| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
 Posted: 02/03/19 7:20 pm ::: Northam |
Reply  |
|
The Gov Northam (D-Virginia) debacle: I don't get it.
Yes, I understand and appreciate how stupid his past actions were. I also appreciate his body of work as a governor, and how the 2 things, in contrast, represent a picture of "change"---HE DON'T DO THAT NO MORE.
Why must he resign, though? If that CURRENTLY/ongoing-racist Iowan (King) is not called upon to resign, why should Northam? Trump's history of racism and misogyny is documented. I don't see any resignation on the horizon.
Really?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/03/19 8:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
King is being called upon to resign.
Presumably Roy Moore no longer tries to hook up with 15 year olds, but we still argued that his past actions were disqualifying.
It would be hypocritical to say that "this was in the past" just because we agree with his politics. If he had brought this forward and said, "I was a moron who didn't understand race issues at this time and have grown immensely since then", then it would be one thing. But that didn't happen.
He needs to resign.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/03/19 10:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
King is being called upon to resign.
Presumably Roy Moore no longer tries to hook up with 15 year olds, but we still argued that his past actions were disqualifying.
It would be hypocritical to say that "this was in the past" just because we agree with his politics. If he had brought this forward and said, "I was a moron who didn't understand race issues at this time and have grown immensely since then", then it would be one thing. But that didn't happen.
He needs to resign. |
Don't think I'd equate something stupid (donning blackface) with something illegal and damaging to minors (sex with children), but yeah, both are "immoral". Just sticking with racism.....I don't get why there's such a glaring spotlight on him when King in Iowa just gets re-elected.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 4:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| I don't get why there's such a glaring spotlight on him when King in Iowa just gets re-elected. |
The money behind his own party, the woke, celebs, etc. are calling for him to resign. They have their own rules for this sort of thing and a politician is replaceable.
Although more and more I find myself disagreeing with that element in American politics, on this, I'm in total agreement. He should resign. He can be loved by family and forgiven by his community, but for ever being the kind of person who would do these things and think they're funny and that they should be included in his year book entry indicates that he's been amused by things that he shouldn't have ever been amused by, for one, and then add that he had at one time these judgment and arrogance issues that I would not overlook or forgive because I would consider them to be indicative of deeper character flaws.
I'm not all that sure at this point that people change who they are. I think public people who have needed to have their images rehabilitated are largely responsible for keeping that notion front and center in people's minds. Down here on the ground, that's not really what I've seen in my life. I see the opposite. People mature. I sometimes expect them to be different people than they used to be. But that's rarely the case.
Lastly, I consider myself to have been an often rascally character. So when it comes up that people have done things that drunk or sober even my addled or careless mind wouldn't have signed off on, that's a real red flag for me. This guy is about my age, I think. So that means that there was a moment back in the 80s when I might have encountered this him, saw someone about the same age as me, and saw him dressed up like those pictures or deciding to plop those shots into his yearbook, and I would have thought, Jeez, you might do some crazy shit sometimes, but at least you ain't that dude.
I said 'lastly' but then there was that press conference.  And again, that presser tells you everything you need to know about this guy. He's just visibly off somehow. Not nearly as bad as Ben Carson but, once again, you have the doctor who decides he wants to be a high-level elected official._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66896
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 8:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I'm of the same opinion as I was on Al Franken. He hasn't broken any laws, so there's no need to resign. The voters can decide how much this matters.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 10:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| ..... He should resign. He can be loved by family and forgiven by his community, but for ever being the kind of person who would do these things and think they're funny and that they should be included in his year book entry indicates that he's been amused by things that he shouldn't have ever been amused by, for one, and then add that he had at one time these judgment and arrogance issues that I would not overlook or forgive because I would consider them to be indicative of deeper character flaws. |
This. THIS is precisely how I feet about Kavanaugh. And yet. HE'S put onto to Highest Court in The Land. Forever. To judge and validate laws that affect peoples' lives for a lifetime.
Go figure.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19756
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 8:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The biggest issue for me is policy.
How can you trust he will make policy decisions that will be beneficial to minorities, if he can’t even manage to not do black face.
That’s what it’s always about.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
Last edited by mercfan3 on 02/04/19 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 8:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
The biggest issue for me is policy.
How can you trust he will make policy decisions that will be beneficial to monorities, if he can’t even manage to not do black face.
That’s what it’s always about. |
Well, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. This happened a long time ago, and I believe that people's decision making abilities tend to mature greatly from their college days. So bad choices back then doesn't necessarily mean he would make bad choices now.
