• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Political Sex Scandals

Even (especially) from a.completely non-partisan angle - it was known that 45 is a sexual harasser, yet he still became president.

I think if I were a woman, especially a victim, Id be calling every scumbag out no matter what color rock they live under.

The whataboutism just makes it even scummier.
 
Just wanted to raise a factual point here. Bill Clinton was never impeached for having sex with anyone, consensual or non-consensual. He was impeached on two charges: perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied under oath and attempted to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. The Senate considered the charges but did not agree that his perjury or the cover-up met the criteria for impeachment of a president as spelled out in the Constitution. One can quibble over the "real" reasons why he was impeached and acquitted, but those are the facts. Furthermore, because of his perjury, Bill Clinton's law license was suspended in Arkansas for 5 years, and he was forced to resign from the Supreme Court bar. That is, he could no longer do what he had never done or had any intention of doing, i.e. argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. Also, Clinton accepted a modest fine for have committed perjury.
 
Just wanted to raise a factual point here. Bill Clinton was never impeached for having sex with anyone, consensual or non-consensual. He was impeached on two charges: perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied under oath and attempted to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. The Senate considered the charges but did not agree that his perjury or the cover-up met the criteria for impeachment of a president as spelled out in the Constitution. One can quibble over the "real" reasons why he was impeached and acquitted, but those are the facts. Furthermore, because of his perjury, Bill Clinton's law license was suspended in Arkansas for 5 years, and he was forced to resign from the Supreme Court bar. That is, he could no longer do what he had never done or had any intention of doing, i.e. argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. Also, Clinton accepted a modest fine for have committed perjury.

This is all quite true.


It still makes me wonder why Clinton did not do what I still consider to be the decent as well as prudent thing: Refuse to discuss his sex life.
 
Just wanted to raise a factual point here. Bill Clinton was never impeached for having sex with anyone, consensual or non-consensual. He was impeached on two charges: perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied under oath and attempted to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. The Senate considered the charges but did not agree that his perjury or the cover-up met the criteria for impeachment of a president as spelled out in the Constitution. One can quibble over the "real" reasons why he was impeached and acquitted, but those are the facts. Furthermore, because of his perjury, Bill Clinton's law license was suspended in Arkansas for 5 years, and he was forced to resign from the Supreme Court bar. That is, he could no longer do what he had never done or had any intention of doing, i.e. argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. Also, Clinton accepted a modest fine for have committed perjury.

What was the obstruction of justice? The perjury revolved around the definition of sex. The republicans expanded the definition of sex to include a blow job. Clinton didn't count a blow job as sex. The senate just didn't think that it fit the definition of a "high crime".
 
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.

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.

It's not anti-feminist if you think a specific rape claim is false.

There's no question that Clinton was a womanizer. However, every claim that he stepped over the line into harassment seems to be politically motivated. Given the amount of effort the Republicans spent on demonizing him I'm not inclined to believe a claim that looks like something they were behind.
 
Just wanted to raise a factual point here. Bill Clinton was never impeached for having sex with anyone, consensual or non-consensual. He was impeached on two charges: perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied under oath and attempted to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. The Senate considered the charges but did not agree that his perjury or the cover-up met the criteria for impeachment of a president as spelled out in the Constitution. One can quibble over the "real" reasons why he was impeached and acquitted, but those are the facts. Furthermore, because of his perjury, Bill Clinton's law license was suspended in Arkansas for 5 years, and he was forced to resign from the Supreme Court bar. That is, he could no longer do what he had never done or had any intention of doing, i.e. argue a case in front of the Supreme Court. Also, Clinton accepted a modest fine for have committed perjury.

This is all quite true.


It still makes me wonder why Clinton did not do what I still consider to be the decent as well as prudent thing: Refuse to discuss his sex life.

Agreed. This would have saved a lot of grief! I think that he was still trying to hide his actions from HRC.
 
To me, this is all pretty simple.

If Al Franken needs to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then so does John Conyers. And so does Donald J. Trump.

If Donald J. Trump does not need to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then neither does Al Franken or John Conyers.

If Roy Moore is unfit to serve as Senator because he allegedly molested a 14 year old girl 40 years ago, then Donald J. Trump is unfit to serve because he allegedly raped a 13 year old girl. If we're willing to let Roy Moore into the Senate, then Al Franken gets to stay in the Senate.

Am I missing anything here?
 
