|
|
Post by jimboky on Nov 25, 2017 21:03:42 GMT
The house did impeach Clinton, After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term. www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Nov 25, 2017 23:44:21 GMT
I think it's worth remembering, as well, that although many people are sex pests, not all sex-pestery is as bad as each other. The same way that commenting that women of Chinese and Japanese descent are crappy drivers is racist, and committing a genocide of the jews is racist, but one is actually worse than the other.
So, to be clear, of recent scandals (and adding one from the past because people are going on about it)
Rep Joe Barton (R) Texas having a consensual relationship with a woman in her 50s, and taking naughty photos, during his divorce - this is not a scandal at all. Not even a hint of one. There's nothing wrong with this and the only thing wrong was that he apologised for "not using better judgement"
this is obviously less bad than
Bill Clinton (D) having a consensual affair with a 21 year old staff member when he was President. The problem here is that there's a dodgy power dynamic. He also lied about the affair, but lots of people do that. Lewinsky wasn't a big deal. The fact that Republicans got hung up on cum-stains on blue dresses as the Big Deal meant that people stopped focusing on the Clinton actions that were really dodgy
this is obviously less bad than
Glenn Thrush, NYT and Politico Journo, getting wasted and making moves on much younger colleagues, even if he broadly accepted their rejections; and if this is considered something deserving of a sacking I suspect 25% of the US's male employees are going to be out of work.
This is clearly less serious than
Al Franken groping a woman who was asleep and earlier trying to tongue her against her will. This was very naughty and a little rapey. Not illegal, but very inappropriate. Certainly deserving of censure, not sure if it's deserving of sacking
which is similar to the
Bill Clinton - pure allegation with little corroboration - groping Kathleen Willey non-consensually: all the corroboration suggested that this was fully consensual, which would make it as thoroughly non-allegation
which is less serious than
Bill Clinton exposed himself to Paula Jones, which - if true - is properly rapey and disqualifying. Although there were elements proven to be thoroughly false in the claim, and it was dismissed by a Republican judge.
(Which basically means both of these instances could be easily dismissed by his backers - one claim actually disproved in a court of law as lacking merit, the other apparently consensual)
which, anyway, is less serious than
Louis CK having a wank in front of a bunch of people who admired him
which is less serious than
Roy Jones propositioning 14 year olds, and making apparently rapey moves on 16 or 17 year olds, and generally being deeply creepy around shopping malls pursuing much younger girls, something, incidentally, which seems to have nothing disproving it.
which is about as serious as
Harvey Weinstein using his position of wealth and power to make rapey moves at, expose himself to, have wanks in front of, etc, what appears to be hundreds of women. This is thoroughly rapey and should disqualify him from everything
which itself is less serious than
if true, Bill Clinton actually raping Juanita Broaddrick- which is the most compelling of the claims against Clinton. Ironically, it came to light after the impeachment proceedings had finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Nov 26, 2017 0:09:53 GMT
Which is all to say that, just because Al Franken is sex-pesty, that doesn't mean he's nearly as bad as Roy Jones, and we shouldn't be nearly as focused on him - particularly as he's not currently standing for election.
And that, excluding the Juanita Broaddrick story, all the other stories are less of a big deal than the Jones one, even if Clinton were still relevant. Which he's not.
|
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Nov 26, 2017 1:09:50 GMT
Franken isn't stupid. He was very smart to ask for an ethics investigation. Makes him look like a good guy. Investigations can take a very long time, and the longer it goes on, the less chance of him losing his seat. People will simply lose interest. It will become ancient history. And, of course, the committee can only investigate, not punish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Nov 26, 2017 3:14:46 GMT
“I think it's worth remembering, as well, that although many people are sex pests, not all sex-pestery is as bad as each other. The same way that commenting that women of Chinese and Japanese descent are crappy drivers is racist, and committing a genocide of the jews is racist, but one is actually worse than the other.“
Once more for the slow people at the back.