However, I do absolutely think that bad choices from your past, even your distant past can still disqualify you from holding public office in the future. And this is a doozy of a bad choice. I mean, it's not that he did black face. If it were a Halloween costume where he had dressed up as Michael Jackson in Thriller back in the early 80s, I would expect him to apologize and explain that he has come to understand the complexities of black face in a way that his younger self was beyond ignorant about. But I think we could probably all just move on.
But he posed in black face next to someone in a KKK robe. Yeah, even in the 80s there was nothing complex about the racism there.
And I think this has to be disqualifying, especially for a Democrat, because these are the issues that matter the most and you lose your ability to lead on them. You know for a fact that any time Northam tried to address issues related to racism he would be met by GOP sneers trolling him with this photo. It would be never ending whataboutisms, the same way we Democrats are still paying for how badly we fucked up our blind partisan loyalty to Bill Clinton.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9605
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 9:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
If it were a Halloween costume where he had dressed up as Michael Jackson in Thriller back in the early 80s, I would expect him to apologize and explain that he has come to understand the complexities of blackface in a way that his younger self was beyond ignorant about. But I think we could probably all just move on.
But he posed in blackface next to someone in a KKK robe. Yeah, even in the 80s there was nothing complex about the racism there. |
Is it known that this was not related to Halloween?
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves, but we aren't tearing down their statues as we are with Robert E. Lee. You said that is because he was "on the wrong side of history". I think that meant by the time he was doing it he should have known better versus Washington. But my impression is that blackface was viewed much more severely now than it was decades ago. Megyn Kelly got fired for suggesting that, but I think it was a true statement.
| Quote: |
| And I think this has to be disqualifying, especially for a Democrat, because these are the issues that matter the most and you lose your ability to lead on them. |
Yes, with their constant cries of "Republicans are racist", with the implication that "but none of us are", they have to purge when they see Democrat behavior they label racist in order for that to continue to work. And in this particular case they were going hard on identity politics:
| Quote: |
Kamala Harris @KamalaHarris
Congratulations to @RalphNortham and his team for showing that Virginia won’t stand for hatred and bigotry
5:17 PM - 7 Nov 2017
|
Last edited by tfan on 02/04/19 10:07 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9605
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 9:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
The biggest issue for me is policy.
How can you trust he will make policy decisions that will be beneficial to minorities, if he can’t even manage to not do blackface.
That’s what it’s always about. |
I know that requiring people to not have to show ID when they vote is considered a policy beneficial to minorities. And affirmative action or hiring quotas would also be. Are the others all "low income" related?
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19756
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 10:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
The biggest issue for me is policy.
How can you trust he will make policy decisions that will be beneficial to minorities, if he can’t even manage to not do blackface.
That’s what it’s always about. |
I know that requiring people to not have to show ID when they vote is considered a policy beneficial to minorities. And affirmative action or hiring quotas would also be. Are the others all "low income" related? |
I honestly should have said “how do I know he won’t promote policies that harm minorities..” because so few actually help.
We can start with prison and drug laws. The death penalty is racist. Education decisions tend to end up hurting minorities students. There’s plenty of policies.
And I think it’s plenty fair, regardless of how long it was ago. At best, it shows a lack of awareness..which certainly crossed into “probably isn’t aware of how this policy might impact people.”
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 11:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
Is it known that this was not related to Halloween?
|
Why does it matter if it was related to Halloween or not? The issue here is not the blackface in and of itself. My example was that if he could have reasonably looked at the electorate and said "I just didn't know then what I do know now" it would have been a powerful argument, and likely would have been accepted. Most people get that in the early 1980s the idea that blackface in and of itself was racist wasn't something that was widely understood. Thus my Michael Jackson example. Had it been something mundane like that it would be fair to conclude that a reasonable person living in the 80s could have done that and not known he was being racist.
But the moment you dress in blackface and pose next to someone dressed in a KKK robe, yeah....Halloween costume in the 80s or not, a reasonable person would have been expected to understand that it is racist and not do it. It's the blackface in that context that makes the whole "it was a different time" thing moot. That the Klan=Racist has been understood since loooooong before the 80s rolled around.
As far as the Confederates vs. Founding Fathers as slave holders, yes, when judging historical figures I try to judge them against their peers and common philosophies of their times. For instance, while I can find historical institutions like slavery repugnant, when it comes to individuals I am going to condemn those that actively fought to maintain that repugnant institution when civilization was ready to move on from it.
