[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-07, 02:48, said:

So you do not consider someone that exploits vulnerable people and gropes women's pussies to be an a$$h0le? And how about the bullsh!t - are you seriously willing to stand up and say that Trump does not speak or tweet it on a regular basis? You are still trolling sir!

To be perfectly fair, a man involved in abusing his position and power and authority to get sexual favors from allegedly vulnerable woman should logically be grounds for disqualification. However, it just doesn't seem to prevent the populace from looking past trysts and seeing "the greater potential" of his leadership.

Looking back, one would think Clinton's past alleged sexual peccadilloes as Governor would prevent him from gaining the Presidency, but he was so damn charismatic, calculating, and focused from a leadership standpoint, that he won the popular vote. His alleged sexual escapades didn't seem to matter so much once his wife knowingly and willfully stood by her man.

Some would say Clinton was an unfaithful, opportunistic womanizer, but that didn't stop his ascendancy to President.

[billw55]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-07, 13:56, said:

Some would say [blank] was an unfaithful, opportunistic womanizer, but that didn't stop his ascendancy to President.

Interestingly, if the name is redacted from this sentence it is difficult to tell who it is about.

Back then, Rs acted aghast at the sexual misconduct, while Ds seemed quite ok with it. Nowadays both parties have reversed course. In some ways they aren't all that different.

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-07, 13:56, said:

Some would say Clinton was an unfaithful, opportunistic womanizer, but that didn't stop his ascendancy to President.

And so was JFK, and that doesn't stop him from being revered.

The difference is that for these other Presidents, their womanizing seemed to be an aberration, they were otherwise pretty decent people. In Trump's case, it's just one more serious character flaw. He was also a notoriously dishonest businessman, and his business accumen was supposedly one of the reasons people voted for him.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-July-08, 14:01, said:

And so was JFK, and that doesn't stop him from being revered.

The difference is that for these other Presidents, their womanizing seemed to be an aberration, they were otherwise pretty decent people. In Trump's case, it's just one more serious character flaw. He was also a notoriously dishonest businessman, and his business accumen was supposedly one of the reasons people voted for him.

http://www.cnn.com/2...tion/index.html

Please review this list and the outcomes including settlements paid. I would submit that there is a pattern to this behavior. Watch our actions, for they become habits. Watch our habits, for they become character.

This is not just an aberration... it is a habitual act that reveals a serious character flaw in terms of honesty, fidelity, accountability and self-discipline. It's unfair to compartmentalize these flaws and disassociate them from the greater leader. They are part and parcel and can not be surgically or ideologically removed from the man.

However, the populace tends to overlook these peccadilloes and abuses of power in office because he is articulate, charming, charismatic, and has solid consensus-building skills. Also, his accomplishments in office overshadow this character issue. Even when he lied about the affair to the nation, he was impeached and still remained in office thanks to partisan votes in the Senate.

Nobody likes to be called a bad judge of character. So even if Clinton's past caught up with him with Lewinsky, most people didn't want to see additional evidence of this character flaw aka "aberration". Many said this was a marital issue even when the sexual acts occurred in the White House and with a paid White House intern and even when the subsequent lying and cover-up under oath were all politically calculated, yet morally flawed choices.

To me, that suggests being a womanizer and adulterer in office and lying about it and obstructing justice has consequences, but forcible removal from the Office of President isn't one of them. Long story short--we are principled RELATIVE to the person who is the hot topic and relative to the type of political capital the accused has accrued when he commits despicable acts. There are shades of gray when it comes to character.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-July-08, 14:01, said:

The difference is that for these other Presidents, their womanizing seemed to be an aberration, they were otherwise pretty decent people.

Surely the biggest difference is that the actions of JFK and BC were consensual whereas the pussy-grabbing of DT is sexual assault. Those equating these acts really ought to take a good, long, hard look at themseleves and how they view the rights of women.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-09, 05:24, said:

Surely the biggest difference is that the actions of JFK and BC were consensual whereas the pussy-grabbing of DT is sexual assault. Those equating these acts really ought to take a good, long, hard look at themseleves and how they view the rights of women.

