Talk:Bill Clinton

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Lurleen Wallace link

Read those two sections from WP's Lurleen Wallace's link. It is a fascinating and tragic tail. And trust me, Southerners are well aware of the history. Mrs. George C. Wallace won with 63%. She died almost exactly one month after Martin Luther King's murder, and almost exactly one month before Bobby Kennedy's murder, in the midst of the 1968 primaries. And there is absolutley no doubt, since the days David Marinass first talked about the Clinton's remaining in electoral politics beyond the White House back c. 1997-98, everyone who knows anything, they got the idea from George & Lurleen Wallace probably way back in the 1970s when they first met. And Wallace stold the idea (as the WP article says) from a Texas couple in the 1920s. This small bit deserves attention somewhere, I propose here, cause in the Hilary page (where it is gonna end up on some wikis) it will seem less critical, if one looks at it that way. This will be not only discussed as a 2016 General Election issue, it is already part of the Clinton legacy. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 04:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"American Muslims should somehow have to prove their loyalty to America"

Whatever Sandroid wrote this is a fucking nutter. All he said was 'vote for my wife'. There's plenty to nail the Clintons on without making stuff out of whole cloth. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Doubtless this will be reverted. But the content of the revision was kept and re-distributed under "It's the economy" and "First Husband". The only stuff I cut was the partisan hack video by some anti-immigrant think tank welp. Plutoniumboss (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your persecution complex is getting more ridiculous by the day. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

And your sorority girl slacktivism is getting more repellant.

NumbersUSA is an immigration reduction organization that seeks to reduce US immigration levels to pre-1965 levels without country of origin quotas as established in the Immigration Act of 1924. It advocates for immigration reduction through user-generated fax, email, and direct mail campaigns. NumbersUSA also seeks to educate the public about the environmental, social, and economic impacts of immigration policy. - WikiPedia

This is what you've restored and linked to RW. Nice one, Bernout. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Juanita Broaddrick and Otner Allegations

Conspicuously absent from this article is any mention of Juanita Broaddrick, whose allegations are more credible than many of us would like to believe. Shouldn't her allegations be mentioned? And Paula Jones's allegations have never been discredited.

This wiki is supposed to be based on cold hard facts, not political beliefs (the commentary does lean left, but RationalWiki also calls out charlatans on the left). There's enough merit to the allegations that they deserve to be explored here. ^{— Unsigned, by: 32.211.200.100 / talk 16:49, 4 February 2018‎}

You didn't read the read the article very carefully. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"Bubba" "Slick Willie"

Isn't this just snark or should it be removed?King Tempest 23:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is snark, and the nick-names are real but only used by his enemies. They don't belong as part of Clinton's proper name in the introduction. We can make a list of insults used by Clinton's enemies. Are we his enemies? Ariel31459 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand, then moving it a bit further on the page should be fine.King Rimuru 01:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the whole intro is packed with snark. Both pro and anti-Clinton. Are you sure you aren't being hyper-sensitive. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. I always cool my fervor on such matters by asking, "who's gonna read this thing anyway?" On the other hand, bubba and slick willie are names for Clinton favored by republicans. Are we republicans? What about "The Big Dog?", "The Comeback Kid?" and "The First Black President?" eh?Ariel31459 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I consider myself independent, while I have views from both sides I rather not involve myself in the political aspect much. So to me it doesn't matter if it's pro or anti-Clinton, I just want it to be a good article without too much bias (considering the fact all articles have bias no matter how small it is) and good enough that the higher-ups will find it ok (cant say acceptable for everyone as not everyone will agree.)Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 01:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I started the discussion as Ariel removed it last time, but I wasn't sure if it was ok or not so I reverted it and started this thread.Ultimate Slime 01:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for sharing your opinions, and participating in the editing process. Plutoniumboss (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Does John Podesta have an actual sex-related offense?

Because I found this:

"But is it really surprising when your former President is buddies with multiple sex criminals[68][69][70][71] (along with shady-ass John Podesta)"

This seems to have been written in somewhat confusing ways - unless, I've missed something, of course.