Absolutely. Why candidates for public office weren’t vetted with the same thoroughness as was once commonplace for the armed forces is a great mystery. It has done a lot of damage over the years. Apparently those standards in the military aren’t what they once were either.
The thing is, in the good old days of smoke-filled back rooms, where fat old white men with cigars decided who the candidate was going to be - that was part of the process. Nowadays, anyone can walk in from left field (right field?) with nomination papers, file and run in the primary, and by appealing to the right activist segment of the population, become one of the two parties’ candidates. Then, it’s the job of the other primary or election opponents to do the work of finding any problems with their opponent’s character. This presumes, of course, that there is a real election and that the district is not so rigged that getting a solid plurality in a contested primary, with a tiny percent of the actual registered voters, is not sufficient.
I cannot admire those times; however I also cannot imagine those fat old white men would have allowed Donald J. Trump within a 1000 miles of substantial political office.
Umm…democracy and elections?
It probably did include those acts. The definition approved by Judge Wright was that “sexual relations” occurs when a person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. “Contact” means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.
You do not recall correctly.
Your recollection is incorrect: “…with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
Exactly.
This is straying into GD territory, but I’ll just point out the potential for abuse in a system where candidates for public office are pre-screened by those already in office. The one country that comes to mind in terms of having a system like that is Iran.
Um, yeah there’s always the potential for abuse in any system, but it doesn’t follow that we should therefore ignore all the security risks. Thousands and thousands have had to undergo rigorous background investigations to obtain security clearances, but anyone who manages to secure an elected position has been “deemed” to qualify for elected office and top secret clearance. Insanity, and does a lot to explain so many intelligence failures over the decades. There are many elected officials who could never pass a rudimentary, basic security clearance. School bus drivers, Teachers, Police, Day Care Workers, I’m sure I’m leaving out whole swaths of occupations - they have to be vetted. Why not politicians? That’s rhetorical of course.
I’m not sure how one tests for insanity.
You’re soaking in it.
Politicians are vetted, and much more thoroughly than any of the other positions you mention. When you’ve got half the population looking for dirt, how much do you expect to remain hidden?
The problem isn’t politicians’ secrets; it’s that when those secrets come out, a large proportion of the population votes for them anyway. And that’s a problem with the voters, not with the process.
I’d love to have been a fly on the wall and overheard the conversations between Bill and Hillary at the time. “Tell me again, Bill, about that cigar.” 
It doesn’t work well at all.
Look at Hillary Clinton. Decades of investigations. None of which turned up anything that was actually worth the time and money. The best vetting any candidate for President has ever had.
But a lot of voters are in the “Crooked Hillary” “Throw her in jail” camp.
As compared to her opponent who was up to his eyeballs in all sorts of criminal behavior. For example.
Voters ignore facts so actual vetting doesn’t matter at all.
Also the media routinely refuses to properly tell you about things. E.g., in 96 Bob Dole was having an affair. The media didn’t reveal it despite knowing all about it. (And making a big deal about Bill Clinton’s private matters in 92.) The explanation when asked later? “Oh, we knew Bob was going to lose so why bother.”
Speaking of 92: The media got all in a lather about Bill’s Gennifer and went around investigating her and putting her in the spotlight. But George’s Jennifer? Their “investigation” consisted of asking the WH for a comment, not getting one (what a surprise) and therefore they “had” to kill the story since they didn’t get a comment from them. What???
This happens over and over and over.
That gets back to the old bit about democracy being the worst form of government, except for every other form. Yes, maybe the voters are idiots who don’t know what’s best for them… but if even the voters themselves don’t know, then who does?
Your link does not describe any criminal behavior by Trump.
I always wondered about that. When I was younger and heard about this, I always assumed it was a tearful, violent scene with Hillary being inconsolable, similar to how it would be portrayed on TV.
But real life couples are more complex than that. Bill was just trying to see if his powerful position would let him get carnal with the attractive new intern. He’s only human, and maybe Hillary saw it that way. The fact that he got a few minor sexual favors from a young, hot woman (at the time) doesn’t take away from the decades they had been together at that point.
Dunno how it went. In house of Cards, Kevin Spacey’s Netflix wife just had a wry smile and she asked him if he had fun when he returned home late at night, after sex with an attractive reporter.
I’ve never understood the “he’s only human” defense, for Bill or anyone else.
I mean, are you saying that “he was just walking to the office, slipped on a banana peel and his cigar flew into Monica who was bending over without any panties on” he’s only human??
If your wife had a history of “hiding the cigar of another man” and “had a few minor sexual favors from young hot men” would you be ok with that? If she said, “well honey, I am only human after all” that would be all cool?
These things just don’t “happen.” You have thousand of seconds and instances to say “no” I’m not going to be in the room alone with her, or go up to her hotel room, or have a drink with her or whatever. If they have an open marriage that’s one thing. But the “it just happened out of no frick’n nowhere and I was helpless to stop it” is complete BS.
How did you manage to avoid hearing about it?