Trump talked of grabbing the pu$$y so we need the ladies who were sexually assaulted to come forward and file criminal charges. Clinton knowingly and willfully participated in sexual acts with a government employee in the White House and then proceeded to lie about it under oath and BURY THE TRUTH aka obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

Honestly, Trump seems to talk about his sexual proclivities while Clinton actually delivers on his proclivities with consensual sex and calculated cover-up. I think both men can be provocatively dangerous, but this is a matter of risk assessment and determining which shade of gray you perceive. I feel safe in saying that BC has been given various hall passes for his character flaws by his wife, the public, and the Senate.

[awm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-09, 06:03, said:

Trump talked of grabbing the pu$$y so we need the ladies who were sexually assaulted to come forward and file criminal charges.

Many have come forward. But it's hard to win these cases when it's basically one person's word against another, and these women are frequently subject to threats and harassment from Trump supporters, such that it simply may not be worth it to pursue charges. Trump has a pattern of really disturbing treatment of women; this is quite different from Bill Clinton who is often described as "charming" (but does seem not to value marital fidelity). The inability of so many politicians (of both parties) to be faithful to their spouses is definitely bothersome and there is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides (Newt Gingrich impeaching Clinton for cheating on his wife while Gingrich himself was... cheating on his wife; Democrats mostly forgiving Bill Clinton even though a sexual relationship with a subordinate is technically a crime even if "consensual"; Republicans forgiving Trump for basically everything while attacking Democrats for substantially lesser offenses, etc). And it's not like Mike Pence's attitude about being faithful to his wife is really reassuring either (he can't even be alone with other women because he "might be tempted"? WTF?)

[Al_U_Card]

Abuse of power and the male ego. JFK and WJC were sitting presidents at the time of their peccadillos. Imagine the influence exerted on the women in question. Like rock-star groupies, were they enamored of the position as much as the man? Like molested children, were they fearful of the consequences of non-compliance?
Trump was a big-shot, celebrity who abused his situational power. Like the rock-star, taking advantage of what was "available", no matter the consequence.

Reprehensible behavior on all counts but seemingly it comes with the territory. An exploitable character flaw that can be used as leverage (Remember Elliot Spitzer?) to influence policy and practice. Part and parcel of the way of that particular world.

[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-July-09, 06:24, said:

Many have come forward. But it's hard to win these cases when it's basically one person's word against another, and these women are frequently subject to threats and harassment from Trump supporters, such that it simply may not be worth it to pursue charges. Trump has a pattern of really disturbing treatment of women; this is quite different from Bill Clinton who is often described as "charming" (but does seem not to value marital fidelity). The inability of so many politicians (of both parties) to be faithful to their spouses is definitely bothersome and there is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides (Newt Gingrich impeaching Clinton for cheating on his wife while Gingrich himself was... cheating on his wife; Democrats mostly forgiving Bill Clinton even though a sexual relationship with a subordinate is technically a crime even if "consensual"; Republicans forgiving Trump for basically everything while attacking Democrats for substantially lesser offenses, etc). And it's not like Mike Pence's attitude about being faithful to his wife is really reassuring either (he can't even be alone with other women because he "might be tempted"? WTF?)

Thank you for the link. I'm still at a loss as to how some of these allegations against Trump are good enough for a Gloria Allred civil lawsuit or a news article exposé but aren't substantial enough for criminal charges. But where there's smoke ...

You brought up some great points. Consensual sex with a subordinate on its face is criminal; it is also an abuse of the position and power the Office of the President confers. When you take the sexual act against a subordinate and add the on-camera denials, the lying under oath, and the obstruction of justice and witness tampering.... you have a choice.

You can view the past allegations against BC in a new light with this revelation of character or you can decide to place a mental tarp over this messy train wreck of character flaws and overlook or compartmentalize them because of his greatness as a leader.

I think most people chose the latter, because deep down we all understand the human condition. We know we are very complicated people who have worn a Scarlett Letter "A" on our chest at one time in our lives. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Trying to remove and objectively analyze the onion layers of character through a political lense is a difficult exercise in psychology and philosophy.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-09, 07:51, said:

You brought up some great points. Consensual sex with a subordinate on its face is criminal; it is also an abuse of the position and power the Office of the President confers. When you take the sexual act against a subordinate and add the on-camera denials, the lying under oath, and the obstruction of justice and witness tampering.... you have a choice.