As far as how blackface is seen then and now, I think you are partially correct. Society as a whole views blackface much more severely now than it did back in the 80s and before. But that isn't what got Kelly in trouble. Rather she was trying to excuse current usage of blackface by saying "but we used to do it all the time and it was no big deal". The problem is that while society views it much more harshly now, the actual oppressed people have viewed it harshly all along. It's just that along the way society actually started to slowly listen to them and we discovered the ugly history of blackface and why we shouldn't even hint at it--even for something innocent like Halloween. Thus now most people view it harshly.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Last edited by justintyme on 02/04/19 11:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/04/19 11:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
And I think it’s plenty fair, regardless of how long it was ago. At best, it shows a lack of awareness..which certainly crossed into “probably isn’t aware of how this policy might impact people.” |
Well, the picture shows a 20 year old with a lack of awareness. Which doesn't necessarily mean anything about today. I know I made a ton of bad decisions in my 20s (especially financial) that I would never make today, just having matured physically and emotionally, and simply having experienced many more things that have all taught me lessons.
However, that is just the picture in and of itself. Based upon his handling of the entire situation, it does call into question his judgement. And there is the fact that he was not the one to bring this forward. I think we can make mistakes when we are young and learn from them, but if we are going to run for office, if they are biggies like this one, they better be on the table and addressed openly. And then let the voters decide.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 12:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| It would be never ending whataboutisms, the same way we Democrats are still paying for how badly we fucked up our blind partisan loyalty to Bill Clinton. |
Hmmm. Not exactly clear on how we are still "paying"....clarification?
Re: Bill--I have no regrets for 'standing by him'. I believe he'll rank as one of the brightest and best presidents ever, flaws and peccadillos notwithstanding. Republicans might still use that history as some kind of currency in rebutting Trump's misogyny--that's inevitable, but invalid, imo.
What about JFK? How does he rate demi-god status after all HIS peccadillos? Just cuz he was assassinated? Or MLK's womanizing? We just about canonized Bush Sr. recently--his shady past notwithstanding. If they're dead we honor them, but if they're still living we castigate them?
My metric is less complicated: If Trump qualifies for election, and Kavanaugh can be appointed, Northam certainly has my blessing to govern.
Hypothetical: what if....just what if it had been discovered that Northam had actually participated in a KKK chapter, for....say a year or so. BUT, had a big Come-To-Jesus moment, amended his ways, and was now where he finds himself: a governor that's making progress on racial concerns in his state. Is one in that position never ever able to atone for a past indiscretion?
On a tangential note: I really was mortified to hear Liam Neeson's confession of spending significant time intent on perpetrating a racially-motivated murder. That's a whole 'nother level of concern, but adds a depth of perception to the debate.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9605
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 1:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
Is it known that this was not related to Halloween?
|
But the moment you dress in blackface and pose next to someone dressed in a KKK robe, yeah....Halloween costume in the 80s or not, a reasonable person would have been expected to understand that it is racist and not do it. It's the blackface in that context that makes the whole "it was a different time" thing moot. That the Klan=Racist has been understood since loooooong before the 80s rolled around. |
Yes, true. Somehow I was forgetting about the KKK-dressed person in the picture and reduced it in my mind to "he dressed in blackface."
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9605
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 1:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
Re: Bill--I have no regrets for 'standing by him'. I believe he'll rank as one of the brightest and best presidents ever, flaws and peccadillos notwithstanding. Republicans might still use that history as some kind of currency in rebutting Trump's misogyny--that's inevitable, but invalid, imo.
What about JFK? How does he rate demi-god status after all HIS peccadillos? Just cuz he was assassinated? Or MLK's womanizing? We just about canonized Bush Sr. recently--his shady past notwithstanding. If they're dead we honor them, but if they're still living we castigate them?
|
Clinton had affairs/sex outside of his marriage and was also accused of sexual harassment. I think it is the sexual harassment charges that would be viewed differently now versus then, and not considered peccadillos. JFK also is said to have had affairs/sex outside of marriage but he didn't have sexual harassment charges that I know of.
