Political Sex Scandals

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sometimes, in some families, the children eventually come to an arrangement similar to that in "The Prisoner's Dilemma". Eventually they come to a point of "if you tell on me for A, I'll tell on you for B" and they agree to keep silent.

Not my family, of course. Getting the sibling into trouble was a form of entertainment for us, at any cost.

Well, a similar arrangement existed between the Democrats and the Republicans, especially after Bill Clinton was impeached as payback for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Yes, that's why it happened. No, it definitely was why it happened. And after that they adopted a bit of a neutrality so that Nancy Pelosi refused to impeach Bush.

That armistice is breaking down. Republicans are gleefully trotting out every Democrat sex scandal, and Democrats are gleefully trotting out every Republican sex scandal. They're not even making the standard "you're worse" argument or "tu quoque" argument, they're merely saying "look at what they did this time."

Cynthia McKinney (and I can't believe I'm referencing her, she's crazy) said that if you actually got rid of all the sex offenders from Congress it would basically clear out the place. I think that since the prisoner's dilemma has been violated, that might happen at the rate things are going. That would be a good thing.

 

[ElectEngr]

Shades of Salem, MA in the 1600's and McCarthyism.

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Shades of Salem, MA in the 1600's and McCarthyism.

I don't know. There weren't actually any witches amongst the victims in Salem and I'm not sure that there were really any Russian agents rounded up by McCarthy's shit (don't really know enough about that one to say for sure, though).

The sex scandals coming out today are against people who actually did things. Roy Moore was actually creeping on teenaged girls. Barton actually threatened to sic the Capitol Police on the woman who had a dick pic of him. Franken actually set up a "scene" in order to be able to grope that lady. The dude from Michigan actually used taxpayer funds to pay off a woman who complained about him sexually harassing her. Charlie Rose actually walked around naked infront of interns. Weinstein actually masturbated infront of women who came up to his hotel room for a meeting.

While the environment does lend to the potential of fake accusations destroying careers, the ones out there now are things which actually happened. The potential for abuse isn't a reason to be against getting all of this shit out into the open and get past people being quiet and perpetrators being able to continue to get away with it.

 

[Elixir]

Shades of Salem, MA in the 1600's and McCarthyism.

I don't know. There weren't actually any witches amongst the victims in Salem and I'm not sure that there were really any Russian agents rounded up by McCarthy's shit (don't really know enough about that one to say for sure, though).

The sex scandals coming out today are against people who actually did things. Roy Moore was actually creeping on teenaged girls. Barton actually threatened to sic the Capitol Police on the woman who had a dick pic of him. Franken actually set up a "scene" in order to be able to grope that lady. The dude from Michigan actually used taxpayer funds to pay off a woman who complained about him sexually harassing her. Charlie Rose actually walked around naked infront of interns. Weinstein actually masturbated infront of women who came up to his hotel room for a meeting.

While the environment does lend to the potential of fake accusations destroying careers, the ones out there now are things which actually happened. The potential for abuse isn't a reason to be against getting all of this shit out into the open and get past people being quiet and perpetrators being able to continue to get away with it.

The ability to leverage their power for sex has been a perennial "perk" for politicians. There will be much hair pulling and gnashing of teeth before they allow that institution to be dismantled.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This thread won't gain much traction, it doesn't bash just one particular party.

If it did, this thread would either become a dogpile or a mass defense, depending on the party chosen. As is, it is very difficult to dogpile one party and defend the other party at the same time without looking like a massive hypocrite.

 

[JohnG]

I think what we're seeing is a backlash against a known sexual harasser being elected president.

The message being sent to a generation of young men is that it's ok to sexually abuse women.

Women are countering.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why'd they wait for this known sexual harasser being elected president and not the previous sexual harassers being elected president?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why'd they wait for this known sexual harasser being elected president and not the previous sexual harassers being elected president?

Who waited?

 

[thebeave]

I think what we're seeing is a backlash against a known sexual harasser being elected president.

The message being sent to a generation of young men is that it's ok to sexually abuse women.

Women are countering.

Yeah, but Bill Clinton has been out of office for many years now. Sure took a long time to get the ball rolling.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think what we're seeing is a backlash against a known sexual harasser being elected president.

The message being sent to a generation of young men is that it's ok to sexually abuse women.

Women are countering.

Yeah, but Bill Clinton has been out of office for many years now. Sure took a long time to get the ball rolling.

Do you understand the difference between unwanted sexual assault and consensual sex? Secondly, are you trying to say that since Clinton was punished, but wasn't impeached by the senate, that all future presidents have permission to commit sexual assault?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think what we're seeing is a backlash against a known sexual harasser being elected president.

