Gillibrand: Bill Clinton should have resigned over Lewinsky affair
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 05:28:47 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Gillibrand: Bill Clinton should have resigned over Lewinsky affair
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Gillibrand: Bill Clinton should have resigned over Lewinsky affair  (Read 5372 times)
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 88,751
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2018, 09:15:29 PM »

In the era of corruption with Trump,  she's appearing anti corruption by saying Clinton should of resigned. But,  had she been in Senate,  she would have acquitted him.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,738
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: June 01, 2018, 06:41:58 AM »
« Edited: June 02, 2018, 01:58:15 PM by Fuzzy Bear »

She was treated horribly (esp. by Linda Tripp, the media, etc.) but she consented. She knew what she was doing. Bill's problems stem less from the fact that he let Monica blow him than some of the other accusations against him from Paula Jones and so on.

This, 100 percent.  Monica Lewinsky is not a victim.

One of the most regrettable and repulsive by-products of the #MeToo movement (which promises to be America's New Spanish Inquisition by the time it runs it course) is that it's giving 15 minutes of fame to women who had consensual affairs with married men, and now are coming forward with narratives of how their relationship was "abusive" when the only "abuse" involved was (A) the male's celebrity or influence (which was a lure, but not a lever) and (B) the "feelings of being used" or something like that on the part of the adulterous female, usually due to broken promises (e. g. "I'll divorce my wife!").  It's the actions of folks who act as homewreckers, uncaring as to the effect their affair with a married man might have on the man's wife and family.  As if those folks, who have a RIGHT to that man's loyalty and fidelity, should be OK with what they're doing.  I'm sorry, but I have a minimum of sympathy for those folks when they pose as victims, and when they reinvent a narrative years later for the salving of their own consciences, I'm at a loss for sympathy.

I'm 61 years old.  I'm married to a 63 year old Christian woman who has, for decades, been a loyal and faithful wife, never straying, never betraying me, or our famiiy.  (And I've never strayed either; that's at least one thing I've gotten right in life.)  Now, let's say I get elected to Congress, and I have an attractive female staff person who is smitten with me, and presents a temptation that I give into, and it turns into an affair.  She knows I'm married, and I insist that I'm not getting a divorce.  

Am I an "abuser"?  I don't think so.

Am I an "adulterer"?  Yes, from the first wayward thought, and so is she, knowing that I was married.

People who KNOWINGLY engage in affairs with married folks that are truly consensual do not have any sympathy from me, no matter how badly the affair ended.  Some negative consequences are natural; cheating on your spouse isn't something that's supposed to end well, as it involves more than just you and your side interest.  Adulterers trying to cleanse their conscience through #MeToo are like steroid users breaking home run records; there is an asterisk by their name and case that shouldn't be ignored.  Monica Lewinsky is not a victim.  And Gillibrand's silence on Broaddrick, Willey, and Jones is deafening.  These are folks that came forward early, and didn't need a hashtag to speak up.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,847
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: June 01, 2018, 02:49:45 PM »

In the era of corruption with Trump,  she's appearing anti corruption by saying Clinton should of resigned. But,  had she been in Senate,  she would have acquitted him.

Yeah, there's not a problem with that is there? It's perfectly possible to think someone should resign for unethical behavior/bad judgement whilst equally not saying they should be removed from office for any crimes they've committed.

Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,738
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: June 02, 2018, 02:07:32 PM »

In the era of corruption with Trump,  she's appearing anti corruption by saying Clinton should of resigned. But,  had she been in Senate,  she would have acquitted him.

Yeah, there's not a problem with that is there? It's perfectly possible to think someone should resign for unethical behavior/bad judgement whilst equally not saying they should be removed from office for any crimes they've committed.

Well, there's some difference.  One could argue that what Bill did wasn't something that rose to the level of an impeachable offense, but something that damaged his credibility to the point where he would not be able to function effectively AS President.  When Nixon resigned, he gave the reason as "I have lost my political base in Congress."  While this was sneered at as a means by which Nixon avoided admitting wrongdoing, it WAS a fact, and that had happened to a large extent even before the SCOTUS delivered its decision on Nixon's tapes.  The perception of impropriety was so great that it affected Nixon's ability to get things done; this was true even before impeachment and removal became inevitable. 

Another example might be a President like Harding, who was popular, but incompetent.  If there were a situation where we elected someone who just wasn't up to the job, and it was becoming painfully obvious, it would conceivably be a situation where impeachment was not the prescribed remedy, but resignation would be.

That being said, I do agree with you in that most folks are going to see the contradiction you point out.  And, in Clinton's case, it applies, given the particular allegations of lying under oath.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,996


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: June 02, 2018, 03:03:46 PM »

This is Gillibrand's problem she comes off as a craven opportunist with no principles. She was fine and proud of Bill's support for years but when it soon became unfashionable to be associated with him she dropped him like a rock. People view the Franken thing the same way, she threw him under the bus at the first moment she could.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,752


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2018, 10:03:24 PM »

This is Gillibrand's problem she comes off as a craven opportunist with no principles. She was fine and proud of Bill's support for years but when it soon became unfashionable to be associated with him she dropped him like a rock. People view the Franken thing the same way, she threw him under the bus at the first moment she could.

Yet she decided to endorse Cuomo rather than have Albany not always be controlled by 3 crooked men in a room.
Logged
HillGoose
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,882
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.74, S: -8.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2018, 11:45:11 PM »

Bill Clinton has the blood of a million Rwandans on his hands, that alone should be enough to destroy his reputation
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 12 queries.