Lauren Boebert Caught Fondling Date’s Genitals During Family-Friendly Musical

[TitanTiger 21,249]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

His behavior was not that different than countless other Presidents.

I realize that the list of US Presidents is not comprised of saints and monks.  But most presidents in my lifetime at least didn't behave like this.  I don't believe Obama cheated on his wife.  Neither do I believe such things of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush (there are some allegations of inappropriate touching with him), Reagan, Carter, or Ford.  I never heard of such even about Nixon (though he had other ethical issues).  Clinton is an outlier in recent history and I don't think we should be shrugging out shoulders like "boys will be boys" over what he did.  It was disgraceful.  And I don't think a CEO would survive all the accusations and the proven stuff.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Juanita Broaddrick was probably the main one.  I don't think Paula Jones was lying about him either.  A good writeup reflecting on his accusers is below.  I'm not saying Kathleen Willey or Leslie Millwee's accusations are lies, but it's harder to gauge those.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/arts/television/paula-jones-monica-lewinsky-bill-clinton.html

In the end, taking it all together - him getting a hummer from an intern in the Oval Office, the affair with Gennifer Flowers, the lying under oath about all of it...he doesn't come off as a man to believe when he says he didn't commit sexual assault.  His behavior reads like a licencious, entitled man who doesn't really care as long as he gets what he wants from women sexually.  He doesn't have the requisite track record of character to believe him when he says there were lines he wouldn't cross such as groping women or pressuring subordinates for sex. 

 

I don’t know what he did or didn’t do and I certainly wouldn’t be a character witness for him. But in this context I view “credible” accusations in a legal sense.

In regard to Willey, Tripp hated Clinton but doubted her credibility and Starr concluded she was lying.

Linda Tripp, the Clinton Administration staffer who secretly taped her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky in order to expose the latter's affair with the president, testified under oath that Willey's sexual contact with President Clinton in 1993 was consensual, that Willey had been flirting with the president, and that Willey was happy and excited following her 1993 encounter with Clinton.^[21] Six other friends of Willey confirmed Tripp's account in sworn testimony, stating that Willey had sought a sexual relationship with the president.^[22] Ken Starr, who had deposed Willey in the course of investigating Clinton's sexual history, determined that she had lied under oath repeatedly to his investigators. Starr and his team therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue her allegations further.

In regard to Jones:

Several witnesses disputed Jones' account, including her sister and brother-in-law. These witnesses contended that she had described her encounter with Clinton as "happy" and "gentle". In addition, Jones had claimed to friends that Clinton had a particular deformity on his penis, a claim that was revealed to be false by investigators.^[9]

 

In regard to Broderick:

Broaddrick says she did not tell her husband, Gary Hickey, about the incident, and told him she accidentally injured her lip. He told NBC he did not remember the injury or her explanation.^[3][12] 

Three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. 

Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made "any sexual advances".^[1][2] 

She later recanted her sworn statement. Did it happen? Maybe. But there’s a lot to challenge the credibility of claims previously denied in a sworn statement, especially given all the circumstances in the intervening years.

Flowers said she never saw the side of him reflected in these accusations in a 13 year relationship and she had no reason to protect him at that point.

But you leaping from consensual affairs to him being a guy who commits sexual assault is a helluva leap.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I realize that the list of US Presidents is not comprised of saints and monks.  But most presidents in my lifetime at least didn't behave like this.  I don't believe Obama cheated on his wife.  Neither do I believe such things of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush (there are some allegations of inappropriate touching with him), Reagan, Carter, or Ford.  I never heard of such even about Nixon (though he had other ethical issues).  Clinton is an outlier in recent history and I don't think we should be shrugging out shoulders like "boys will be boys" over what he did.  It was disgraceful.  And I don't think a CEO would survive all the accusations and the proven stuff.

Credible allegations of at least one affair with GHWB. Same with FDR and possibly Eisenhower. Multiple with JFK. Dubya was accused of rape. Ford is said to have had sex with a German spy while a congressman. And Trump, he admittedly grabbed ‘em by the …

[CoffeeTiger 5,883]

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-presidents-sex-scandals-white-house-and-beyond-2023-1

 

[autigeremt 7,216]

On 9/16/2023 at 1:37 PM, aubiefifty said:

whataboutism..............lol.  the point is she is not screaming family values  and i doubt kids are watching her unless parents are not paying attention. this girl loves it. all she was worried about was getting caught. then she turned liar until they showed her footage of he vaping and doing sexual warmups in a family environment. nice try...............