The message being sent to a generation of young men is that it's ok to sexually abuse women.

Women are countering.

Yeah, but Bill Clinton has been out of office for many years now. Sure took a long time to get the ball rolling.

Do you understand the difference between unwanted sexual assault and consensual sex? Secondly, are you trying to say that since Clinton was punished, but wasn't impeached by the senate, that all future presidents have permission to commit sexual assault?

Do you understand that Bill Clinton is accused of both?

Oh sorry, we're only allowed to talk about the affairs, not the other stuff.

By the way, Bill was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. The House impeaches by making the formal accusation, the Senate conducts the trial.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yeah, but Bill Clinton has been out of office for many years now. Sure took a long time to get the ball rolling.

Do you understand the difference between unwanted sexual assault and consensual sex? Secondly, are you trying to say that since Clinton was punished, but wasn't impeached by the senate, that all future presidents have permission to commit sexual assault?

Do you understand that Bill Clinton is accused of both?

Oh sorry, we're only allowed to talk about the affairs, not the other stuff.

By the way, Bill was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. The House impeaches by making the formal accusation, the Senate conducts the trial.

Let's cut to the chase. I do not think that having an affair with a consenting adult is grounds for impeachment. I don't consider it a high crime. I think that rape and sexual assault are higher crimes and might constitute reasons for impeachment. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yeah, but Bill Clinton has been out of office for many years now. Sure took a long time to get the ball rolling.

Do you understand the difference between unwanted sexual assault and consensual sex? Secondly, are you trying to say that since Clinton was punished, but wasn't impeached by the senate, that all future presidents have permission to commit sexual assault?

Do you understand that Bill Clinton is accused of both?

Oh sorry, we're only allowed to talk about the affairs, not the other stuff.

By the way, Bill was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. The House impeaches by making the formal accusation, the Senate conducts the trial.

BTW: I never believed the unwanted sexual assaults alleged against Bill. The alleged victims lost credibility by not having evidence and seemingly to have a political vendetta against the Clintons. They were all conservatives who hated Clinton. Some of the Moore accusers appear to have proof. Their are secondary verifications for them as well (police were warned in advance when he'd troll the malls). He's made odd statements that give the charges credence. Same with Trumpster.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you understand the difference between unwanted sexual assault and consensual sex? Secondly, are you trying to say that since Clinton was punished, but wasn't impeached by the senate, that all future presidents have permission to commit sexual assault?

Do you understand that Bill Clinton is accused of both?

Oh sorry, we're only allowed to talk about the affairs, not the other stuff.

By the way, Bill was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. The House impeaches by making the formal accusation, the Senate conducts the trial.

Let's cut to the chase. I do not think that having an affair with a consenting adult is grounds for impeachment. I don't consider it a high crime. I think that rape and sexual assault are higher crimes and might constitute reasons for impeachment. Do you agree or disagree?

What's the deal with everyone pretending that Bill was only accused of affairs and not accused of more?

According to feminists we should always listen and believe, except if it is Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey.

Say the accusations were baseless if you want, but don't pretend they don't exist.

By the way, he wasn't impeached for the affair, but that's another area where pretending trumps reality. If you were to read the articles of impeachment, would you find the affair as one of the charges?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, given that we are no longer pretending that Bill was accused of just having extramarital affairs, let's get back to topic.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Do you understand that Bill Clinton is accused of both?

Oh sorry, we're only allowed to talk about the affairs, not the other stuff.

By the way, Bill was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. The House impeaches by making the formal accusation, the Senate conducts the trial.

Let's cut to the chase. I do not think that having an affair with a consenting adult is grounds for impeachment. I don't consider it a high crime. I think that rape and sexual assault are higher crimes and might constitute reasons for impeachment. Do you agree or disagree?

What's the deal with everyone pretending that Bill was only accused of affairs and not accused of more?

According to feminists we should always listen and believe, except if it is Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey.

Say the accusations were baseless if you want, but don't pretend they don't exist.

By the way, he wasn't impeached for the affair, but that's another area where pretending trumps reality. If you were to read the articles of impeachment, would you find the affair as one of the charges?

Yea, I just never believed Broaddrick, Jones, or Willey. They appeared to have axes to grind. They were bitter and hated the Clintons. I think that this was further born out when they sat in the front row of the presidential debate in order to intimidate HRC. They didn't act like victims to me. Jesus Christ, Ken Starr was the most through and obsessed investigator in the history of the world. I'm sure if there were any evidence in favor of these women, he would have found it. And he didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

So, given that we are no longer pretending that Bill was accused of just having extramarital affairs, let's get back to topic.

