• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Just like when he told the entire USA “I did not. have. sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Lewinsky…”

    But then he actually did.

    • nickiwest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      12 hours ago

      That depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

      Seriously, though, he stated later that he was interpreting the definition of “sexual relations” to mean that he had touched her in sexual ways. Apparently he was only ever on the receiving end, and therefore his claim was that she had “sexual relations” with him, but not vice versa. In his view, his response followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law. He wasn’t found guilty of perjury, so apparently he wasn’t entirely wrong, legally speaking.

      Now … Is he a POS who cheated on his wife? Maybe. The Republican rumor mill (AKA Rush Limbaugh) claimed for years that they had an open marriage and were both sleeping with other people. That’s the sort of thing that a lot of people are okay with now, but it was not talked about in polite society in the '90s. I’ve always thought that if Hillary was willing to stand by him after everything that came out, then we probably shouldn’t judge him on her behalf.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Well there was the whole cigar thing. Either way, we know he’s wiling to lie to the world.

      • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Since when is consensually sticking your dick in someone’s mouth not a sexual touch?? “Sexual” is literally the only way to describe that.

      • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I don’t know if it makes sense to view their marriage through the lens of normal romance. I see them as having devoted their lives to building a political dynasty, and I think they wouldn’t get divorced unless it served that end.

        • nickiwest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I agree. People get married for all kinds of reasons. They may have married for political power, and they may well have an open marriage. Nobody really knows what happens in anyone else’s relationship.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Down vote away but I’ve always agreed with Clinton’s definition. If your buddy bragged that they had sex with somebody and it turned out they only got a BJ, then I’d call them a liar.

        • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          But if she turned out to be a minor, “my buddy” is still a child rapist. The whole point of the phrase “sexual relations” is to make it inexact enough to include all sexual acts. How anyone can believe someone getting their dick sucked is uninvolved in the act is just baffling.

        • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Your buddy would have also bragged about the fact that he used her pussy as a humidor instead of trying to talk about the definition of is.