You continue to focus on the actions of BC while apparently considering this much more serious than sexual assault against women. This is seriously troubling to me.

The truth is that almost every man that has been unfaithful has lied about it. Most do not have to continue such denials under oath but one can understand why it was done. On the other hand, I cannot understand knowingly groping women in the way described by DT at all. Who even thinks of doing such a thing in the first place? This is to me seriously disturbed behaviour and I am still at a loss to understand how the American electorate was able to overlook it. I am even more aghast at supposedly intelligent people excusing such behaviour in a public forum in the cold light of day away from the election campaign. Would you overlook rape too? Just how much abuse does a woman need to take before you consider it "serious"?

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 03:15, said:

You continue to focus on the actions of BC while apparently considering this much more serious than sexual assault against women. This is seriously troubling to me.

The truth is that almost every man that has been unfaithful has lied about it. Most do not have to continue such denials under oath but one can understand why it was done. On the other hand, I cannot understand knowingly groping women in the way described by DT at all. Who even thinks of doing such a thing in the first place? This is to me seriously disturbed behaviour and I am still at a loss to understand how the American electorate was able to overlook it. I am even more aghast at supposedly intelligent people excusing such behaviour in a public forum in the cold light of day away from the election campaign. Would you overlook rape too? Just how much abuse does a woman need to take before you consider it "serious"?

I chose BC because it was a clear criminal act. How can a subordinate give free and clear consent when she is subordinate to the authority of the accused? The subordinate is under the direct control of the accused. The accused can use his delegated authority and sphere of influence to punish any and all acts of resistance and retaliation by the subordinate. It's hard to suggest that two like and equal minds engaged in consensual sexual acts when there are likely professional rewards the accused will confer for the subordinate's complicit behavior.

I am not supporting sexual assault because I said we have criminal proceedings if Trump did carry out any of the actions he discussed. What I said was people tend to look past serious character flaws relative to the amount of political capital (celebrity status) the accused has accrued and relative to his overall accomplishments, charisma, and leadership ability.

One could make the case that this was the treatment approach for sexual assaults by famous athletes. Public sentiment is changing however.

http://usatoday30.us...l-assault_x.htm

[PassedOut]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-10, 05:45, said:

I chose BC because it was a clear criminal act. How can a subordinate give free and clear consent when she is subordinate to the authority of the accused?

Bill Clinton's crime was lying under oath. An adult can, in fact, consent to a sexual relationship with a superior, however poor an idea that might be, with no crime being committed. Monica Lewinsky never claimed that she didn't want sex with Clinton. That's way different from Trump's just groping women because he's sure that can get away with it.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-10, 05:45, said:

I chose BC because it was a clear criminal act. How can a subordinate give free and clear consent when she is subordinate to the authority of the accused?

And yet this is something that hapens on a daily basis all over the world and noone bats an eylid. Do you watch Two and a Half Men? Did you think Alan as committing a clear criminal act when he (briefly) dated his receptionist? There are hundreds of further examples to give - you really need to grow up and understand the way human nature works. Monica Lewinsky made it clear that she was at no point coerced or felt that BC's position of power was used negatively and that it was a relationship based purely on mutual consent. There are other issues raised from the affair but this should not be amongst them

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-10, 05:45, said:

I am not supporting sexual assault because I said we have criminal proceedings if Trump did carry out any of the actions he discussed. What I said was people tend to look past serious character flaws relative to the amount of political capital (celebrity status) the accused has accrued and relative to his overall accomplishments, charisma, and leadership ability.

Let me ask you a question. If Trump met your wife alone in a hallway and groped her, how confident would you be in a conviction? I would imagine you would understand that the chances of it even coming to court were negligible and would even consider not reporting it at all given the media attention and public backlash that would accompany such an accusation. This is the way it is for women in the vast majority of sexual assault and rape cases. There is a reason why the report rate in the link you gave is 16% and the prosecution rate for rape cases stands at around 1% for most Western countries. Anything that the POTUS does to make this situation worse is highly damaging to society as a whole. And advancing the suggestion that a certain level of sexual assault is acceptable for some groups is even worse. Seriously, think about what you are saying here! I would like to think you will retract this statement once you have considered the ramifications...