What is the topic of this thread? That there are sex scandals on both sides? Holy shit batman! That's shocking!!!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you don't agree with "listen and believe" and "women don't lie about rape"? You'd make an excellent anti-feminist. Good job continuing the derail by the way.

 

[Toni]

Let's cut to the chase. I do not think that having an affair with a consenting adult is grounds for impeachment. I don't consider it a high crime. I think that rape and sexual assault are higher crimes and might constitute reasons for impeachment. Do you agree or disagree?

What's the deal with everyone pretending that Bill was only accused of affairs and not accused of more?

According to feminists we should always listen and believe, except if it is Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey.

Say the accusations were baseless if you want, but don't pretend they don't exist.

By the way, he wasn't impeached for the affair, but that's another area where pretending trumps reality. If you were to read the articles of impeachment, would you find the affair as one of the charges?

Yea, I just never believed Broaddrick, Jones, or Willey. They appeared to have axes to grind. They were bitter and hated the Clintons. I think that this was further born out when they sat in the front row of the presidential debate in order to intimidate HRC. They didn't act like victims to me. Jesus Christ, Ken Starr was the most through and obsessed investigator in the history of the world. I'm sure if there were any evidence in favor of these women, he would have found it. And he didn't.

I am...neutral/leaning towards believing Clinton's accusers.

I am not certain that I understand why one would not expect any of them to be bitter towards either/both Clintons if their stories were true or mostly true. I agree that Ken Starr was pretty obsessive but I also remember the times quite well. Bill Clinton was a powerful man and it was just as inconceivable to most people then as it is now that any woman would turn down such a powerful man. I mean, we have posters on this forum who cannot believe that Sly Stallone could not have absolutely any woman he wanted because he was so fit.

I just went back and refreshed my memory from the Senate's impeachment vote. The vote was almost entirely along party lines. There were very few women in the Senate. That matters. Just as it matters during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, there were ZERO women to hear Anita Hill's testimony. ZERO.

At the time I believed--and still do-- that there never should have been charges brought against Clinton with reference to Lewinsky. That relationship was completely consensual, if something I found personally repugnant. I thought that Clinton should have refused to answer questions about his sex life. Period. Full Stop. It was and is no one else's business, except his and his partners' (including Hillary).

I am generally considered liberal but I never voted for Bill Clinton.

While I most often disagree with Jason Harvestdancer's posts, I agree that the accusations of criminal behavior against Bill Clinton should not be forgotten or swept under the rug, but fully acknowledged, whether one believes the charges or does not.

I find it utterly and completely incomprehensible that anyone could trot out Clinton's indiscretions and/or accusations against him and vote for Donald Trump. But then, I find voting for Trump to be absolutely incomprehensible on the face of it. But that particular bit of hypocrisy is mind boggling.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What's the deal with everyone pretending that Bill was only accused of affairs and not accused of more?

According to feminists we should always listen and believe, except if it is Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey.

Say the accusations were baseless if you want, but don't pretend they don't exist.

By the way, he wasn't impeached for the affair, but that's another area where pretending trumps reality. If you were to read the articles of impeachment, would you find the affair as one of the charges?

Yea, I just never believed Broaddrick, Jones, or Willey. They appeared to have axes to grind. They were bitter and hated the Clintons. I think that this was further born out when they sat in the front row of the presidential debate in order to intimidate HRC. They didn't act like victims to me. Jesus Christ, Ken Starr was the most through and obsessed investigator in the history of the world. I'm sure if there were any evidence in favor of these women, he would have found it. And he didn't.

I am...neutral/leaning towards believing Clinton's accusers.

I am not certain that I understand why one would not expect any of them to be bitter towards either/both Clintons if their stories were true or mostly true. I agree that Ken Starr was pretty obsessive but I also remember the times quite well. Bill Clinton was a powerful man and it was just as inconceivable to most people then as it is now that any woman would turn down such a powerful man. I mean, we have posters on this forum who cannot believe that Sly Stallone could not have absolutely any woman he wanted because he was so fit.

I just went back and refreshed my memory from the Senate's impeachment vote. The vote was almost entirely along party lines. There were very few women in the Senate. That matters. Just as it matters during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, there were ZERO women to hear Anita Hill's testimony. ZERO.

At the time I believed--and still do-- that there never should have been charges brought against Clinton with reference to Lewinsky. That relationship was completely consensual, if something I found personally repugnant. I thought that Clinton should have refused to answer questions about his sex life. Period. Full Stop. It was and is no one else's business, except his and his partners' (including Hillary).

