Yeah, i wonder what power the President of the United States could possibly have over a young intern? It truly does beggar the imagination that there might have been any power discrepancy here, or any abuse of power and authority, doesn’t it?
Ya fucking dill.
Ah. So you got nothing. Got it, thanks.
I reject the idea that women need to be protected by powerful men and can’t consent to sex.
I got plenty. The fact that you’re too dim to grasp even the basics is your problem, not mine.
Reading comprehension fail.
I don’t believe that “women need to be protected by powerful men,” and i don’t believe that they “can’t consent to sex.”
I believe that sexual relations, in the workplace itself, between two people with vastly different levels of power and influence, is inappropriate, even when the more senior person is a woman, and especially (but not only) when the senior person in question is in a position of such incredible public trust and responsibility. Even if there’s no explicit quid pro quo or threat of termination, the very fact of such activities reflects an abuse of power.
Even if Monica Lewinsky begged him to be allowed to suck his cock, he should, as President and her boss, have said no. And i would make this argument even if he weren’t married; my argument here is not about marital infidelity, it’s about responsible behavior in office.
Given the choice, i would vote Democrat over Republican almost every time. I also happen to think Clinton was a pretty decent president, and was light years better than the dim bulb disaster who came after him. I also think that Ken Starr was a glory-hound asshole. But none of that changes the fact that what Clinton did was an inappropriate use of his power and influence.
You’re free to disagree, of course. And that’s all the hijacking i’m going to do of this thread. If you want to whine about it some more, and want to start another thread, i’d be happy to engage you there, as long as you can demonstrate more intelligence and reading comprehension than you’ve shown here.
No. I just object to the premise that women - or men - or anyone, really, are victims when they fuck their boss…because that translates to other things as well: age, politics, social status, legal status, and financial status.
There are power struggles in every relationship, some more potentially serious than others, but no, unless someone is coercing a subordinate into sex or insinuating that greater gain will come of a sex act, I don’t see it as an abuse of power.
I’m pretty sure she had the hots for El Jefe.
edit: your boss’s glamour as a man of power is no different than a good looking accomplished man with some $$.
Before you accuse others of lacking in reading comprehension, it would behoove you to get some *writing *comprehension and to learn what the words you use mean.
Then say it is inappropriate. Don’t say it’s an abuse of power. Two phrases, two different meanings. That’s why there’s two phrases, see ?
No, it does not. Look up what the word abuse means if you need to.
A disparity in power is not in itself an abuse in power. There’s always disparities in couples. One is prettier than the other. Or richer. Or smarter. More famous. Less involved, less in love. Has more self-esteem. Has no kids of his own. Has less to lose. Is a lawman/politician/gangster and can really fuck up the other person’s life if they set their mind to it.
None of that constitutes an abuse in power. And being the boss, even the boss of America, is not one either. Not in and of itself it’s not. Only when the power of being the boss of America is abused can you call it an abuse of power. It is not a complicated concept.
Which again has nothing to do with abuse of power.
Get your opinion straight, then get your words straight, *then *maybe think about writing the bitches down. Look less the fool this way.
Clinton abused his power by asking a state trooper to bring Paula Jones to his hotel room, and then exposing himself and asking for oral sex. Jones was not a groupie and did not pursue him – and indeed did not suck him off.
Later, Clinton denied that he had done any such thing when Jones sued him for the act. In such a lawsuit, the plaintiff is allowed to ask the defendent questions under oath. Jones asked Clinton if he had had any sexual relationships with other women that worked for him. That was a proper question and she was legally entitled to a truthful answer. Clinton did not give her one.
Oh great. Now we’re re-debating the Clinton blow job affair. I’m sure we’ll all reach agreement this time on the facts and conclusions.
I’m thinking of the poor Weiner kid who is going to see his Dad’s junk pictures when he’s in 1st grade. Thanks Dad!
Cite that Clinton did any of this? None of this was ever proven. This lawsuit was tossed by the judge for lack of merit.
I more or less agree with you - fact is that this story made a splash for three reasons that made it more topical than the general run of sexual scandal:
the cover-up with allegations of hacking - hacking is very topical
the fact it involved sexting (also very topical); and
the unfortunate coincidence of his name and the pic he sent, which makes for endless jokes.
What he actually did was pretty minor, in the scheme of things (well except the lying and accusing others bit) - as far as we know, he never even laid a finger on anyone; it is really these three details that give the story legs.
If the guy had just been caught in an affair and admitted it, this would be a non-story that would die quickly - now, even though he never actually did anything physically, it is a major story and a huge humiliation.
I will never understand what possesses so many guys to send women pictures of their dicks. It’s such a lame thing to do even if there aren’t any consequences.
I assume that exhibitionism is in and of itself a turn-on for the sender.
In short, it isn’t really intended to turn the recepient on - it turns on the person who sends the pic.
Paula Jones said it, under oath.
Clinton denied it under oath, but since Clinton also lied under oath, I assume your usual “for the sake of decency” standard that we must believe him no longer applies.
Or does it? Is there another Diogenes rule that says we must trust that he told the truth about this, and that Jones lied?
or we could just admit we have no way of knowing.
So you’ve got nothing.
Completely agree. Anyone is such a position needs to project a certain level of maturity and basic decency.
But of course, we learned (Clinton) that none of that matters.
Why not have a Mafia Don as President?
If you want to pretend it’s about “public trust,” I’m more concerned about them doing stuff like lying us into wars than getting their surfboards waxed.
At the risk of repeating myself, come the fuck on.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Clinton abused his power by asking a state trooper to bring Paula Jones to his hotel room, and then exposing himself and asking for oral sex. Jones was not a groupie and did not pursue him – and indeed did not suck him off.
[/QUOTE]
See, **mhendo **? At least **Bricker **knows what abuse of power means, and brings some to the table. Some petty, inconsequential bullshit but at least it fits the bill on a technical basis.
and , and , he was the first one.
I believe there used to be an unwritten rule that you didn’t attack your fellow politicians based on their personal lives , but addressed their policy decisions. The GOP couldn’t beat Clinton on policy so they decided to go after him personally. IMO, the people that spent millions and so much time and energy addressing that rather than policy did a much greater disservice to the country.
Once the door was opened it was interesting to see how many members of the GOP had to resign or took serious hits because of their own infidelities.
Still, knowing the atmosphere of today’s political scene what Weiner did was monumentally stupid. It sure would make me question his overall judgement.
Petty, inconsequential, and unsubstantiated, as he well knows. Why he thinks he’d get away with it confounds me. Paula Jones, "Eagle Beak Paula’, the Heidi of the Ozarks?
Which state trooper? What was his name, when did he testify? And Ms Jones? Seriously? The child has a serious case of the homelies. Not ugly, mind, just not blessed. Bar closing, no other options, maybe.
But Horndog Bill was up to his eyeballs in Class A nookie. Check out the gallery of the women he’s been linked to, and then put Ms Jones picture next for comparison. They were uniformly hawt, she’s so-so.
The Arkansas Project. “Melonhead” Scaife? The money showered onto her, the nose job? The fucking nose job!! None of this screams “bullshit!” to you, Bricker?
Bring your best game, or don’t suit up. This shit is embarrassing.