To me, this is all pretty simple.

If Al Franken needs to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then so does John Conyers. And so does Donald J. Trump.

If Donald J. Trump does not need to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then neither does Al Franken or John Conyers.

If Roy Moore is unfit to serve as Senator because he allegedly molested a 14 year old girl 40 years ago, then Donald J. Trump is unfit to serve because he allegedly raped a 13 year old girl. If we're willing to let Roy Moore into the Senate, then Al Franken gets to stay in the Senate.

Am I missing anything here?

You're closer to the point of this thread than anyone else.

Since the prisoner's dilemma truce is breaking down, we might get to the point of most of congress being too tainted to serve.
 
To me, this is all pretty simple.

If Al Franken needs to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then so does John Conyers. And so does Donald J. Trump.

If Donald J. Trump does not need to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then neither does Al Franken or John Conyers.

If Roy Moore is unfit to serve as Senator because he allegedly molested a 14 year old girl 40 years ago, then Donald J. Trump is unfit to serve because he allegedly raped a 13 year old girl. If we're willing to let Roy Moore into the Senate, then Al Franken gets to stay in the Senate.

Am I missing anything here?

You're closer to the point of this thread than anyone else.

Since the prisoner's dilemma truce is breaking down, we might get to the point of most of congress being too tainted to serve.

I think that's what a lot of people would like. And I think there is at least one political camp (outside of Russia) that wants to engage in 'everybody is bad, they're as bad as we are so it doesn't really matter at all anyway and we can all go back to hiding our heads in the sand and up the butts of pretty girls or boys, if that's your jam' in an effort to both excuse terrible behavior and to (further) undermine people's faith in our government.

I think sexual harassment is horrible. I've experienced it myself and so have a lot, perhaps most of my female friends, starting in grade school. Yes: grade school, although I suppose in a lot of places 5th and 6th grades is now middle school. It's not just unpleasant and embarrassing, but it also serves the very real purpose of suppressing the confidence of young girls and women, and also, I would imagine, boys who are also sometimes victims. It's bad in many ways that aren't related to chastity or sex only within marriage kinds of ways. I think it also damages the boys and men who engage in such behavior. It needs to stop.

It won't stop by trying to dress it up as some game of prisoners' dilemma or any other game or mind game.

It only stops when we shine a bright light on it, and address how we treat other people. Which should always be with respect for their persons and themselves, no matter how much we disagree with them and also no matter how lonely or horny we are or how poor are our social skills or how attracted we are to them or how bad we feel about ourselves. That will go a long way to making the more nefarious reasons for such behavior stopping: genuine narcissism, cruelty, desire for power, desire to inflict pain, to generate fear in others, to feel strong and powerful by making other people feel weak and helpless.

There certainly are clueless, thoughtless behaviors that arise out of discomfort with one's own emerging hormones and their response to the emerging hormones and accompanying changes in body shape and size and hair, etc. as well as social immaturity that we all go through. Doubtless not enough of us grow up out of that as quickly as we should, largely because it's behavior that is swept under the rug, ignored, explained away instead of being corrected on the spot.

But there are also those who act with every intention of inflicting fear, pain, embarrassment, a sense of helplessness and isolation. That's a somewhat different and more sinister problem. And it won't go away by confusing it or conflating it with the stupid immature adolescent stuff that arises out of embarrassment and our own discomfort rather than recognizing it as a desire to assert our own wishes/desires over someone else's objections and making them feel bad about it to boot.
 
Oi, Franken should not resign. Let's not forget the political motivation and weird stuff (frequent Hannity guest accuser + Roger Stone/Infowars heads up) while we've been noting the political motivation of Clintons accusers.

The situation with Franken looks like classic Republican ratfucking. It's hijacking the #metoo movement's (I'll advised) claim that we have to believe every women implicitly and immediately even though like 2% are fake and, what do you know, Republicans found a flaw in that system and acted to exploit said flaw.

False equivalence between a staged perspective trick photograph and a goddamn pedophile is the point of this. It's Podesta 2.0 and the point is to get Roy Moore into office. That cannot be allowed to happen.
 
Just to drop this here.

In 1997, Broaddrick signed an affidavit and gave a deposition in the Jones case, denying twice under oath that Clinton raped her. "These allegations are untrue and there is no truth to these rumors." If Clinton did rape her, 20 years later, why would she still not tell the truth?