It's valid, aubie50. Just shows there's no out of bounds for humanity. 

[autigeremt 7,216]

36 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Credible allegations of at least one affair with GHWB. Same with FDR and possibly Eisenhower. Multiple with JFK. Dubya was accused of rape. Ford is said to have had sex with a German spy while a congressman. And Trump, he admittedly grabbed ‘em by the …

yup.....

[TitanTiger 21,249]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

But you leaping from consensual affairs to him being a guy who commits sexual assault is a helluva leap.

I don't think all of these were consensual.  But the consensual affairs, combined with a least a couple of credible accusations of sexual assault/sexual harassment, combined with being bold enough to have an intern blow him in the Oval Office, the pattern is, "guy used to getting his way with women."  I don't trust that he has a lot of firm boundaries in that area.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think all of these were consensual.  But the consensual affairs, combined with a least a couple of credible accusations of sexual assault/sexual harassment, combined with being bold enough to have an intern blow him in the Oval Office, the pattern is, "guy used to getting his way with women."  I don't trust that he has a lot of firm boundaries in that area.

Clearly impulsive, clearly reckless, clearly indulgent— but that’s true of many powerful men who are attractive to women. Some cross a line beyond mutual consent, but many don’t.  Again, which two do you find so credible?

[TitanTiger 21,249]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Clearly impulsive, clearly reckless, clearly indulgent— but that’s true of many powerful men who are attractive to women. Some cross a line beyond mutual consent, but many don’t.  Again, which two do you find so credible?

I've stated this and why.  You disagree and that's fine.  I think he was a womanizer and most likely perpetrated sexual assault against at least one woman during his time in public office.  And no matter what Monica said then or says now, the power differential between any boss and any intern colors how consensual that incident was.  When it's one of the most powerful men in the entire world and an intern, amplify that.

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk.  I'm not saying some men aren't womanizers without being rapists and predators.  I'm saying given all the known facts and allegations, if I'm betting money, it's on Clinton being one of those whose boundaries of consent were about as secure as Jello nailed to a wall.

[AU9377 6,037]

FDR had a long term mistress.  The First Lady lived the majority of the year in her own home in New York.  Public opinion concerning what was and wasn't acceptable has changed so much over the past 100 years. At one time, a President couldn't be divorced.  Today, that is about the least consequential part of someone's past. 

The majority of Evangelicals today support a man that is married to his 3rd wife, who speaks broken English and has a past that includes lesbian porn photo shoots.  Their pearl clutching knows no end.

[CoffeeTiger 5,883]

https://www.businessinsider.com/lauren-boebert-may-have-doomed-reelection-gop-majority-2023-9?op=1

Lauren Boebert won her last election by fewer than 600 votes. Her vaping incident at Beetlejuice could doom her reelection bid and cost Republicans control of the House

 

Political experts at the Cook Political Report have deemed Boebert's race as a "Toss Up," meaning that "either party has a good chance of winning."

As the 2024 election approaches, Boebert's likely opponent, Frisch, has been campaigning actively and raising money in his attempt to dethrone her. Voters appear to be on board. In July, Frisch's campaign reported bringing in more than $1.75 million more than Boebert.

If Frisch successfully unseats Boebert, his election could very well help flip the House of Representatives in favor of the Democratic Party.

Republicans only hold ten more seats in the House than Democrats, but after recently court-mandated redistricting in states like Alabama and New York, that slim majority is in peril this upcoming presidential election season.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I've stated this and why.  You disagree and that's fine.  I think he was a womanizer and most likely perpetrated sexual assault against at least one woman during his time in public office.  And no matter what Monica said then or says now, the power differential between any boss and any intern colors how consensual that incident was.  When it's one of the most powerful men in the entire world and an intern, amplify that.

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk.  I'm not saying some men aren't womanizers without being rapists and predators.  I'm saying given all the known facts and allegations, if I'm betting money, it's on Clinton being one of those whose boundaries of consent were about as secure as Jello nailed to a wall.

You’re redefining consent in regard to Monica. If the person in greater power is the pursuer, consent can get cloudy. He was at fault for many reasons in that relationship. He should have had the maturity and principles to have not entered it. But it was consensual by any reasonable definition of the word. We don’t have to twist facts to find him at fault. He was boneheaded in multiple ways.

 

[TexasTiger 14,310]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/lauren-boebert-may-have-doomed-reelection-gop-majority-2023-9?op=1

Lauren Boebert won her last election by fewer than 600 votes. Her vaping incident at Beetlejuice could doom her reelection bid and cost Republicans control of the House

 

Political experts at the Cook Political Report have deemed Boebert's race as a "Toss Up," meaning that "either party has a good chance of winning."

