1303
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1303 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19080 readers
3559 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is great, I heard Republicans really respect Monica and feel she was treated unjustly.
Fuck the Republicans and their perjury trap and all, but after 25 years can we finally admit that the President getting a blowjob from an 21yo intern is a bad thing?
A manager at any other company or government position would be fired for it because consent is a tricky thing when there's a power imbalance.
Why are we pretending it's all okay with the most powerful person on the planet and a young woman whose entire career and aspirations can be completely made or destroyed my him in an email?
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
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.
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.
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.
When a power imbalance is that large, consent cannot truly exist.
Clinton was the Harvey Weinstein of Presidents.
It is a bad thing.
Clinton should have been fired for it.
Republican/conservative values and worldviews demand the power imbalance between men and women.
Oh boo fucking hoo
You forgot the /s