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/26/local/me-11829
 
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.

Equivocate all you like... this thing may have boiled over back in the '90s, if Bill Clinton had been loudly bragging about assaulting/groping women, and a dozen or so had come out saying "he did it to me".

But that didn't happen, did it, Jason?
 
To me, this is all pretty simple.

If Al Franken needs to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then so does John Conyers. And so does Donald J. Trump.

If Donald J. Trump does not need to step down because of accusations of sexual harassment, then neither does Al Franken or John Conyers.

If Roy Moore is unfit to serve as Senator because he allegedly molested a 14 year old girl 40 years ago, then Donald J. Trump is unfit to serve because he allegedly raped a 13 year old girl. If we're willing to let Roy Moore into the Senate, then Al Franken gets to stay in the Senate.

Am I missing anything here?

That basically covers it from my perspective as well.. consistency is almost as important as accuracy. Combine accuracy and consistency, and you achieve precision.
 
Geez, is the night janitor in the Capital going to step in to run the country?

If the two sides keep spreading every story about misbehavior of the other side he might wind up being the only one eligible to serve.

Waitaminit... you just posted about your great desire to see criminals in government held to account. I think we're near to agreement you just need to come out and say that Trump should be in jail.

Or ... maybe those annoying statutes about sexual assault need to be removed from the books?
 
Geez, is the night janitor in the Capital going to step in to run the country?

If the two sides keep spreading every story about misbehavior of the other side he might wind up being the only one eligible to serve.

Waitaminit... you just posted about your great desire to see criminals in government held to account. I think we're near to agreement you just need to come out and say that Trump should be in jail.

Or ... maybe those annoying statutes about sexual assault need to be removed from the books?

If you apply the principle of holding criminals in government to account to both sides, then we are in agreement. What separates me from board members is that I don't confine my scope to just pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
 
If the two sides keep spreading every story about misbehavior of the other side he might wind up being the only one eligible to serve.

Waitaminit... you just posted about your great desire to see criminals in government held to account. I think we're near to agreement you just need to come out and say that Trump should be in jail.

Or ... maybe those annoying statutes about sexual assault need to be removed from the books?

If you apply the principle of holding criminals in government to account to both sides, then we are in agreement. What separates me from board members is that I don't confine my scope to just pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

Oh really? You're calling for Clinton to be investigated yet again (or maybe forever?), but not El Cheato? Or would you be pleased if Trump, Moore, Conyers, Franken and everyone else accused of inappropriate behavior simply stepped down from government and went home?
I'm okay with the WH janitor running the country - he can't possibly fuck it up more than Trump.

Once again I have to point out - this thing may have boiled over back in the '90s, if Bill Clinton had been loudly bragging about assaulting/groping women, and a dozen or so had come out saying "he did it to me".
 
Waitaminit... you just posted about your great desire to see criminals in government held to account. I think we're near to agreement you just need to come out and say that Trump should be in jail.

Or ... maybe those annoying statutes about sexual assault need to be removed from the books?

If you apply the principle of holding criminals in government to account to both sides, then we are in agreement. What separates me from board members is that I don't confine my scope to just pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

Oh really? You're calling for Clinton to be investigated yet again (or maybe forever?), but not El Cheato?

How is that both sides?

Or would you be pleased if Trump, Moore, Conyers, Franken and everyone else accused of inappropriate behavior simply stepped down from government and went home?
I'm okay with the WH janitor running the country - he can't possibly fuck it up more than Trump.

Yeah, ALL of them. That's a point that remains just outside your grasp.
 
If you apply the principle of holding criminals in government to account to both sides, then we are in agreement. What separates me from board members is that I don't confine my scope to just pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

Oh really? You're calling for Clinton to be investigated yet again (or maybe forever?), but not El Cheato?

How is that both sides?

Or would you be pleased if Trump, Moore, Conyers, Franken and everyone else accused of inappropriate behavior simply stepped down from government and went home?
I'm okay with the WH janitor running the country - he can't possibly fuck it up more than Trump.

Yeah, ALL of them. That's a point that remains just outside your grasp.

The point that you won't allow within arm's reach is that the Cheato regime is a clear and present danger to this country. The Clintons are not.
But yeah, let's haul every single past senator, congressman, president and cabinet member who has ever been accuse of sexual abuse up in front of some kangaroo panel, so we don't have to confront the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
 
Back
Top Bottom