Clown Car V: 2020 version!

[Sommerswerd]

I seriously hope you aren't comparing Lewinsky to a pornstar. She was obviously the victim, no?

FTR Monica Lewinsky does not consider herself Clinton's victim, to this day. She has been consistent that she wanted that relationship.

 

[Farm Boy]

As if an adult woman is allowed that latitude when it's convenient to demand she "definitionally" can't. The righteous know better.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

FTR Monica Lewinsky does not consider herself Clinton's victim, to this day. She has been consistent that she wanted that relationship.

And we're also overlooking Trump's many alleged victims who have credibly accused him of rape, as well as his bragging about how he gets away with sexual assault. Even when looked at in the worst way, the Lewinsky affair is incomparable to either of those things.

 

[IglooDame]

Kyr is making a deeper point, since the Clinton affair was materially 'worse' than Trump's behaviour with the pornstars. We can call Lewinsky 'consenting', and in some ways she was. But not sufficiently so to let it be considered acceptable. Neither was the treatment she was subjected to later.

Trump's sexual assault of Natasha Stoynoff is a better comparison than him thinking wealth bought him sex with pornstars.

But yeah, Clinton literally degraded the office of the Presidency with his actions. The voters didn't mind hiring someone who thought he had 'seduced' pornstars, but that behaviour occurred before the mantle was taken on.

Fun/horrific thought experiment. Can you imagine the reactions if Trump had either gotten a BJ or done something sexual-assault-ish in the Oval Office during his term? Watching Republicans and Democrats both twisting themselves in knots to explain why this time it is different than the Lewinsky Affair (if the former) or how Trumpets would try to paper it over if it was claimed to be sexual assault?

 

[El_Machinae]

I can imagine the reactions, but the liberal zeitgeist has turned against Clinton pretty aggressively already, so there's less hypocrisy there.

And conservatives would be quick to remind us that Clinton was impeached for Perjury, not having an affair.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Fun/horrific thought experiment. Can you imagine the reactions if Trump had either gotten a BJ or done something sexual-assault-ish in the Oval Office during his term? Watching Republicans and Democrats both twisting themselves in knots to explain why this time it is different than the Lewinsky Affair (if the former) or how Trumpets would try to paper it over if it was claimed to be sexual assault?

I mean that exact scenario didn't happen but enough adjacent scenarios happened that we know exactly how it would have played out. For crying out loud, the same team that prosecuted Clinton's impeachment due to an affair was totes fine with Trump using his position to try and force Ukraine to support his reelection bid, were totes fine with his pleading with China to do the same and were also totes cool with the constant barrage of perjury committed by his cabinet and family members while talking to Congress. Trump getting caught receiving a bj would have hardly risen over the noise floor and if it did, well see above to suss how it would have played out.

And conservatives would be quick to remind us that Clinton was impeached for Perjury, not having an affair.

That's not how they prosecuted the case in the public sphere - it was branded a moral failing and an assault on decency. The perjury was just the legal excuse to go after him.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I know. But the retroactive application of 'reasonableness' will allow them to be disgusted by a Clinton affair but not a Trump affair.

Also, they all knew that Trump was a dog when they hired him to manage the country. so, all of the spin will be just an exercise in linguistics. They wouldn't care, even if they cared about Clinton.

My gods, the Taxed Enough Already Party hired someone who serially defaulted on debt to help them reduce the debt, and they didn't care when he helped jack it up.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can imagine the reactions, but the liberal zeitgeist has turned against Clinton pretty aggressively already, so there's less hypocrisy there.

That's true. Righteous pieces of species cancer are certainly under no obligation to be hypocritical on top of everything else.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yeah, I know. But the retroactive application of 'reasonableness' will allow them to be disgusted by a Clinton affair but not a Trump affair.
Also, they all knew that Trump was a dog when they hired him to manage the country. so, all of the spin will be just an exercise in linguistics. They wouldn't care, even if they cared about Clinton.
My gods, the Taxed Enough Already Party hired someone who serially defaulted on debt to help them reduce the debt, and they didn't care when he helped jack it up.

Dont worry the GOP screaming, and crying about the deficit is about to start
Soon the 300K+ dead will be Bidens fault as well.

