Summary
Newt Gingrich blasted a Julia Roberts-led ad encouraging women to vote privately, calling it a sign of the sick values he attributes to Democrats. In a heated exchange with Sean Hannity, he accused the party of promoting dishonesty and moral decay in America, suggesting this reflects a broader erosion of societal integrity. Gingrich, who faced his own scandals, cited Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent split from the Democrats as further proof of disillusionment with what he sees as their corrupt influence.
Okay can we stop with the whole “Clinton was impeached for an affair.” It was because it was with a staffer he has power over. It was extremely inappropriate. We shouldn’t be cool with men in powerful positions abusing those positions to fuck people they have power over. Monica Lewinsky was literally half Clinton’s age (22 and 49) and was horrifically abused by all of society AND CLINTON and HIS WIFE.
Like seriously if this was the president of a bank fucking some teller, who he is in charge of paying and promoting, no one would be confused why that banker should step down for abuse of power. The dude was president of the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and you can’t see how that’s abuse of power?
Like fuck Newt but also fuck Clinton who was buddies with Epstein. And him leaving his wife who had cancer is EGREGIOUS.
Eta: Lemmy is full of rapist apologists I guess. If you can’t understand how consent is VITAL and how it makes a world of difference, I hope you live a life being treated exactly how you treat others and women. There’s a man out there who will treat you, as a man, the same way. Good luck.
That is absolutely not what Clinton was impeached for.
The investigation in to Clinton began before he’d ever met Lewinsky, and it was over some real estate dealings. Because Clinton had not actually committed an impeachable offense, Ken Starr had to keep going back to Congress to ask for a wider scope.
The investigation took so long that after it began, Lewinsky was hired, Clinton won a re-election, there was sexual activity, word got out about it, and then Clinton lied about it under oath during a completely different deposition regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, which is what he was ultimately impeached for.
It wasn’t the affair or the harassment, it was the lie, and it was only the lie because they were absolutely desperate to impeach Clinton for anything by that point.
It remains that the problem with the Monica Lewinsky relationship is that Clinton had power over her, not that he simply cheated. It added validity to the other sexual harassment claims because it was also a clear case of sexual harassment.
I was quoting the other person about what specifically caused his impeachment. Regardless of the exact moment that caused it, the issue with Lewinsky remains as I’ve explained it: an abuse of power. It’s not that he “got impeached for a blowjob” or for cheating and when people phrase it like that, they are dismissing and ignoring the real concerns regarding abuse of power.
The point of the comment you’re replying to isn’t to excuse Bill Clinton, it’s to point out Newt Gingrich’s hypocrisy.
And yet it made a little detour to excuse Bill Clinton anyway
Ok but you’re being pedantic
OK that’s just like, your opinion, man
Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a comment like that out on the threads, I’ll move my mouse over your comment, and stick it right on the downvote and pull the fucking thing 'til it goes “click.”
Do it, bitch
Eta: you can dish it but you can’t take it? Honestly collectively the dick size on lemmy must be a micrometer
Geeze dude. That was the next line of the movie. You know, the one you quoted.
But thanks for being so mean
Edit: For your convenience https://youtu.be/Z-xI1384Ry4?si=HrcGEq4HlKDqDljC
Lol and if I quote the line about threatening you with a gun, is that cool? Or is a quote that’s hostile not conveying hostility?
“Mean” lol playing the victim. Can dish it but can’t take it yet again
How
See how this is the comment I took issue with and that’s what I started my comment with? Calling it an affair negates the abuse of power involved. As I explained ad nauseum. Just because you’re a man who doesn’t like respecting women, doesn’t mean I’ve been extremely clear.
Calling it an affair draws a parallel to the affair Newt Gingrich was having with his dying wife you acorn
But it wasn’t just an affair. It was an abuse of power. Afaik Newt wasn’t having an affair with a staffer. So it’s a false equivalence, you acorn.
How are you this dense? It doesn’t matter if the acts are equivalent. One adulterer accusing another adulterer of adultery is hypocrisy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=False equivalence is a common,or ignorance of additional factors
Abuse of power (SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT) and cheating is what Clinton did. That’s different than simple cheating. Like my very first comment thoroughly explains this. If you are a man still arguing against me for this false equivalence, I’m going to assume you don’t care about rape and sexual assault. There’s a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE to the VICTIM if the act was CONSENSUAL or not. Hope this helps!
It’s definitely not dense at all to try to gaslight a woman into believing that sexual assault is the same as a consensual relationship just because they both involved cheating…