As the 2024 election approaches, Boebert's likely opponent, Frisch, has been campaigning actively and raising money in his attempt to dethrone her. Voters appear to be on board. In July, Frisch's campaign reported bringing in more than $1.75 million more than Boebert.

If Frisch successfully unseats Boebert, his election could very well help flip the House of Representatives in favor of the Democratic Party.

Republicans only hold ten more seats in the House than Democrats, but after recently court-mandated redistricting in states like Alabama and New York, that slim majority is in peril this upcoming presidential election season.

I think the Republican response will be to endorse vaping in indoor venues and endorse intraparty groping while making bipartisan groping punishable by death— but not retroactively.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

We currently have a system defined by corruption and exploitation.  The sexual morality of an individual is hardly worth discussing.

WE have no principles, ethics, morality.   WE have partisanship and, our sacred "capitalism".

We respect wealth/power, not humanity/decency/productivity.

We have lost sight of the fact the liberty and equality are inherently linked to one another.

[TitanTiger 21,249]

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re redefining consent in regard to Monica. If the person in greater power is the pursuer, consent can get cloudy. He was at fault for many reasons in that relationship. He should have had the maturity and principles to have not entered it. But it was consensual by any reasonable definition of the word. We don’t have to twist facts to find him at fault. He was boneheaded in multiple ways.

I'm not redefining anything.  Monica herself is reassessing it, as are a lot of people in the wake of #MeToo:

Can a 22-year-old authentically consent to a sexual and romantic relationship with a boss who wields power over her career and is decades her senior? Monica Lewinsky used to think so, but now she isn't sure. I'm not either.

In a recent essay, Monica Lewinsky reassesses what she had previously maintained was a consensual relationship with Bill Clinton. Due to their vast power differential, she writes "I'm beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a19600743/consent-romantic-relationships-at-work-monica-lewinksy/

 

(Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

But it’s also complicated. 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. (Note to the trolls, both Democratic and Republican: none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what happened. I meet Regret every day.)

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

 

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,310]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not redefining anything.  Monica herself is reassessing it, as are a lot of people in the wake of #MeToo:

Can a 22-year-old authentically consent to a sexual and romantic relationship with a boss who wields power over her career and is decades her senior? Monica Lewinsky used to think so, but now she isn't sure. I'm not either.

In a recent essay, Monica Lewinsky reassesses what she had previously maintained was a consensual relationship with Bill Clinton. Due to their vast power differential, she writes "I'm beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a19600743/consent-romantic-relationships-at-work-monica-lewinksy/

 

(Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

But it’s also complicated. 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. (Note to the trolls, both Democratic and Republican: none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what happened. I meet Regret every day.)

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

 

 

 

Again, I’ve said it was inappropriate and he had ethical responsibilities he violated due to his age & position. But legally it was consensual. And calling “redefining” “reassessing” doesn’t change the quality of redefining.

[AU9377 6,037]

These discussions always remind me of a quote by Edwin Edwards, the former congressman and 4 term governor of Louisiana.

"The only way I lose is if I'm caught with a dead girl or a live boy."

I went to school with his grandson, who was the polar opposite personality.  I did get to meet the former governor and he was every bit as flamboyant and funny in private as he was in public.  There was no change and no filter.

When he ran against Klansman David Duke, he said things like "he is the wizard under a sheet, but I am only a wizard between the sheets."

[TitanTiger 21,249]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Again, I’ve said it was inappropriate and he had ethical responsibilities he violated due to his age & position. But legally it was consensual. And calling “redefining” “reassessing” doesn’t change the quality of redefining.

What I'm saying is, the notion of what is consensual is understood differently than simply "she initiated" or some such.  It's not just me "redefining" it to manipulate an argument against Clinton.  Later in that first article it gives an analogy from how this is viewed in the military:

Looking at how the military handles sexual assault cases can help us to understand the relationship between power and consent.

In 1997, Staff Sergeant Delmar Simpson was accused of the sexual assault and rape of trainees at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Of six victims, four testified that they neither asked him to stop nor explicitly refused his advances, and one stated that he could not have known she did not want to have sex with him.

These interactions were considered rape for one primary reason: rank. Simpson's hat and badge were submitted into evidence as symbols of his "force" and their "fear."

Simpson was sentenced to 25 years. Some argue that this punishment was excessive and racially biased (Simpson is black), while others contend that it didn't go far enough—that he could have gotten a harsher punishment for rape in civilian courts.