I am generally considered liberal but I never voted for Bill Clinton.

While I most often disagree with Jason Harvestdancer's posts, I agree that the accusations of criminal behavior against Bill Clinton should not be forgotten or swept under the rug, but fully acknowledged, whether one believes the charges or does not.

I find it utterly and completely incomprehensible that anyone could trot out Clinton's indiscretions and/or accusations against him and vote for Donald Trump. But then, I find voting for Trump to be absolutely incomprehensible on the face of it. But that particular bit of hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Good and thoughtful post. Again, for me, their charges just seemed to be aimed at hurting Clinton. So, maybe we should have allowed Starr to investigate further? I don't know. But even if the charges were true, that doesn't mean that we should let Moore and Trump off the hook. The biggest Clinton hater must admit that Clinton was incredibly investigated. Where is the scrutiny on the republicans?

Secondly, I will admit that I find a level of satisfaction when the morally pure republicans are found to be hypocrites. There are many many people who only vote republicans because they are perceived to be the party of god. And yet they sometimes cheat on their wives, rape women, separate families, and etc.

At the end of the day, sexual harassment needs to stop and not thrown under the rug. I have three daughters. But it seems to me that if these Christian hypocrites would concentrate on fixing themselves rather than condemning others that we would be better off.

 

[Toni]

Yea, I just never believed Broaddrick, Jones, or Willey. They appeared to have axes to grind. They were bitter and hated the Clintons. I think that this was further born out when they sat in the front row of the presidential debate in order to intimidate HRC. They didn't act like victims to me. Jesus Christ, Ken Starr was the most through and obsessed investigator in the history of the world. I'm sure if there were any evidence in favor of these women, he would have found it. And he didn't.

I am...neutral/leaning towards believing Clinton's accusers.

I am not certain that I understand why one would not expect any of them to be bitter towards either/both Clintons if their stories were true or mostly true. I agree that Ken Starr was pretty obsessive but I also remember the times quite well. Bill Clinton was a powerful man and it was just as inconceivable to most people then as it is now that any woman would turn down such a powerful man. I mean, we have posters on this forum who cannot believe that Sly Stallone could not have absolutely any woman he wanted because he was so fit.

I just went back and refreshed my memory from the Senate's impeachment vote. The vote was almost entirely along party lines. There were very few women in the Senate. That matters. Just as it matters during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, there were ZERO women to hear Anita Hill's testimony. ZERO.

At the time I believed--and still do-- that there never should have been charges brought against Clinton with reference to Lewinsky. That relationship was completely consensual, if something I found personally repugnant. I thought that Clinton should have refused to answer questions about his sex life. Period. Full Stop. It was and is no one else's business, except his and his partners' (including Hillary).

I am generally considered liberal but I never voted for Bill Clinton.

While I most often disagree with Jason Harvestdancer's posts, I agree that the accusations of criminal behavior against Bill Clinton should not be forgotten or swept under the rug, but fully acknowledged, whether one believes the charges or does not.

I find it utterly and completely incomprehensible that anyone could trot out Clinton's indiscretions and/or accusations against him and vote for Donald Trump. But then, I find voting for Trump to be absolutely incomprehensible on the face of it. But that particular bit of hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Good and thoughtful post. Again, for me, their charges just seemed to be aimed at hurting Clinton. So, maybe we should have allowed Starr to investigate further? I don't know. But even if the charges were true, that doesn't mean that we should let Moore and Trump off the hook. The biggest Clinton hater must admit that Clinton was incredibly investigated. Where is the scrutiny on the republicans?

Secondly, I will admit that I find a level of satisfaction when the morally pure republicans are found to be hypocrites. There are many many people who only vote republicans because they are perceived to be the party of god. And yet they sometimes cheat on their wives, rape women, separate families, and etc.

At the end of the day, sexual harassment needs to stop and not thrown under the rug. I have three daughters. But it seems to me that if these Christian hypocrites would concentrate on fixing themselves rather than condemning others that we would be better off.

Trump and Moore and others should be investigated--thoroughly. Trump's bragging of sexual assault (although he doesn't call it that) are more than sufficient for me to believe that he has a long history of sexually harassing and assaulting women, without knowing of other charges of rape against him. To me, his own brags were sufficient to disqualify him from holding any public office. That's not even getting into his 'political' views or his diminished cognitive abilities. Or ethics. Or personality. Or a host of other characteristics that I find disqualifying.

The fact that Clinton's accusers intended to harm him politically is not surprising and especially not surprising that they had the support they did from those who supported them. This does not make them less credible, imo.