this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
729 points (97.4% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4572 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 9 months ago (4 children)

What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago

thing about that is, clinton actually had a point. he said "there is nothing going on between [he and monica lewinsky]" when asked, and was then accused of perjury. He argued that "is" meant "is", and because at the time of asking he and lewinsky didn't have an ongoing relationship he didn't lie.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago

At least then we could argue about a lie being a lie, now it's all "he never said that (literally 4 seconds ago), if he did it's fine, if you're mad that's your fault, he never said it anyway. I like that he said it."

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Also back then a president getting a BJ was grounds for impeachment lol it really puts things into perspective

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

IIRC, he was impeached for lying about it, not actually doing it which IMHO, is less of an issue than cheating on your wife.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Great now im imagining a timeline where bill was 100% honest about it in a congressional hearing "Yeah I solicited a blowjob from monica, im one of the most famous and wealthiest politicians of the era. Spoilers, all us rich politicians like to get away with stuff we shouldn't be doing, and the system is rigged to let us do it. So, what are you gonna do about it?"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Or even better:

"Hilldawg and I have been ethically non-monogamous since reading The Ethical Slut and I don't really understand why America should be brought into our personal business. Monica is regularly our third and we both filed paperwork with White House HR before any physical interaction to avoid suspicion of bias towards her job performance"

I mean if it's my dream timeline, I wanna make it fun.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Photos from early in their relationship definitely had the requisite amount of fuck-mojo

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

The young Clintons could both get it, ngl

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I've always wondered why they stuck it out. It seems they both have different ideas about physical intimacy, so why stay? Is money worth years of being unloved and unhappy. It makes no sense to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I don't think they're unloved. I genuinely think more politicians than you think have "arrangements." Even if not, infidelity happens, and I'm glad they worked through it

[–] VR20X6 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Cheating on his wife was reprehensible, but not really impeachment-worthy. Did it make any difference in his ability to govern? Nope. But sure, if it didn't happen in his second term, I'm not going to say you shouldn't have been allowed to consider it for whether or not you should vote for his reelection.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Cheating on your wife isn't illegal, because we don't live in a theocracy. That's between him and his wife and maybe a marriage counselor. It has nothing to do with his office.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was listening a podcast abour history of philosophy and the guy spent like two chapters talking abouts the meaning of "is" is, because of a middle age philosophers called the grammaticals or something like that, that keep discussing the meaning of words.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

History of philosophy without any gaps