• phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think anybody thought it was okay. You do understand that there is this thing where both sides are wrong? That was clear from day one.

    Yes, Clinton should have been fired. What about Reagan though? Thanks to his cabinet for which he was responsible, thousands of innocents died. What about Nixon? He barely got what he deserved. What about bush, starting a war over lies (false pretenses is way understating it) that cost the lives of thousands upon thousands on all sides… The fucker should have been in jail.

    I think there were way worse things going on on presidencies than a blowjob with an iffy power balance and concensus

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      If POTUS and and intern represent an iffy power balance, what does an actual power imbalance look like? Even in this post, you are still minimizing his culpability. And sure, you are spot on about those Republicans, but that’s irrelevant to the point you responded to.

      Yes, the overarching consensus among establishment friendly Democrats has been to completely ignore what we learned about Bill Clinton in that incident. Sure, leave him in office if the Republican option is worse (and they always are), but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.

        I truly don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of seeming to defend bad actions, but, you are assuming coercion and non-consensual behavior though, are you not?

        If so, do we know this for a fact?

        Maybe others who judge them otherwise consider what they did as consensual and non-coerced activities.

        My point is just how other people judge the actions when judging the person, not if I personally thought the actions were correct or not. Personally I would have turned down a consensual offer in the work office.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The whole point of the power imbalance is that true consent can never actually be communicated and, therefore, can never actually be known. If I offer to stick my dick in my secretary’s mouth, does she say “yes” because she’s into it, or because she’s afraid of retribution? How do I tell the difference? If HR finds out, they won’t try to tell the difference, they will show me the door.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          When a power imbalance is that large, consent cannot truly exist.

          Clinton was the Harvey Weinstein of Presidents.