Share tries to dig herself out of her hole:
> I agree that no one knows what goes on in a marriage. However, when one
> willingly becomes a public figure, then one has to accept that one's private
> life
> is also going to come under scrutiny.
Yes, this is a recent but very unfortunate development when the private lives
in question have no bearing on the ability of the public figure to carry out
his or her responsibilities. That it's socially acceptable nowadays does not
mean one has to engage in such scrutiny and pronounce one's opinion on it. That
is not something a smart person with integrity would want to take advantage of,
IMHO.
> My opinion is based on the observable behaviors not on what I imagine anyone
> was thinking
> or feeling.
Share, you're only going to embarrass yourself in this discussion. In the
first place, I never said it was. But more importantly, you have no idea what
went on behind the "observable behaviors," and thus you aren't in a position to
have an opinion about whether those behaviors were appropriate.
Moreover, the "observable behaviors" don't give you a clue as to whether
Hillary was "acting like a doormat" or "enabling" Bill. Plus which, of course,
you yourself said you had "read" that Hillary "really loves Bill." So your
claim to be going only by "observable behaviors" is self-evidently false. You
are lying either to us or to yourself, or both.
And you never answered my earlier question: What made you think that Emily and
I would think you would vote for Hillary?
On Friday, November 1, 2013 3:54 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote:
What we should all recognize (but only some of us have the smarts to
understand) is that NOBODY KNOWS what goes on inside a marriage but the two
people in it. (Unless they choose to tell us; Bill and Hillary chose not to
tell us what went on between them with regard to the Monica affair. And good
for them; it's none of our damn business.)
We cannot know what contingencies, agreements, understandings, conditions,
promises, etc., etc., are operative in a given marriage (ESPECIALLY when it's
one we see only from a distance through the media).
It is the absolute height of arrogant stupidity to declare that he or she or
they should have done this, that, or the other thing in connection with a
marital problem.
It's fine to say, "If I were Hillary, I would have done thus-and-so."
(Although obviously you don't really know what you would have done given that
you don't know what it's like to be married to Bill.)
But for all we know, it could have been Bill who was the doormat in this
situation. Think about it. If you don't see how that might have been the case,
you have a very limited imagination, not to mention knowledge of human beings.
(Caveat for the brainlessly literal-minded: I'm not saying I think that WAS
the case, just that it could have been. It could have been a lot of other
things too. We simply do not know enough to have an opinion.)
Share spewed:
> MJ, IMO, that's where Hillary should have drawn the line with regards to his
> womanizing. I mean, that affair
> occurred on the world stage! And the woman was so young! I've read that
> Hillary really loves Bill. Even
> more reason she should have stopped enabling him. Long overdue IMO.
---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote:
Why would Hillary divorce him over that? He had already had numerous affairs
after he became governor in Arkansas - you don't understand the motivation of
such a person - its better to have a philandering husband who is President than
a faithful one who is a nobody.
