The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Was Bill Clinton's Lewinsky affair an 'abuse of power'?

After Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that her husband's affair in 1998 with 22-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky was not "an abuse of power", many online have been debating her view.

The 2016 Presidential candidate made the comments in an interview with CBS that also discussed the confirmation of Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh who was accused of sexual harassment.

Mrs Clinton also told CBS that she believes it was right that her husband, who was 49 at the time, did not resign from office, and that Ms Lewinsky "was an adult".

The frank remarks on the scandal are being interpreted in the context of the year-old #MeToo movement that caused numerous high-profile men to resign after accusations of sexual assault and harassment.

Former President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and later acquitted by Congress in 1998 after lying about his relationship with Ms Lewinsky.

Mrs Clinton's comments contradict Ms Lewinsky's characterisation of the relationship.

The Brett Kavanaugh story in 300 words
How Me Too is exposing the scale of sexual abuse
BBC archive report 1998: Sex, lies and impeachment

Many on social media disagree with Mrs Clinton, suggesting instead that her husband's position as President and Ms Lewinsky's role as young White House intern define an abuse of power.

The last sentence there is a very good question. Why aren't we hearing a howl of protests regarding Slick Willie's "assault" on the intern, who after all, was really unable to give consent in a situation where she was having sex with her boss because he was her boss?

[Chaka-Z0]

The needs of rural folks are different from those in urban areas and they deserve to have their voices heard.

I do not disagree with that, coming from a farmer family. I would argue this electoral system can actually be worse for the rural folks. What exactly guarantees you that any promises made by a red or blue deputy will actually happen? If all they need to do is shake a few trees and convince a few villages to win the states do you really think they will give a sh*t about these people after the fact? Nope, they will spend the money where they had to fight hard to win, where they made costly promises to convince the people. When its easy to win, and from what I see most people in rural areas are leaning right, why the heck should they spend money there?

I'll give you a perfect example, I live in a city that has been Liberal (this is not a leftist party, it is a federalist party) for decades. The main reason is that most people living here work in Ottawa for the Government, therefore they take us as granted. In all the regions of my province, we are the lone child that never gets his cookie. We had to wait over 20 years for a highway that connects Montreal, and when they built it they made it one way which is ridiculously dangerous, there's been many head-on collisions. And we are in the top 5 biggest cities of Quebec.

My point? Just like this ****ty relationship with a manipulative girlfriend or boyfriend we most likely all had the displeasure to experience, once they get what they need and take you for granted you're left with nothing. There is no perfect system, but sure as hell proportional vote is the best we got.

[Annoyed]

I do not disagree with that, coming from a farmer family. I would argue this electoral system can actually be worse for the rural folks. What exactly guarantees you that any promises made by a red or blue deputy will actually happen? If all they need to do is shake a few trees and convince a few villages to win the states do you really think they will give a sh*t about these people after the fact? Nope, they will spend the money where they had to fight hard to win, where they made costly promises to convince the people. When its easy to win, and from what I see most people in rural areas are leaning right, why the heck should they spend money there?

I'll give you a perfect example, I live in a city that has been Liberal (this is not a leftist party, it is a federalist party) for decades. The main reason is that most people living here work in Ottawa for the Government, therefore they take us as granted. In all the regions of my province, we are the lone child that never gets his cookie. We had to wait over 20 years for a highway that connects Montreal, and when they built it they made it one way which is ridiculously dangerous, there's been many head-on collisions. And we are in the top 5 biggest cities of Quebec.

My point? Just like this ****ty relationship with a manipulative girlfriend or boyfriend we most likely all had the displeasure to experience, once they get what they need and take you for granted you're left with nothing. There is no perfect system, but sure as hell proportional vote is the best we got.

Except for the fact that it silences the voices of the smaller regions/states/communities

[Chaka-Z0]

Except for the fact that it silences the voices of the smaller regions/states/communities

Again, how is that wrong? Are you saying 1 individual from a rural area is worth 100 city dwellers? You keep denouncing the elites, but what you're actually doing, is supporting them right now.

[aretood2]

you fall asleep in history class? tyranny of the minority is not what we have, it is not a democracy either but a republic

as an old saying goes "democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.....a republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

Reread what I said. You are the one advocating that 1 farmer should have the same weight as 100 city dwellers. That's called tyranny of the minority and that is what you are advocating. My post has absolutely zero to do with history, I'm not even sure why history would be the subject to go to when this is a politics thing. But whatever.

I tend to think that the founding fathers were a heck of a lot smarter than the gang of idiots running things today. They set up a system whereby the smaller states have a voice. And no, it is not an equal voice. The House is based on population, more populous states get a bigger say.

The founding fathers also had no borders, as Trump would describe it. No border patrol, no papers requirement or passport requirement for entering the country. No visa requirements no background checks nothing beyond a simple medical exam. So...since you seem to think that times haven't changed and that they are smarter than people today....that means you advocate for open borders?

Because if you say "no" then that would make you a hypocrite. You can't hold one thing they say or do as sacrosanct while throwing out another thing they say or do as nonsense incompatible with reality.

So yeah, the reason the system was set up was to appease the smaller colonies because back then and even into the civil war states saw themselves as full pledged countries rather than a part of a country. That's not the case anymore.

