t respond particularly gracefully but I’m not sure why you would expect her to. Several of his accusers have made very nebulous claims of intimidation and it appears that Hillary at least went along with the hiring of a private investigator to discredit Gennifer Flowers. There’s a blurb from the diary of someone mentioning that Hillary called Monica Lewinski a “narcissistic looney-toon” but that was a private conversation and, again, most people wouldn’t be any more gracious in the same situation. Broadrick claims Hillary said “thanks for everything you’ve done for Bill” soon after the incident and took that to mean that Hillary somehow knew about the rape and was threatening her to keep her silent.

Whereas Trump is ACTUALLY. PUBLICLY. threatening to sue people.

Also finding it quite interesting that Hurt finds the accusations against Trump to not be credible but uncritically refers to Bill Clinton’s accusers as his victims. This, of course, despite the fact that the claims of Trumps accusers are entirely consistent with Trump’s own description of his behavior toward women.

Wow! These alt-right tweeters should be stand-up comics. Or writers for SNL. Hilarious!

They remind me of how my brothers (two of them nine years older than me and one of them five years older than me) used to mock me for being a girl.

When I would say something, they would repeat it in a falsetto.

Whatever opinion I had was stupid.

Not only that, I was fat and ugly.

See? Hilarious!