The judge, Colonel Paul Johnston, noted that the power dynamics within the military create a "unique situation of dominance and control" because soldiers in training "are conditioned to follow drill sergeant's orders."

Within a year of the Simpson case, the United States Army revised its policy to explicitly forbid romantic and sexual relationships between soldiers of different ranks. In today's army, with rare exception, it is impossible for a subordinate to legally consent to sex with someone of higher rank.

The point is, the power differential matters regardless.  It especially matters when the power differential is this great.  It's more serious than just bad judgment or being irresponsible on his part.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What I'm saying is, the notion of what is consensual is understood differently than simply "she initiated" or some such.  It's not just me "redefining" it to manipulate an argument against Clinton.  Later in that first article it gives an analogy from how this is viewed in the military:

Looking at how the military handles sexual assault cases can help us to understand the relationship between power and consent.

In 1997, Staff Sergeant Delmar Simpson was accused of the sexual assault and rape of trainees at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Of six victims, four testified that they neither asked him to stop nor explicitly refused his advances, and one stated that he could not have known she did not want to have sex with him.

These interactions were considered rape for one primary reason: rank. Simpson's hat and badge were submitted into evidence as symbols of his "force" and their "fear."

Simpson was sentenced to 25 years. Some argue that this punishment was excessive and racially biased (Simpson is black), while others contend that it didn't go far enough—that he could have gotten a harsher punishment for rape in civilian courts.

The judge, Colonel Paul Johnston, noted that the power dynamics within the military create a "unique situation of dominance and control" because soldiers in training "are conditioned to follow drill sergeant's orders."

Within a year of the Simpson case, the United States Army revised its policy to explicitly forbid romantic and sexual relationships between soldiers of different ranks. In today's army, with rare exception, it is impossible for a subordinate to legally consent to sex with someone of higher rank.

The point is, the power differential matters regardless.  It especially matters when the power differential is this great.  It's more serious than just bad judgment or being irresponsible on his part.

If your point is “it matters”— I agree. If your claim is it wasn’t consensual, I don’t. It seems you’ve asserted both.

If you’re claiming an analogy between staff sergeants and trainees and these facts, I’d say that’s a weak analogy. That said, many organizations have changed their rules in recent years to forbid such relationships to remove any gray area and I think that’s a wise move.

[TitanTiger 21,249]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

If your point is “it matters”— I agree. If your claim is it wasn’t consensual, I don’t. It seems you’ve asserted both.

I'm saying both.  It matters.  And with such a vast power differential, it's questionable at best whether a 22-year old intern can truly consent to a relationship with her boss - the President of the United States of America.

 

Just now, TexasTiger said:

If you’re claiming an analogy between staff sergeants and trainees and these facts, I’d say that’s a weak analogy. That said, many organizations have changed their rules in recent years to forbid such relationships to remove any gray area and I think that’s a wise move.

Well, I'm relaying a military analogy from Harper's because I think it's similar enough to be applicable.  The main takeaway isn't "well that's military, this is civilian."  The takeaway is that some power differentials are too great to allow for someone in the subordinate position to truly consent in such relationships.

[TitanTiger 21,249]

And again, it's not even just me, or Harper's that's looking at it this way.  Ms. Lewinsky herself is questioning it in the same way.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And again, it's not even just me, or Harper's that's looking at it this way.  Ms. Lewinsky herself is questioning it in the same way.

Yes, I know. 30 years later as we attempt to redefine consent retroactively.

[TitanTiger 21,249]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Yes, I know. 30 years later as we attempt to redefine consent retroactively.

It's not so much "redefining" it as realizing what was always the case, even back then.  But we're just chasing our tails on this discussion and I don't see the point in continuing.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

It's not so much "redefining" it as realizing what was always the case, even back then.  But we're just chasing our tails on this discussion and I don't see the point in continuing.

It is redefining. And maybe that’s appropriate going forward. But not retroactively. It was broadly seen by both parties and society as consensual at the time. To now judge it as otherwise and hold him to account as having engaged in nonconsensual sex is like changing a law and going back and prosecuting someone for violating it though it didn’t exist. Perspectives change and mores change and rules and laws change as they should. As we reassess we can and should redefine— going forward, though, not backwards.

[SaltyTiger 8,579]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

We don’t have to twist facts to find him at fault. He was boneheaded in multiple ways.

He was also married to Hillary so you have to a bit understanding. Lots of men would have destroyed their life with alcohol or drugs. Bill turned to other women.