[Cyberyeti]

Having been the victim of a situation where a co-worker dated her superior as a career move, it does happen and is not illegal except in some very specific cases like school pupil/teacher even if the pupil is of age.

[RedSpawn]

PassedOut, on 2017-July-10, 06:39, said:

Bill Clinton's crime was lying under oath. An adult can, in fact, consent to a sexual relationship with a superior, however poor an idea that might be, with no crime being committed. Monica Lewinsky never claimed that she didn't want sex with Clinton. That's way different from Trump's just groping women because he's sure that can get away with it.

His crime under the articles of impeachment are as follows:

Quote

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.(bold mine)

http://www.historypl...arr-excerpt.htm

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. When one masterminds a self-serving scheme, he employs any and all resources in his delegation of authority to control the narrative including lying, subjugating the truth, hiding evidence, witness tampering, and helping potential witnesses obtain jobs far away from the principal state of litigation.

These 11 bullets address the choreography of deceit here. These actions taken as a whole easily besmirches the Office of the President and reveals a character flaw that we should be concerned about.

Can someone explain to me how a man can perform jaw-dropping political gymnastics and still not get impeached AND FULLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE in light of these 11 bullets taken as a whole? It is called charisma and political capital. He had plenty of it.

People who have these things are given much more latitude and leeway than the regular common man.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-10, 08:42, said:

His crime under the articles of impeachment are as follows:



http://www.historypl...arr-excerpt.htm

Can someone explain to me how a man can perform political gymnastics and still not get impeached AND FULLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE in light of these 11 bullets taken as a whole? It is called charisma and political capital. He had plenty of it.

People who have these things are given much more latitude and leeway than the regular common man.

This is not a thread about Bill Clinton. Please stay on topic or at least closer to it.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-10, 08:53, said:

This is not a thread about Bill Clinton. Please stay on topic or at least closer to it.

The comparison was Trump's pu$$y grabbing versus BC's sexual peccadilloes.

Then you have unproven allegations of unwelcome grabbing and kissing:

Quote

Kathleen Willey -- The Democratic activist and White House volunteer said that in 1993, Bill Clinton grabbed and kissed her in the Oval Office's private study. Heckled over the accusation at a campaign event in New Hampshire on Sunday by a GOP state representative, Hillary Clinton emphatically declined to comment. "You are very rude, and I'm not ever going to call on you," Clinton said forcefully, looking directly at the woman. "Thank you."

http://www.cnn.com/2...tion/index.html

I then maintained that the behaviors in question reveal serious character flaws that people overlooked and/or excused. Some folks see them easily in Trump yet dismiss them when BC does it.

Some still maintain that somehow Trump's statements are more lethal even though BC's sexual acts were somehow distilled to just lying under oath when the entirety of the misdeeds was much larger and far more extensive than that.

This is proving the point that people dismiss serious character flaws when the shade of gray doesn't suit the narrative or the leader they support. They place a mental tarp over the train wreck of serious character issues and mitigate the acts in question to a more socially acceptable level.

I am not saying BC is a bad person. I am saying he is a strong leader with MORE than just an "aberration" of bad character. These serious characters flaws are part and parcel.

I am also saying that we don't hold the Office of the President in high regard if someone can commit those 11 acts and still remain in office afterwards. We are principled UP TO A CERTAIN POINT and our political establishment capitalizes on this vulnerability.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-10, 08:42, said:

Can someone explain to me

Certainly, in the (political) impeachment process:

Quote

On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds majority, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[24] (Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted "not proven" for both charges,[25] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty".) The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[26]

End of.

The same is true now. Trump will not be impeached until such time as it becomes politically expedient to do so or the Democrats win the House. It is irrelevant how odious the charges against him might become or how obviously guilty he might be, what matters are the politics of the situation. And I say once again, why do you answer the sexual assault of women with a consensual affair? I am quite sure if the situations were reversed you would be calling for BC to be going to jail and being put on the sex offenders list for such actions.

