Trump supporters try to doxx jurors and post violent threats after his conviction
Trump supporters try to doxx jurors and post violent threats after his conviction
On social media and web forums, users called for jurors, judges and prosecutors to be killed after the former president was found guilty on 34 felony counts.
You're viewing a single thread.
These are the same republicans who are still clutching their pearls for Bill Clinton getting a consensual BJ.
Sleeping with a pornstar while cheating on your 3rd wife, then paying off said pornstar to interfere with the election outcomes? - republicans see no crime there.
I really hate when people call it consensual. There's no reason to downplay how fucking creepy the power and balance of that interaction was. Doesn't do anyone any good to pretend like a sexual predator isn't a sexual predator.
If you aren't Monica Lewinsky, I'm not really interested in hearing your opinion about the consent. She's more than capable of talking about her agency in that interaction, on her own. It's too bad she's never talked ab--
oh wait, she most certainly has: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-speaks
Talking about it in these terms makes it seem like she's just a puppet. She's a person, and she made choices. (Which she regrets, but she still owns that she made those choices.)
Okay, but she was a freaking intern and he was the president. It’s an inappropriate professional relationship. You get fired for pulling something like that at most companies simply because there is a reporting relationship.
Sure. Inappropriate, a firing offense, etc. All true. She even describes the treatment she received after it came out as "abuse". All valid.
Still consensual. Still not someone else's place to talk about whether it was her decision or not; it was, and she has said so.
When a power imbalance that vast is concerned consent doesn't exist.
When a power imbalance that vast is concerned consent doesn't exist.
At the time, sure. However, over a decade after the fact:
Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults...
So if the power imbalance was why she consented, you'd think she'd set the record straight and say she was pressured or forced into it despite saying yes at the time. But she didn't. Ergo, she consented and your argument is invalid.
Did she not? She says it "constituted a gross abuse of power".
“Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern,” Lewinsky said.
“I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances — and the ability to abuse them — do exist even when the sex has been consensual,)” she wrote.
“But it’s ... very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? ‘To give permission for something to happen.’ And yet what did the ‘something’ mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted — with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.)
“He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college,” she said.
https://apnews.com/article/ab9adc492bf54cd4abcf8d162ed099b3
Do you think maybe the problem is your entire argument hinges on a 2014 article and as she grew older she changed her view on the matter?
“Sure my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship,” she wrote for Vanity Fair in 2014.
Four years later, she wrote for the same magazine changing her position on whether that consent was relevant given the power imbalance between an intern and a president.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/monica-lewinsky-calls-bill-clinton-190025758.html
"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all." -Geralt of Rivia
A cool quote...but fictional and not applicable in the real world. Has "both sides are the same so I'm not gonna vote" energy, which let's the greater evil win. Kudos for maintaining neutrality and helping screw everyone over.
I am voting. And I would vote for Bill Clinton in a heartbeat over either option right now. Life was good in the 90s/00s. Doesn't mean he isn't a piece of shit just like every other option for the last 30 years (minus maybe Obama). Just because Trump is a worse piece of shit Doesn't make the rest of them not pieces of shit. They are All Peices of shit equally, some of them just have qualities that effect my life in negative ways. Which makes them worse, for me. But neither of them deserve kudos for being "less evil".
I remember sooooo many Republicans/cons at the time that were losing their mud over it. Red-faced, yelling, they would honestly say that he should be in front of a firing squad. They'd say this kind of thing out loud.
I remember asking one I knew quite well more about this - asking what law he broke, asking if it was actually illegal to get a blowjob from someone not your wife. Their response: "But it should be illegal!!!" They were so angry at this point that they were beet red, and it was pretty much the end of the conversation - they were essentially speechless.
All the cons were, and still are, apoplectic over Clinton getting some head from someone not his wife. Just ask some old con you know.
For some weird reason, they don't seem to remember or care about Newt doing the exact same thing. And now, of course, they could GAF about Ronald McDonald banging a porn star, paying her off and covering that up, violating many actual laws.
then paying off said pornstar to interfere with the election outcomes?
You forgot the most important part: Feloniously classifying those payments as "legal expenses."
They are not. Those were conservatives. They still exist as the more “moderate” right. You hear them pipe up against “the excessive flow of migrants,” and label transgender support as “inappropriate bedroom behavior.”
These are MAGA Republicans or far-right Trump loyalists that will do anything to see their choice of dictator reign supreme.
Both groups will vote for Trump in November.
If it talks like MAGA and if it votes like MAGA, it is MAGA
So everyone on the left is progressive then? No liberals?