 

[Kyriakos]

FTR Monica Lewinsky does not consider herself Clinton's victim, to this day. She has been consistent that she wanted that relationship.

When the power gap is so vast, the weakest side is a victim by default - let alone the bullying which took place against Lewinsky and still does.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Alternative facts /s
The mental gymnastic of the GOP

‘Kraken’ Lawyers Astonish Legal Experts by Blaming Filing Error on Supreme Court Clerk

“There’s brazenness. There’s stupidity. I don’t think words have yet been invented to describe telling the Supreme Court that a ‘Republican slate of electors’ voted in Michigan while citing a report that says, ‘The GOP legislature refused to appoint alternate electors,’”

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...me-court-clerk/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Farm Boy]

When the power gap is so vast, the weakest side is a victim by default - let alone the bullying which took place against Lewinsky and still does.

...and there they are.

 

[Berzerker]

Why did you quote me?

Massive Cheeting, clearly.

I was giving credit to the person who answered your question by quoting them

It's a problem for both? How was that not obvious?

If someone has their fingers in International dealings, they become susceptible to international pressure. I can see someone being concerned about Biden, I can see somebody being concerned about Trump, I can see somebody concerned about Hillary Clinton.

I don't know about the Bushes, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Someone concerned about Trump but not about Biden is showing selective bias, not projection. And that would be distinguished from efforts at identifying proportionality between the relative concerns.

Both are not obvious, we've had 4 years of investigating Trump and I haven't seen serious allegations involving compromat hold up under scrutiny. The Steele Dossier has been discredited, Trump was not the Manchurian candidate. That was Hillary's et al lie and the evidence shows she had far more involvement with Russia than Trump. Joe Biden on the other hand is lying about extensive financial entanglements for which he can be blackmailed.

Now if he just told the truth blackmail wouldn't be a concern, but the reason the Democrats impeached Trump was the lie that Biden's a fine upstanding citizen and Trump wanted Ukraine to fabricate charges against him. That too is projection, they were fabricating charges against Trump. They even fed those lies to the FBI and a Fisa court to spy on Trump. How can the Democrats argue for impeaching Trump when Biden admitted his family got rich off his political office?

The projection I was talking about comes from people who are guilty of doing what they accused Trump of doing, not the hypocrisy you're describing. In this case, the Democrats who get rich selling access and favors while knowing the Biden family got rich off it too are complaining about Trump's "loyalty". Their hypocrisy - or selective bias - makes their corruption even worse. Jesus confirmed to the adulteress what she did was wrong (go and sin no more) but he was more incensed with the stone throwing Pharisees.

 

[cardgame]

How can the Democrats argue for impeaching Trump when Biden admitted his family got rich off his political office?

How can you ask this question when Trump pays his own family members six figure salaries for no reason?

 

[El_Machinae]

... so you don't think that having your trademark confirmed in China shortly after getting elected is 'problematic'? You don't think that having an ongoing hotel deal in Russia while lying to the voters about it is 'problematic'?

Wow. I keep think you're trying to provide an even keel. I said nothing about Trump being compromised. I said it's a bad idea to hire someone who's got too much exposure. We have no idea how much Trump let his international wealth affect his judgement. Zero. And, more, there's no way to have been able to tell ahead of time.

Look, all I'm saying is that having someone with international exposure isn't a good idea. Stop hiring people with vast international fortunes to run things, and that specific problem goes away.

 

[Berzerker]

How can you ask this question when Trump pays his own family members six figure salaries for no reason?

Would that include Jared? I think he's earned his keep. I dont know who else is getting money but I largely ignore the nepotism of both parties unless it becomes part of a larger picture of corruption and hypocrisy. If either side wants to make it an issue they better be the 3rd little pig, thats all. You're comparing a salary to compromat and impeachment and you removed my question from its context.

Here's what I said:

Both are not obvious, we've had 4 years of investigating Trump and I haven't seen serious allegations involving compromat hold up under scrutiny. The Steele Dossier has been discredited, Trump was not the Manchurian candidate. That was Hillary's et al lie and the evidence shows she had far more involvement with Russia than Trump. Joe Biden on the other hand is lying about extensive financial entanglements for which he can be blackmailed.

