465
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
465 points (98.3% liked)
politics
18901 readers
3438 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
These are the same republicans who are still clutching their pearls for Bill Clinton getting a consensual BJ.
Sleeping with a pornstar while cheating on your 3rd wife, then paying off said pornstar to interfere with the election outcomes? - republicans see no crime there.
I really hate when people call it consensual. There's no reason to downplay how fucking creepy the power and balance of that interaction was. Doesn't do anyone any good to pretend like a sexual predator isn't a sexual predator.
If you aren't Monica Lewinsky, I'm not really interested in hearing your opinion about the consent. She's more than capable of talking about her agency in that interaction, on her own. It's too bad she's never talked ab--
oh wait, she most certainly has: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-speaks
Talking about it in these terms makes it seem like she's just a puppet. She's a person, and she made choices. (Which she regrets, but she still owns that she made those choices.)
Okay, but she was a freaking intern and he was the president. It’s an inappropriate professional relationship. You get fired for pulling something like that at most companies simply because there is a reporting relationship.
Sure. Inappropriate, a firing offense, etc. All true. She even describes the treatment she received after it came out as "abuse". All valid.
Still consensual. Still not someone else's place to talk about whether it was her decision or not; it was, and she has said so.
When a power imbalance that vast is concerned consent doesn't exist.
At the time, sure. However, over a decade after the fact:
So if the power imbalance was why she consented, you'd think she'd set the record straight and say she was pressured or forced into it despite saying yes at the time. But she didn't. Ergo, she consented and your argument is invalid.
Did she not? She says it "constituted a gross abuse of power".
https://apnews.com/article/ab9adc492bf54cd4abcf8d162ed099b3
Do you think maybe the problem is your entire argument hinges on a 2014 article and as she grew older she changed her view on the matter?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/monica-lewinsky-calls-bill-clinton-190025758.html
"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all." -Geralt of Rivia
A cool quote...but fictional and not applicable in the real world. Has "both sides are the same so I'm not gonna vote" energy, which let's the greater evil win. Kudos for maintaining neutrality and helping screw everyone over.
I am voting. And I would vote for Bill Clinton in a heartbeat over either option right now. Life was good in the 90s/00s. Doesn't mean he isn't a piece of shit just like every other option for the last 30 years (minus maybe Obama). Just because Trump is a worse piece of shit Doesn't make the rest of them not pieces of shit. They are All Peices of shit equally, some of them just have qualities that effect my life in negative ways. Which makes them worse, for me. But neither of them deserve kudos for being "less evil".
I remember sooooo many Republicans/cons at the time that were losing their mud over it. Red-faced, yelling, they would honestly say that he should be in front of a firing squad. They'd say this kind of thing out loud.
I remember asking one I knew quite well more about this - asking what law he broke, asking if it was actually illegal to get a blowjob from someone not your wife. Their response: "But it should be illegal!!!" They were so angry at this point that they were beet red, and it was pretty much the end of the conversation - they were essentially speechless.
All the cons were, and still are, apoplectic over Clinton getting some head from someone not his wife. Just ask some old con you know.
For some weird reason, they don't seem to remember or care about Newt doing the exact same thing. And now, of course, they could GAF about Ronald McDonald banging a porn star, paying her off and covering that up, violating many actual laws.
You forgot the most important part: Feloniously classifying those payments as "legal expenses."
They are not. Those were conservatives. They still exist as the more “moderate” right. You hear them pipe up against “the excessive flow of migrants,” and label transgender support as “inappropriate bedroom behavior.”
These are MAGA Republicans or far-right Trump loyalists that will do anything to see their choice of dictator reign supreme.
Both groups will vote for Trump in November.
If it talks like MAGA and if it votes like MAGA, it is MAGA
So everyone on the left is progressive then? No liberals?