Embarrassing excerpt: Online criticism almost immediately followed FXâs announcement of the series, with some Twitter users complaining that the networkâs intended premiere date of Sept. 27, 2020, could affect the final stretch of the presidential campaign.
I did not. I was being purely facetious. Aside from Bill Clinton's bad judgement, why should anybody get excited if a young woman (not a girl) in her 20s decides to sexually please an older man?
To divert attention from foreign policy adventurism and other issues?
It all reinforces the image of the USA as being deeply morally corrupt. A place where people with deep Christian beliefs are out-of-the-closet killers of innocent grandchildren and grandparents.
As for Monica Lewinsky's bad judgement, well, what can I say. In an American world of celebrity narcissism, she seems to have made out well. As a business investment, one could easily argue that the return on those brief sexual encounters was pretty damn good.
On a very macro level, of course you're right. She's not a minor. The concerning thing isn't the acts per se, its the notion that the President would use the power of his office to unduly influence a still young girl. As you say....bad judgment, not illegal.
Religion in the US is now a credential. Its membership in a club, not direction on how to live. The conflicts intensify when you marry political "beliefs" with a religious group or groups. Life begins at conception and should be respected, yet funding for poor children and healthcare is cut? Everyone is created equal, yet they (generally) embrace a politcal party that enables racism? The integrated alignment of religion and politics raises questions about the very teachings, beliefs, and actions of a religion. It also doesn't help that religion has perpetrated the largest ever, organized, systematic abuse of children on a global scale. Christians no longer have an assumption of morality anywhere outside their own group.
Monica Lewinsky made mistakes, but she spent 2 decades struggling with a place in history and managing her personal life. I saw her interviewed once, and she said: "imagine trying to get a job with the name Monica Lewinsky". She was shamed in a time when you couldn't turn lemons into lemonade. She hasn't profited from the encounter, and arguably with a White-house internship on her resume at 22 would have done better not being a household name.
As for Monica Lewinsky's bad judgement, well, what can I say. In an American world of celebrity narcissism, she seems to have made out well. As a business investment, one could easily argue that the return on those brief sexual encounters was pretty damn good.
.... I should've known you were being facetious, but it gets hard to tell some days. I'm not so sure which countries looked at that episode as some sort of indication of the US being morally corrupt. I remember political leaders from several other (particularly European) nations being pretty indifferent about that, like :"Oh, their president had an extramarital affair - so what - which political leader hasn't?"
Good points. For most of the world, it was a bewildered shrug. For the ones you want to be concerned about (from a security perspective), it was evidence of hypocrisy, more proof-in-the-pudding of American moral rot.
To be clear, I am describing a head space and a world view that has no personal appeal. None. Please recall that during the Bill Clinton years, we are still a few years away from the Sept. 11th attacks and the aftermath.
I did not. I was being purely facetious. Aside from Bill Clinton's bad judgement, why should anybody get excited if a young woman (not a girl) in her 20s decides to sexually please an older man?
To divert attention from foreign policy adventurism and other issues?
It all reinforces the image of the USA as being deeply morally corrupt. A place where people with deep Christian beliefs are out-of-the-closet killers of innocent grandchildren and grandparents.
As for Monica Lewinsky's bad judgement, well, what can I say. In an American world of celebrity narcissism, she seems to have made out well. As a business investment, one could easily argue that the return on those brief sexual encounters was pretty damn good.
I should've known you were being facetious, but it gets hard to tell some days. I'm not so sure which countries looked at that episode as some sort of indication of the US being morally corrupt. I remember political leaders from several other (particularly European) nations being pretty indifferent about that, like :"Oh, their president had an extramarital affair - so what - which political leader hasn't?"
... Question about Monica Lewinsky. How was she able to work at the White House when she was only 14 years old?
She was 21 or 22 when she started the internship; it was after she graduated from college. Reagan was President when she was 14. Where did you get that "14" idea from?
I did not. I was being purely facetious. Aside from Bill Clinton's bad judgement, why should anybody get excited if a young woman (not a girl) in her 20s decides to sexually please an older man?
To divert attention from foreign policy adventurism and other issues?
It all reinforces the image of the USA as being deeply morally corrupt. A place where people with deep Christian beliefs are out-of-the-closet killers of innocent grandchildren and grandparents.
As for Monica Lewinsky's bad judgement, well, what can I say. In an American world of celebrity narcissism, she seems to have made out well. As a business investment, one could easily argue that the return on those brief sexual encounters was pretty damn good.
As I said before this thread is a microcosm of Trump's grand strategy. If he can incite anger and rage from his opponents and bring them down to his level, this clearly throws anyone off of their game. He knows that you cannot preach love and peace from a position of anger, rage and coercion leaving those that oppose him at a distinct disadvantage trying to play on his field. I will give Obama credit where credit is due, he has always been aware of this in his approach to dealing with political opponents. Perhaps we could all learn from him in this regard.
... Question about Monica Lewinsky. How was she able to work at the White House when she was only 14 years old?
She was 21 or 22 when she started the internship; it was after she graduated from college. Reagan was President when she was 14. Where did you get that "14" idea from?
In a few countries, men regard American women as creatures of low social status whose primary function is to sexually pleasure men. (Is that a better formulation?)
Why would that be, eh? Could it have something to do with the way that great American men of 'stature' treat women in an all too similar fashion?
Ok, if you think that my motivation is to protect Trump, you go right ahead. I could not be more clear in my post. If my words mean nothing then there is no more need to respond.
I said nothing of your motivation; couldn't begin to guess. This is about what's actually happening: every time someone says "whatabout" it gives Trump cover. Say "whatabout" often enough, he can outlive these investigations. Without backscrolling, I don't think I even mention you or Kurt directly until you responded. If your ears were burning, I can't do anything about it.
Well if you're frustrated that people missed your point, how do you think I feel? I'll try to distill it: This latest news cycle makes Trump look bad. If your response to that is whatabout Clinton, there are no words to express how vile I think that is. You can have Clinton. I concede the point. You see? You can't whatabout this because I conceded already. Now {everyone} stop trying to find ways to deflect.
Easier said than done. Do you know how many emails between Epstein and Clinton were on that server?!!?!
Just sayin...
I don't and don't care. Life sentences for them both, I don't care. Ball's in your court.
Sorry...obviously my sarcasm just won't play this late in the game. The server is just such a great (and ridiculous) trigger, I couldn't resist.
If you think my main point was just what about Clinton, then you still aren't getting it.
I don't think your main point was just about Clinton. I do think it was about minimizing and rationalizing Trump's exposure. As was Kurt's outrageous post about Trump being a pop icon so he gets a pass.
Ok, if you think that my motivation is to protect Trump, you go right ahead. I could not be more clear in my post. If my words mean nothing then there is no more need to respond.
If you think my main point was just what about Clinton, then you still aren't getting it.
I don't think your main point was just about Clinton. I do think it was about minimizing and rationalizing Trump's exposure. As was Kurt's outrageous post about Trump being a pop icon so he gets a pass.
Well if you're frustrated that people missed your point, how do you think I feel? I'll try to distill it: This latest news cycle makes Trump look bad. If your response to that is whatabout Clinton, there are no words to express how vile I think that is. You can have Clinton. I concede the point. You see? You can't whatabout this because I conceded already. Now {everyone} stop trying to find ways to deflect.
Easier said than done. Do you know how many emails between Epstein and Clinton were on that server?!!?!
Just sayin...
I don't and don't care. Life sentences for them both, I don't care. Ball's in your court.