Now if he just told the truth blackmail wouldn't be a concern, but the reason the Democrats impeached Trump was the lie that Biden's a fine upstanding citizen and Trump wanted Ukraine to fabricate charges against him. That too is projection, they were fabricating charges against Trump. They even fed those lies to the FBI and a Fisa court to spy on Trump. How can the Democrats argue for impeaching Trump when Biden admitted his family got rich off his political office?

Can Trump be blackmailed for paying family members? That aint why he got impeached and thats why I can ask that question. We're not talking about the general, low level corruption that permeates politics, this is about blackmail material... and several countries have it on Biden. I thought Russia had something on Trump too, the propaganda campaign against him was so incessantly thorough I imagine a large majority of 'independents' were brainwashed by the Democrats and their deep state and media.

... so you don't think that having your trademark confirmed in China shortly after getting elected is 'problematic'? You don't think that having an ongoing hotel deal in Russia while lying to the voters about it is 'problematic'?

Wow. I keep think you're trying to provide an even keel. I said nothing about Trump being compromised. I said it's a bad idea to hire someone who's got too much exposure. We have no idea how much Trump let his international wealth affect his judgement. Zero. And, more, there's no way to have been able to tell ahead of time.

Look, all I'm saying is that having someone with international exposure isn't a good idea. Stop hiring people with vast international fortunes to run things, and that specific problem goes away.

Can China or Russia blackmail Trump over a TM or a hotel deal that never happened? I said Biden was compromised and you said Trump was in the same boat, something about international pressure I think. I dont fully understand what that means but I provided the context - compromat, blackmail material.

If you're saying both are corrupt, yeah, they are. But its like the boy who cried wolf, the Democrats had us believing the worst of the worst and when their sham was exposed by Mueller and Horowitz people rightly became skeptical of them and more sympathetic to Trump. I agree with the last part of that, but the powers that be wont let Jimmy Stewart run for office.

 

[cardgame]

Would that include Jared? I think he's earned his keep. I dont know who else is getting money but I largely ignore the nepotism of both parties unless it becomes part of a larger picture of corruption and hypocrisy. If either side wants to make it an issue they better be the 3rd little pig, thats all. You're comparing a salary to compromat and impeachment and you removed my question from its context.

This Jared? https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/jared-kushner-campaign-shell-company

Yeah, I'm sure he has earned his keep, according to Trump.

 

[Sommerswerd]

...and there they are.

Yes indeed... I see them... and to underscore it, since the quote function cut it off... the phrase that pays is....

When the power gap is so vast, the weakest side is a victim by default

Do you extend that reasoning to black people BTW? Are we "victims by default"? Or is that different somehow?

let alone the bullying which took place against Lewinsky and still does.

I agree that Lewinsky was certainly the victim of terrible treatment by the media and public after the affair became public. But nowhere in that video you posted does she say that Clinton assaulted her or took advantage of her sexually. She has been consistent all along that the affair was consensual, and it is wrong for you to imply otherwise.

As an aside... gotta love Hillary's whataboutism at 2:20. She certainly stands by her man... or something along those lines.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes indeed... I see them... and to underscore it, since the quote function cut it off... the phrase that pays is....
Do you extend that reasoning to black people BTW? Are we "victims by default"? Or is that different somehow? I agree that Lewinsky was certainly the victim of terrible treatment by the media and public after the affair became public. But nowhere in that video you posted does she say that Clinton assaulted her or took advantage of her sexually. She has been consistent all along that the affair was consensual, and it is wrong for you to imply otherwise.

As an aside... gotta love Hillary's whataboutism at 2:20. She certainly stands by her man... or something along those lines.

Nowhere in my post did I say that is what was meant by victim. And you already drew a parallel to black people, if you wish to look at it that way: the answer is still yes.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I was giving credit to the person who answered your question by quoting them

So I should take this to mean that you embrace/agree with the claims of widespread voter fraud causing Trump's loss?

Jesus confirmed to the adulteress what she did was wrong (go and sin no more) but he was more incensed with the stone throwing Pharisees.

As an aside... for a person who never cites a single chapter or verse of actual scripture... this constant referencing of "the Pharisees" is just... I mean...I guess what I'll say is... this is your go-to for some reason... so quote us a verse, if you're in church this freaking much. It's Christmas.