George H.W. Bush was apparently (in addition to a rumored affair) a groper when taking pictures with young women, including an underage female. But he seems to have gotten a pass because he wasn't in office when they came to light, and he was a very old man in a wheelchair even though he wasn't in a wheelchair for all of the incidents, and he is a Republican, and Republicans require video proof. People also seem to pay attention less to each reported detail of a story. I believe the first one or two accusers were from when he was wheelchair bound, leading some to defend him online with comments like "when you are sitting in a wheelchair and you go to put your arm around someone that is where you will touch". He actually semi-admitted to it in a making a "baseball player defense", saying he was "patt[ing] women's rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner."
| Quote: |
Bush's spokesman Jim McGrath responded to the allegations with a statement — a "non-apology apology" — to multiple news organizations:
"At age 93, President Bush has been confined to a wheelchair for roughly five years, so his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures. To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women's rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner. Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate. To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely." |
But he is alleged to have brazenly admitted much worse while groping:
| Quote: |
| "We all circled around him and Barbara for a photo, and I was right next to him," Grolnick told the website. "He reached his right hand around to my behind, and as we smiled for the photo he asked the group, 'Do you want to know who my favorite magician is?' As I felt his hand dig into my flesh, he said, 'David Cop-a-Feel!' " |
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 5:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| the same way we Democrats are still paying for how badly we fucked up our blind partisan loyalty to Bill Clinton. |
I see Howee beat me to this but I'm just all kinds of bemused not just by this statement but by the way it is just such a reflection of the now accepted acceptable thinking about the Lewinsky scandal.
So the first thing is your use of the word 'we.'
Do you simply mean 'we' Democrats or do you mean 'we' who personally actively participated in the standing by our man back in the late 90s? Was that something you were engaged in at that time or are you just saying we Dems? It's important. Because you can be forgiven if you weren't around back then and you're just going by what is now the preferred narrative. But if you were around and politically aware or even a thinking adult coming from the Democratic side of things and you NOW think what you wrote there reflects the true and actual reality of that story then I wouldn't know what to think there.
So yeah, that's certainly now how the 'woke' generations have decided this all went down and they scare everyone so terrifically that no one who clearly remembers the reality of those times would dare in this climate to attempt to correct the record and rescue actual history from the clutches of another element of our politics who wants to create a revisionist version of things that happened before they were old enough to know any of it.
So, "we" didn't fuck anything up and we didn't show blind partisan loyalty to Bill Clinton. What's happened, ironically, is that it is this generation on the left who demand an unworkable fantasy version of politically partisan loyalty who are the ones that are blind.
So before Donald Trump, Republicans were these very smart devils who were fucking up the country decade after decade. The Clintons were an immense threat to all that. Unprecedented since the Kennedys. Why, you might be asking because you think that Clinton was a centrist, etc. It doesn't matter where he was on the political spectrum or how much he would bend to make deals or who he would sell out. He was not nor would he ever be a Republican, meaning one of them, controlled by their special interests, etc.
So they threw everything they had at him for pretty much one and a half terms. Right wing radio took off during the Clinton presidency. They built up so much hatred toward the Clintons that it makes ANYTHING that people today think was directed at the Obamas look like rose petals and champagne kisses. The mainstream media participated by building up every whiff of a scandal from the casual clothes and open door of the Oval Office to the firing of the White House travel agency to what Bill ate, how Hillary became involved in crafting health care reform, and on, and on, and on.
So if you're a Democrat and Clinton is your guy, you saw what was happening. The political establishment of this country was trying to spit these two interlopers back to Arkansas and the Republicans were working every angle in every corner of this country, from DC, to the hills of Arkansas and anywhere else they could find anything that would knock Bill Clinton down.
Kenneth Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater in 1994. He never found anything. But he was STILL THERE in 1998 when Monica Lewinsky's semen stained dress surfaced. Think about that. This was a fucking politically partisan witch hunt. Lewinsky had nothing to do with Whitewater. But the Republicans in congress were determined to REMOVE Bill Clinton from office, overturn the results of a presidential election, using a sexual encounter that took place AFTER the special counsel was appointed to investigate a land deal in Arkansas that happened a decade earlier.
Unless you were in on the fun of having Bill Clinton removed from office, you, and every woke 20 something who weeps for Monica Lewinsky today would have stood up and said FUCK YOU NEWT! LINDSEY. DICK SMARMY! HENRY HYDE... you're not removing a twice elected Democratic president!
Or do people think that in this either/or political world we've been living in for the last 30 years, that this generation today would have said, "Yeah, we're going to have to side with the Republicans on this one."
How about this? Let's create an illustrative fantasy of our own. Let's say that Trump loses to Warren in 2020. And a year in, former president Donald Trump, standing along side Republican leaders from both chambers, says, um, we have uncovered irrefutable evidence that President Warren knowingly lied to federal investigators about an affair she had with a young intern while campaigning for the presidency. She has denied it but there's a video that confirms it. And, to make matters worse, the dude has fled the country and was working for a foreign government. Take your pick other than Russia. It all looks legit. But she didn't know about his affiliation with a foreign government and all she was denying was a one night stand. But she did lie.
