Monica Lewinsky back in the news

Wait. A CEO is more likely to get fired for this behavior now vs. 1998? How do you figure? We've only gotten more permissive, and that's in part due to Clinton.

But, a CEO getting blown in the office? Getting her a good paying job, for which she was unqualified for in NYC with a client (as with the UN job)? Having employees lie for you to cover up your actions?

A CEO wouldn't get fired for this in 1998?

I'm sure there are examples of C level execs getting fired for a lot less. Since it's 16 years ago, and these things aren't always publicly disclosed, it might take a little time.

But, I think the 2012 Best Buy example shows how it can take down a CEO and even the company founder, who didn't handle the situation well.

 

OK.

Sex is a thing. People enjoy it for many reasons. I'm not sure exactly what treatment you're referring to, but it has always sounded like she and Bill both rather enjoyed their time together.

As for Hillary, I don't know that anyone can feign surprise that she would be upset with the woman who Did That to her husband.

 

You're "sure there are examples"? Good. Find one then. Find 10 if this is the way business happened.

The world has changed dramatically. You're goddamn wrong. And you're pulling a "fact" out of your ass and trying to get everyone to accept it as a fact when it is not. I don't want to get mad at you, but it's really infuriating when you do that.

The 2012 example is not the 1990s. Fifteen years is a long fucking time. In fact I would go so far as to say that the 2012 case happened BECAUSE of Lewinsky -- that was the impetus for companies to tighten their rules.

 

Perjury was a crime back in the 90s, right?

 

A quintessential argument that would be put forward (by many of those who should be ashamed of themselves for their Blowjobgate behavior) is that there is absolutely NO WAY that any such relationship (between a powerful middle-aged man and a young impressionable woman) could be consensual. This viewpoint did not emerge post-Clinton. If you want I can dig up some cites, but trust me on this: Those cites can be found. And I have personal knowledge of top-level executives at Fortune 500 companies being axed for consensual canoodling with the help during that time period.

HRC gets a pass in my book because it's wholly unreasonable to think she'd be up to exchanging Christmas cards with Lewinsky. Even back then, however, I'm sure there were plenty of moments when she felt genuinely sorry for Lewinsky.

 

I've heard the idea that such a relationship can't be consensual. I don't buy it.

It can certainly lead to problems and can be uncomfortable and is not a good idea for running a business or a government, as much for the effect it has on the overall team as for the people involved. Fairness matters, etc.

But "not consensual" is the assault/rape category. And I don't see any logic at all to putting the Lewinsky case in that group.

 

Well, that's all well and good. But (many of) the very people who do not see it your way (and didn't back then, either) were all too willing to temporarily adopt your viewpoint ONLY IN THIS INSTANCE.

 

But perjury is a crime, right?

 

Yeah. That's a hootin' and hollerin' one. Lots and lots of cases go before the judge, huge deal there. And this one with such relevant subject matter to that land deal in Arkansas!

There has been 25 years of digging dirt on the guy and still we have jack motherfucking shit.

 

You mean besides the fact he's a serial abuser of women?

 

Found it!

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_25730092/obama-at-walmart-hundreds-gather-outside-mountain-view

 

Let me get this straight. Since Obama has been in office the Republicans have been swinging and missing at one "scandal" after another. As soon as one is shown to be an absurd and embarrassing attempt to disgrace the President and his party another one is brought out of the bullpen.

Birth Certificate, Solyndra,, IRS, Benghazi...rinse and repeat. "This is worse than Watergate" has been said about each "scandal", our own Old Tony just said..."2016 will be exclusively about how badly the country wants to change direction from the most scandal-ridden administration in our lifetime. And the way you run from the most scandal-ridden administration in history is not turning to someone from the second-most scandal-ridden administration in our lifetimes."

So the Republican strategy to beat HRC in 2016 is to rehash cigars and stains on a dress? By God, I think you have a winner there my conservative friends. It worked so well back in the 90's, how can it not work in 2016. Hey, whatever happened to Vince Foster? That might be worth looking into sometime around 2015.