Search Results: could i be pregnant

Chelsea Clinton and Rebecca Hubbell.#BillClintonSon pic.twitter.com/LX9ezRkE6V

— Danney Williams (@danney_williams) June 18, 2018

Radar Online reports, June 25, 2014, that former Clinton aide and close friend Larry Nichols, who was also the Clintons’ killer-for-hire (see “Bombshell: Long-time Clinton associate says he killed people for Bill & Hillary“), claims that Bill once told him he was not the biological father of Chelsea, and that Chelsea’s real father is Webster Hubbell, the former mayor of Little Rock, Ark. and Hillary’s one-time law partner.

Nichols lives in Charlotte, N. C. with his wife Suzy and four children.

Radar Online points out this isn’t the first time the rumor mill has circulated around 34-year-old Chelsea.

On June 2, 2014, The New Yorker cited anti-Clinton blogger Robert Morrow’s claims that Hillary and Webster had had an affair in 1984 during Bill’s second term as governor of Arkansas.

At the same time, Bill – who later admitted to numerous affairs with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky – was involved in a paternity scandal of his own, that he got a local woman pregnant.

Nichols said, “We were discussing this woman’s claims that Bill had knocked her up and what we should do about it. But he [Bill Clinton] denied that he could have gotten her pregnant. He said he had measles as a kid and that rendered him sterile. His exact words were, ‘I shoot blanks.’ Stunned by what I’d just heard, I asked him, ‘Then what about Chelsea?’ And he said, ‘Oh, Webb (Hubbell) sired her.’”

As the governor of Arkansas, Bill appointed Hubbell as Chief Justice of the Arkansas State Supreme Court. Ten years later, Hubbell resigned just before pleading guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion for overbilling clients and served 15 months in prison.

Asymmetric romantic attraction is one person has feelings and the other does not. The person who has feelings isn’t thinking clearly because chemicals are (naturally) being released in their brains compromising their judgment. But the other person can see everything as plain as day because they aren’t attracted to them hence little/no brain chemicals.

So person who has no feelings has to make a decision on how to handle a person they have influence over. The moral thing to do is be tactfully honest with the other person (and do it early). But we don’t live in a moral world so the following usually happens:

Scenario #1: Man manipulates the woman into sex when she is thinking there is going to be a relationship. Worst case scenario he gets her pregnant and abandones her.

Scenario #2: Woman manipulated the man into thinking she likes him when she doesn’t. She does this for attention, favors, free meals, free counseling, etc (stereotypical friéndzone).

Worst case scenario is she is a gold digger. Yeah she has to give him up to him at the point but she gets a huge payout for faking it. She will likely divorce him and screw him over in alimony (and she likely cheated during the marriage). She never had feelings for at all. Just a good actress.

Now roles can be reversed at times. Some women do use men only for sex and some men do seek out “suger mamas”. Some men do friéndzone women for their own ends. However for is just not as common. However I will say it is at least biologically natural to want to have sex with someone even if you don’t want a relationship. However using a person for money, ego, attention, favors, etc is downright conceited.

Anyway I got in a long “debate” with a feminist on here who believed that men should be held liable if they mislead a woman into sex. But she had no problem with women taking advantage of men via the friéndzone or worse (gold diggers). Not kidding.

I argue that BOTH genders need to watch out for themselves.