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.
then paying off said pornstar to interfere with the election outcomes?
You forgot the most important part: Feloniously classifying those payments as “legal expenses.”
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.
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.
When a power imbalance that vast is concerned consent doesn’t exist.
At the time, sure. However, over a decade after the fact:
Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults…
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”.
“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Lewinsky said.
“I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances — and the ability to abuse them — do exist even when the sex has been consensual,)” she wrote.
“But it’s … very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? ‘To give permission for something to happen.’ And yet what did the ‘something’ mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted — with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.)
“He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college,” she said.
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?
“Sure my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship,” she wrote for Vanity Fair in 2014.
Four years later, she wrote for the same magazine changing her position on whether that consent was relevant given the power imbalance between an intern and a president.
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”.
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?
For anyone reading this who might be advocating violence elsewhere:
-
This will not go the way you think it will.
-
“Where we go one, we go all” yeah, and I can tell you right now where y’all are going:
Thats a really nice cell. I dont think they’ll be going to a place like that.
The funny thing is that if Trump is sent to prison from a Manhattan court, he’s going to Rikers Island
It would be so cool if Trump went to Rikers Island so that @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world can post Riker playing the sad trombone again.
A Riker for Rikers!
Yeah, what is that, a cell in Norway?
Way too restrictive for a Norwegian prison. Norwegian prisons have proper window at least
Its the basement guest rooms of Mar-a-lago
Image search suggests it’s an ADX supermax in Colorado
Supermax cell. ;)
…but I’ll allow it if they could all just go to one of those.
I had forgotten all about wiggywagga. What a bunch of loons.
-
I present to you, the Law and Order people.
BUM-BUM, da da da duh DUN
These are the same people that constantly chanted “lock her up”.
I like to play fun little game matching Trumpanzees’ hypocrisies to the exact analogous situation. I already used “lock her up” to match the classified documents felonies. I think I’d use something else to match this one, like something about them screeching over “terrorists” “flooding” across the border. They are the terrorists and always were.
Does anyone know if the fed is protecting these people? Or if they will?
State court, so whatever special court security plus NYPD. That’s just protecting. The use of telephone or internet to make threats puts FBI in the mix.
…bright side, the NYPD attacks first and asks questions later? Finally a use for their brutality?
Though I’m not sure how that plays out when most of the trumpies are WASPs.
You ever see a cop beat a Trump supporter? I haven’t. I’ve seen many videos of cops beating liberals, “Antifa”, and non-whites though.
Um… yeah… about that…
They got that far because they were treated very differently than the BLM protesters the summer before.
To be fair to them, I wouldn’t punch one of my coworkers either.
Wasn’t Ronald McDonald telling them to not hold their head down when putting them in the car and “not be so nice”? Or does that only apply to someone peacefully protesting one of Ronald McDonald’s Nuremberg rallies?
I wish they’d capture the reactions of these twerps when the “deep state” comes knocking on their door.
I would pay whatever subscription they ask for CSPAN+ if I could watch MAGA terrorists being arrested and the bomb squads looking through their terror shacks.
FBI needs to start rounding all these fuckers up and lock them away. I hope we see thousands of these idiots in prison cells before November. Keep talking shit and making threats! The “Deep State” is coming for you!
We’ve needed some of that deep state to be monitoring and disrupting maga terrorist cells for some time now. I’d really like to see some of that.
But DHS gave an honest assessment of the real domestic terrorist threat (the right wing) at the tail end of the Dumbya regime, and the Republicans freaked the hell out about it.
Good luck. These people live on Manhattan. The downtown ones might have doormen. The uptown ones might live in a building with non-white people, possibly with doormen too.
Trump supporters won’t last a few hours without someone telling them to go fuck themselves back to Topeka.
Gotta get that good Seattle energy going
Someone posted a gif of that punch the other day, but they skipped over the portion where he is lying face down on the pavement. The longer gif really adds some depth to it.
Topeka? That’s way too urban for those fools.