Situations in NY, Colorado, California and some other states demonstrate their wisdom. Although they are doomed to fail, many rural people in those states want to leave their states and form a new state because they have no voice in their state govt. The needs of rural folks are different from those in urban areas and they deserve to have their voices heard.

They do have a voice. One person, one vote. That's democracy. What you are advocating is giving a small minority more of a voice than the majority. That is not democracy.

[Annoyed]

They do have a voice. One person, one vote. That's democracy. What you are advocating is giving a small minority more of a voice than the majority. That is not democracy.

But that doesn't work when a densely populated region of a state, with different needs than the rural parts of a state silences the voices of the rural regions.

That's how you end up with situations where NYC dumps its garbage in upstate NY, or upstate NY folks have surcharges placed on their energy bills to pay for electricity for NYC residents. NYC silences the voice of upstate, so this can happen.

[Coco Pops]

So how is Voter supression even legal?

Isn't that like stopping people from legally voting?

[Annoyed]

So how is Voter supression even legal?

Isn't that like stopping people from legally voting?

It's not voter suppression, at least not by the popular definition of that term, where artificially high barriers are erected in a way to target certain groups, such as Georgia closing registration offices in urban/minority areas.

But in a real, practical sense, it does deny rural/smaller areas and states their voice in a simple majority system, which is why the founding fathers wisely made the Senate 2 senators from each state, regardless of population, and it's one of the reasons we have the electoral college for Presidential elections. And this makes perfect sense; the needs of urban and rural areas are different.

The only reason you're hearing a lot of whining about it now is the system is working as designed, preventing the large urban states from silencing the smaller/rural ones on national matters such as Presidential elections and judicial nominations.

You see, according to the left and their allies in the media, it's improper to silence the votes of urban/minority areas (it is improper) but it's perfectly fine to silence the voices of those who would disagree with them, such as smaller, rural states which tend to be Republican.

[Coco Pops]

It's not voter suppression, at least not by the popular definition of that term, where artificially high barriers are erected in a way to target certain groups, such as Georgia closing registration offices in urban/minority areas.

But in a real, practical sense, it does deny rural/smaller areas and states their voice in a simple majority system, which is why the founding fathers wisely made the Senate 2 senators from each state, regardless of population, and it's one of the reasons we have the electoral college for Presidential elections. And this makes perfect sense; the needs of urban and rural areas are different.

The only reason you're hearing a lot of whining about it now is the system is working as designed, preventing the large urban states from silencing the smaller/rural ones on national matters such as Presidential elections and judicial nominations.

You see, according to the left and their allies in the media, it's improper to silence the votes of urban/minority areas (it is improper) but it's perfectly fine to silence the voices of those who would disagree with them, such as smaller, rural states which tend to be Republican.

Wow your final paragraph just sums this up nicely any opposition to this is "the left"

[Chaka-Z0]

You see, according to the left and their allies in the media, it's improper to silence the votes of urban/minority areas (it is improper) but it's perfectly fine to silence the voices of those who would disagree with them, such as smaller, rural states which tend to be Republican.

They wouldn't be silenced, they would be one voice among others.

Your system
Welcome to Chaka's village, here we have many people of many origins. Last year, 200 people voted to increase our population and it was decreed that a well would be built for the community.

Unfortunately, this project was cancelled, because Billy-Bob and his pals voted against it.

Democracy
Welcome to Chaka's village, here we have many people of many origins. Last year, 200 people voted to increase our population and it was decreed that a well would be built for the community.

Unfortunately, Billy-Bob and his pals voted against it because they already have running water in their homes. To remedy the situation, His Greatness Chaka, the most devout follower of His Noodly Appendage (Ramen), decided to offer complimentary brownies to Billy-Bob's family so they would benefit too. Billy-Bob wasn't thrilled about seeing his tax money spent into something he did not need, but he understood that he shouldn't put his selfish needs in front of 200 PEOPLE!

[Gatefan1976]

Was Bill Clinton's Lewinsky affair an 'abuse of power'?



The last sentence there is a very good question. Why aren't we hearing a howl of protests regarding Slick Willie's "assault" on the intern, who after all, was really unable to give consent in a situation where she was having sex with her boss because he was her boss?

He got halfway through the impeachment process, I'd say that's a howl of protest.
As for "consent because of boss", that's tricker to determine. You would have to prove that bill used his position to get the sex.

[Annoyed]

He got halfway through the impeachment process, I'd say that's a howl of protest.
As for "consent because of boss", that's tricker to determine. You would have to prove that bill used his position to get the sex.

Many people claim that in a boss/underling situation, the underling can't really give consent.

[Gatefan1976]

Many people claim that in a boss/underling situation, the underling can't really give consent.

Cool, all the people who have been proven, or copped guilty plea's never consented to what trump has done (cause he was their boss), and he is responsible for all of it.
Thanks dude!!

[Chaka-Z0]

Many people claim that in a boss/underling situation, the underling can't really give consent.

More like this happens when your wife is half lizard.

[Gatefan1976]

More like this happens when your wife is half lizard.

Nah, just an illegal alien, who had an anchor baby to get her family into the country via chain migration.
All that "bad stuff"