But this is Donald Trump standing there smiling and he spent his own money on the investigation and Republicans were able to in a secret session get federal investigators to testify to what Warren had untruthfully told them and all of that.
So now they're going to launch an investigation, they're calling for a special counsel, Trump is being Trump and he's calling for Pocahontas to resign, and the Republicans, who magically took back the House and maintained control of the Senate (bear with me,) are marching us all towards the impeachment and removal from office of the first female President of the United States.
Trump and the Republicans are doing this. Yeah, some shit went down on the campaign trail. But now this is really happening.
Now whose side do you think the resistance, feminists, the woke generation, progressives, Hollywood, etc. are going to be on? Seriously? They would change the NAME of the resistance and it would be ALL HANDS ON DECK until THIS threat against a democratically elected Democrat was defeated. To hell with that young intern. He was foreigner anyway.
When this shit happens there is only one side that you can be on. Nobody gave a fuck about Monica Lewinsky and in the face of having the Republicans overturn the results of a presidential election and the threat becoming all to real that they will be successful in removing an able and Democratic president purely as a bloodless coup, and basically DESTROYING American democracy in the process, nobody SHOULD have given a fuck about Monica Lewinsky. Given those stark choices, no one would today.
Hillary Clinton was dead on absolutely 100 percent correct and truthful when she described what was happening being the result of a "Vast, right-wing conspiracy." She was MOCKED by the same press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, etc. who people defend from Trump's fake news onslaughts. They would ask her, "But Mrs. Clinton. Are WE a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy?" But what the mainstream press wrote ended up being the historical takeaway of Hillary's RWC claims. That they were dubious etc. To the point where even today you would NEVER hear a young person, a resistance type, say, Bill Clinton was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. That person would be shunned and expelled from all further wokeness.
Because none of this shit matters to this generation today. These aren't their problems. They're focused like hot lasers on Trump but they don't understand that it was the same fight in the 90s just different names and different scenarios are involved.
So tell me who 'we' is? Were you around and politically aware back then or what?_________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 6:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I was very much involved in the whole thing at the time, and very much regret hand waving his treatment of Lewinsky away like it was "no big deal".
But I also agree with you that there was a vast right wing conspiracy trying desperately to take down the Clintons. Both of these things can be true.
Ultimately Bill Clinton abused an immense power differential with a 19 year old intern. And then lied about it under oath. And how the Clinton political machine treated her in the aftermath, including her diagnosis of PTSD.
And like I said, we have paid for it for years. All the momentum that the Anita Hill case had built up came screeching to a halt. It took us how many more years until we finally got to #metoo? And even today whenever we try to keep predators like Kavanaugh and Trump out of office, all we hear is "you sure didn't care when it was Clinton".
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 5:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Ultimately Bill Clinton abused an immense power differential with a 19 year old intern. And then lied about it under oath. And how the Clinton political machine treated her in the aftermath, including her diagnosis of PTSD. |
I have never believed this for one minute. I'd sooner believe that she was an actual *plant*/mole sent in to entrap a morally weak man.
More realistically, though, Monica was NOT a victim. She was a consenting adult who could have walked a way....but SHE DID NOT WANT TO. Until $h!t got too deep for her. Then, the infamy/notoriety hounded her, she gets all emotional and regretful, entrapped in the morass she helped create. PTSD? Save it for those who've REALLY earned that classification, starting with those who didn't play a part in their own "trauma".
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Because none of this shit matters to this generation today. These aren't their problems. They're focused like hot lasers on Trump but they don't understand that it was the same fight in the 90s just different names and different scenarios are involved. |
Though there may be some parallels, I see a HUGE difference: The Dems (mostly) loved Clinton. I think there are very few elected, relevant Republicans that LOVE Trump. Moreover, I don't recall any time/situation where Dems were cowed by Bill, fearing how he might ruin their political careers if they disavowed him. Trump rules the ball-less Republicans (think: McConnell, Graham, et. al.) in ways they must secretly hate. Like a dictator, he rules his party with fear. I really believe a majority of them might be delighted to see him dethroned, except for the fact it might shred the GOP beyond recognition.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 7:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Seriously? Even after all we have come to understand recently, we still can't accept that serious power differentials create major issues with the ability to freely consent?