|
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Nov 26, 2017 10:38:10 GMT
Who is saying that Franken harassing adult women is the same or as bad as what Moore is accused of?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2017 10:48:43 GMT
“I think it's worth remembering, as well, that although many people are sex pests, not all sex-pestery is as bad as each other. The same way that commenting that women of Chinese and Japanese descent are crappy drivers is racist, and committing a genocide of the jews is racist, but one is actually worse than the other.“ Once more for the slow people at the back. What? You've changed your tune a bit (thanks to Andy being sensible at last). Most of the male posters here have scoffed at you and your co-feminist's rants since day one. But that's the way you do things, by metamorphosing with the tide of opinion. |
|
rick49
New Member
Posts: 17,031
|
Post by rick49 on Nov 26, 2017 11:14:31 GMT
“I think it's worth remembering, as well, that although many people are sex pests, not all sex-pestery is as bad as each other. The same way that commenting that women of Chinese and Japanese descent are crappy drivers is racist, and committing a genocide of the jews is racist, but one is actually worse than the other.“ Once more for the slow people at the back. What? You've changed your tune a bit (thanks to Andy being sensible at last). Most of the male posters here have scoffed at you and your co-feminist's rants since day one. But that's the way you do things, by metamorphosing with the tide of opinion. Andy's pretty reasonable most of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Nov 26, 2017 13:26:11 GMT
“I think it's worth remembering, as well, that although many people are sex pests, not all sex-pestery is as bad as each other. The same way that commenting that women of Chinese and Japanese descent are crappy drivers is racist, and committing a genocide of the jews is racist, but one is actually worse than the other.“ Once more for the slow people at the back. What? You've changed your tune a bit (thanks to Andy being sensible at last). Most of the male posters here have scoffed at you and your co-feminist's rants since day one. But that's the way you do things, by metamorphosing with the tide of opinion. I haven’t changed my tune. You just can’t read. I also am not sure why you think I would care about male posters here would think of my views. Do you think I am supposed to hold them in some special sort of esteem? You silly sod. |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Nov 26, 2017 14:51:53 GMT
Who is saying that Franken harassing adult women is the same or as bad as what Moore is accused of? There's a lot of shouting about Franken and Clinton (and various Hollywood luvvies) from right wingers whenever Moore's name gets brought up. It's a bit "what about X?" yet they're generally not comparable. And it's a bit attempts at distraction - classic Trumpian "Look, a squirrel, don't focus on the important stuff". (I think the Moore "accusations" are broadly more than accusations now: given the large number of independent reports about his behaviour, and given that lots of the details in the denials that have come from his team have been proven false, you have to say that the pattern of behaviour looks highly probable even if we can't confirm any one incident) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2017 16:25:51 GMT
What? You've changed your tune a bit (thanks to Andy being sensible at last). Most of the male posters here have scoffed at you and your co-feminist's rants since day one. But that's the way you do things, by metamorphosing with the tide of opinion. I haven’t changed my tune. You just can’t read. I also am not sure why you think I would care about male posters here would think of my views. Do you think I am supposed to hold them in some special sort of esteem? You silly sod. Oh come on - you and Clarence were screeching about men wolf-whistling and flirting a little while back. Now suddenly, you're a paragon of reasonableness. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Nov 26, 2017 16:55:31 GMT
I haven’t changed my tune. You just can’t read. I also am not sure why you think I would care about male posters here would think of my views. Do you think I am supposed to hold them in some special sort of esteem? You silly sod. Oh come on - you and Clarence were screeching about men wolf-whistling and flirting a little while back. Now suddenly, you're a paragon reasonableness. I haven’t change my views on wolf whistling and haven’t said anything about flirting. As I said you just can’t read. |
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Nov 26, 2017 17:03:06 GMT
after being impeached, Bill Clinton not only stayed in office, he got reelected, with that standard there should be no problem with Moore getting elected and holding office
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Nov 26, 2017 17:16:05 GMT
after being impeached, Bill Clinton not only stayed in office, he got reelected, with that standard there should be no problem with Moore getting elected and holding office What a weird attitude. You don’t think we should strive for better? |
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Nov 26, 2017 17:28:44 GMT
after being impeached, Bill Clinton not only stayed in office, he got reelected, with that standard there should be no problem with Moore getting elected and holding office Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for sex-assault. So it's not the same standard. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, anyway. Clinton was impeached in 1999. His last election was in 1996. He was no re-elected after impeachment proceedings started. How many things can you get wrong in one sentence? And, of course, even if Clinton had got re-elected after an actual conviction, over an actual sex-assault rather than a conventional lie about having an affair, we should still have a problem with Moore getting elected and holding office. |
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Nov 26, 2017 17:57:40 GMT
the Senate only choose not to remove him from office, not acquit, little different,
Moore still claims he did not do anything, neither you or I know any different, this can wait till he gets his day in court, due process and all that rule of law stuff, if he is elected by the people of Alabama then he should serve till he is convicted of something
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Nov 26, 2017 18:10:37 GMT
What astonishing nonsense.
1 - Moore can't be convicted as all this happened outside the statute of limitations, so you're effectively saying that unless he actually confesses we should ignore this
2 - All of Moore's refutations of the claims have massive flaws
3 - There are multiple, independent, consistent claims against Moore. It would be very hard to believe they are all wrong.
4 - The senate acquitted. They voted not-guilty 55-45 on perjury; 50-50 on obstruction of justice. This despite it being a 55-45 Republican Senate.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Nov 26, 2017 19:35:10 GMT
What astonishing nonsense. 1 - Moore can't be convicted as all this happened outside the statute of limitations, so you're effectively saying that unless he actually confesses we should ignore this 2 - All of Moore's refutations of the claims have massive flaws 3 - There are multiple, independent, consistent claims against Moore. It would be very hard to believe they are all wrong. 4 - The senate acquitted. They voted not-guilty 55-45 on perjury; 50-50 on obstruction of justice. This despite it being a 55-45 Republican Senate. Not sure if SOL applies to child abuse/rape girl also has flaws, and have to wonder why now these mulitiple, independent, and consistent claims are also convenient with political witch hunt Senate does not acquit, or vote guilty or not guilty, they only choose to remove from office or not, |
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Nov 26, 2017 19:38:55 GMT
If Moore is guilty he won't be the only sex offender in office, should either remove them all or none, so what is the rush?
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Nov 26, 2017 19:40:39 GMT
the Senate only choose not to remove him from office, not acquit, little different, Moore still claims he did not do anything, neither you or I know any different, this can wait till he gets his day in court, due process and all that rule of law stuff, if he is elected by the people of Alabama then he should serve till he is convicted of something It won’t be in court. Statue of limitations. |
|