Let's move on because you seem to be too far gone along partisan lines to be able to see women as valuable members of society. Have a read of this, which I found when clicking Adam's link to the various women that have accused DT. Perhaps it might provide you with some insight as to why you have lost your objectivity somewhere along the way. The link should also be a warning to all Democrats out there - with the economy expected to be improving over the next years, it might be an uphill struggle to win the next term even with all of the questions and scandal surrounding the current administration. More than likely the next Democratic candidate will not win purely through carefully constructed arguments but will have to learn the lessons of partisan communication that this last election have thrown up. If not and the economy really is in a reasonable place in 3 years' time, it will be 8 years of Trump and not 4.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 06:48, said:

And yet this is something that hapens on a daily basis all over the world and noone bats an eylid. Do you watch Two and a Half Men? Did you think Alan as committing a clear criminal act when he (briefly) dated his receptionist? There are hundreds of further examples to give - you really need to grow up and understand the way human nature works. Monica Lewinsky made it clear that she was at no point coerced or felt that BC's position of power was used negatively and that it was a relationship based purely on mutual consent. There are other issues raised from the affair but this should not be amongst them


Let me ask you a question. If Trump met your wife alone in a hallway and groped her, how confident would you be in a conviction? I would imagine you would understand that the chances of it even coming to court were negligible and would even consider not reporting it at all given the media attention and public backlash that would accompany such an accusation. This is the way it is for women in the vast majority of sexual assault and rape cases. There is a reason why the report rate in the link you gave is 16% and the prosecution rate for rape cases stands at around 1% for most Western countries. Anything that the POTUS does to make this situation worse is highly damaging to society as a whole. And advancing the suggestion that a certain level of sexual assault is acceptable for some groups is even worse. Seriously, think about what you are saying here! I would like to think you will retract this statement once you have considered the ramifications...

I am not suggesting that sexual assault by Presidents is acceptable. . . OUR legal system is! That's the problem....people who have great sums of money and power and status are able to avoid the fullest extent of the law and full prosecution for their acts and this emboldens and reinforces the criminal behavior and mindset. American society knows that lady justice peeks behind the blind fold; it's just not discussed that often.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 09:07, said:

Certainly, in the (political) impeachment process:


End of.

The same is true now. Trump will not be impeached until such time as it becomes politically expedient to do so or the Democrats win the House. It is irrelevant how odious the charges against him might become or how obviously guilty he might be, what matters are the politics of the situation. And I say once again, why do you answer the sexual assault of women with a consensual affair? I am quite sure if the situations were reversed you would be calling for BC to be going to jail and being put on the sex offenders list for such actions.

Let's move on because you seem to be too far gone along partisan lines to be able to see women as valuable members of society. Have a read of this, which I found when clicking Adam's link to the various women that have accused DT. Perhaps it might provide you with some insight as to why you have lost your objectivity somewhere along the way. The link should also be a warning to all Democrats out there - with the economy expected to be improving over the next years, it might be an uphill struggle to win the next term even with all of the questions and scandal surrounding the current administration. More than likely the next Democratic candidate will not win purely through carefully constructed arguments but will have to learn the lessons of partisan communication that this last election have thrown up. If not and the economy really is in a reasonable place in 3 years' time, it will be 8 years of Trump and not 4.

Impeachment is a political act so the the perjury and the obstruction of justice votes were basically along partisan lines.

It was not a barometer of the accused's true guilt or innocence. It was a barometer of political alliances and potential political fallout if a Democratic President were removed from Office.

Every single Democrat senator said that BC was neither guilty of perjury nor obstruction of justice. They towed the party line. I guess this is because perjury really does depend on what the meaning of the word is. . .is.

I feel safe in saying that this was a vote to end the impeachment process than it was a testament to the quality of evidence presented. It was kabuki theater because it was never an official criminal proceeding against a sitting President. It resembled more of an official censure. And as stated, BC had plenty of political capital to draw on in the Senate even as a lame duck President.

This still ties in to the idea that "guilt" and "non-guilt" are influenced by money, power, political capital, and status. That's the way our legal and political institutions work (or don't work).