There is a reason why I am not allowed to have relationships with my students, even if they are "consenting adults who could easily walk away" and even if they "wanted to" with all their little undergrad hearts. It quite simply is way too easy to manipulate when you are in that sort of position and grooming is a real thing.
It is one of those things that should not send you to jail for doing, as it doesn't make you a criminal, it just makes you a shit human being. But if you do it on the job, it sure as hell should get you fired and sure as hell should not be tolerated. And that includes being fired from being president of the United States.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 10:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Seriously? Even after all we have come to understand recently, we still can't accept that serious power differentials create major issues with the ability to freely consent?
There is a reason why I am not allowed to have relationships with my students, even if they are "consenting adults who could easily walk away" and even if they "wanted to" with all their little undergrad hearts. It quite simply is way too easy to manipulate when you are in that sort of position and grooming is a real thing.
It is one of those things that should not send you to jail for doing, as it doesn't make you a criminal, it just makes you a shit human being. But if you do it on the job, it sure as hell should get you fired and sure as hell should not be tolerated. And that includes being fired from being president of the United States. |
"Power differentials" have existed since time immemorial....there's nothing to "accept" about it, any more than the sky is blue. 40-something men have seduced 19 year old women all this time, too. No one ever claimed these 2 hooked up as equals at some club; the concept of "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac" played a role here. Was he a scumbag for taking advantage of it? Certainly.
Should he lose his job for it? Not in my opinion. He wasn't even impeached for the affair, but rather for perjuring himself in its aftermath.
You'd lose your job for similar behavior? Okay. There IS something of a difference between a teacher:pupil relationship and a Man of Great Power who finds an intern on the periphery coming on to him. Not *much*, but also not exactly the same.
How it played out is all history, water over the dam. But I, for one, will never consider Monica the "innocent" victim. And I don't think SHE does, either--or she'd never have apologized to Hillary as she did.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21926
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 10:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| When I saw jammer quote that Clinton line from justintyme and respond with a lot of words, for some reason I assumed they would be about Paula Jones rather than Monica Lewinski.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 11:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| When I saw jammer quote that Clinton line from justintyme and respond with a lot of words, for some reason I assumed they would be about Paula Jones rather than Monica Lewinski. |
Why?_________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21045
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/05/19 11:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
Seriously? Even after all we have come to understand recently, we still can't accept that serious power differentials create major issues with the ability to freely consent?
There is a reason why I am not allowed to have relationships with my students, even if they are "consenting adults who could easily walk away" and even if they "wanted to" with all their little undergrad hearts. It quite simply is way too easy to manipulate when you are in that sort of position and grooming is a real thing.
It is one of those things that should not send you to jail for doing, as it doesn't make you a criminal, it just makes you a shit human being. But if you do it on the job, it sure as hell should get you fired and sure as hell should not be tolerated. And that includes being fired from being president of the United States. |
Remove the democratically elected president because the partisan investigation into a land deal that went far beyond its scope eventually stumbles into an awareness of the existence of a dress containing the semen of that president?
He wasn’t impeached and facing removal from office for abusing the “power differential.” So are you saying he should have been removed from office for a reason that wasn’t even in the articles of impeachment?_________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/06/19 12:14 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
Seriously? Even after all we have come to understand recently, we still can't accept that serious power differentials create major issues with the ability to freely consent?
There is a reason why I am not allowed to have relationships with my students, even if they are "consenting adults who could easily walk away" and even if they "wanted to" with all their little undergrad hearts. It quite simply is way too easy to manipulate when you are in that sort of position and grooming is a real thing.
It is one of those things that should not send you to jail for doing, as it doesn't make you a criminal, it just makes you a shit human being. But if you do it on the job, it sure as hell should get you fired and sure as hell should not be tolerated. And that includes being fired from being president of the United States. |
Remove the democratically elected president because the partisan investigation into a land deal that went far beyond its scope eventually stumbles into an awareness of the existence of a dress containing the semen of that president?
He wasn’t impeached and facing removal from office for abusing the “power differential.” So are you saying he should have been removed from office for a reason that wasn’t even in the articles of impeachment? |
I am saying that fucking the intern should lead to the removal of the CEO. Or the firing of the teacher. Or in this case, removal of a president.
But the perjury was definitely a legitimate thing to impeach him for. He knowingly lied under oath. I know if we can prove Trump knowingly lied under oath (or got someone to lie for him) I would want him gone. Even though paying off porn stars is far beyond the scope of looking into Russian meddling in the election.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
|
|
