What was this about?

What was this about?

A nothing burger. He got his cock mongled, the faggots in the GOP got their jimmies rustled, the end.

Really so he got his cock sucked by an intern?

Are you seriously?

Yep. Bill was a pimp

It just seems odd that he'd abuse an intern that way because Hillary is for women?

The right wingers were outraged that he had an affair with his secretary, and thus made a mockery of the esteemed dignified position of President of the United States.

Seriously.

Ultimately, after a Grand Jury Investigation, they impeached him for not telling the truthful about getting a bj.
lol

So Republicans said that sexual harassment in the workplace was wrong?

Were Democrats ok with the President abusing his power?

Since the 90's women have elbowed their way into every male-dominated space imaginable using every trick Affirmative Action could afford them and by sucking their bosses' cocks.

Now they're demanding to never be approached as a potential sexual partner by any guy who isn't Chad, under threat of a career ending sexual harassment accusation. Like we're all supposed to pretend that their sex appeal isn't the main reason they get hired and promoted in the first place.

Bill Clinton is 71 and has lost his former Chad status so now feminist liberals are gearing up to launch a smear campaign against him. They will run another woman in 2020, probably Kamala Harris, Pocahontas or Amy Klobuchar.

They will lose again, because nobody outside the 15% on the far left is buying any of this bullshit.

People cared about Presidents lying?

affair =/= sexual harassment shit-for-brains

Democrats were always ok with the President abusing his power, as long as he was abusing it with his cock and keeping it quiet. Same as Repubs.

ProTip: Not exactly the first US President to have some on the side. Not by a long shot.

Ah, that's a tricky one. You see, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are actually two different people

At least Bill never raped a 13 year old, unlike Trump

So it's ok for an employer to get a blowjob from an employee while they are on the clock?

Once upon a time, yes.
Realize that Nixon resigned in the face of impending impeachment for offenses over his entire presidency that were lesser than what we're used to seeing pop up every other day at this point.

It was around that time that Republicans embraced politics as a team sport. Every fat fuck GOP congressman was fucking their interns, and Newt Gingrich was on his third wife after leaving a prior wife during cancer treatment. It's never been about principles, only about who is on "Our Side" vs. everybody else.

Nobody under 40 knows what it's like to have a government where leaders of opposing parties actually work together and compromise.

It did not take long to go from that to today where you can't even have a conversation about politics because everyone is on Team Democrat or Team Republican and dismisses the other side outright as "racists," "cucks" or whatever.

So she was ok with Bill abusing his power with an intern?

Tom Green's special with her was so great.

>Hillary is for women
Kek. You got played. Do your research.
Check her 'private position.'

what good is being President if you can't get a blowjob?

Yea we do, we're just on the other side of the Atlantic

It just seems odd that Democrats would treat women so poorly - it's behavior that I'd expect from Republicans but not Democrats.

It was always a marriage of appearances. There's no love lost between them. They are ambitious business people with common goals and compatible morals.

if youre the president, youre always on call. sure it is, from a legal perspective, as long as theres no coercion/exchange of goods going on. the only thing immoral here, in my opinion, is that clinton was married.

Everyone knows Democrats treat women better than Republicans -- well maybe not all Democrats.

I'm not concerned with the marriage -- Hillary protects women.

I've found that too. Getting the younglings to talk politics is like getting a public reading of a dusted off sales brochure for the two old parties. It's incredible that it's gotten this bad in a single lifetime.


lol younglings wtf

Who was treated poorly?

>as long as theres no coercion/exchange of goods going on
The mere fact that he was the President and she was an intern implies coercion. That's why you're not supposed to do that shit.

>getting a blowjob = harassment
You dimwits are getting trolled hard.

>implies
Fuck off

bitch, have you heard of google or wikipedia?

Democrats were naive. Bill had a mesmerizing effect on young voters. Dems had been corralled into believing the GOP was a big baddie out to get them. Dems are generally still blinded to the fact that both Parties are defective.

What happened to the intern -- did she have a successful life after the blowjob?

You asked if she was ok with it. That's your answer: She doesn't gaf.

I guess. Made boatloads of money from speaking and books and shit.

>What was this about?

Lying under oath. Monica Jewinsky was a Mossad agent, the Jewskis call their female agents "Swallows" (nice, eh?). She was there to gather information and semen. Bill is a sex addict and embarrassed himself, the office and his Presidency by first getting blown by the intern, then lying about it under oath. "Ah did naht have sex with that woman." Jesus.

If by treated poorly you mean, had an ongoing affair with one, and all democrat, actually, anyone not far right, is just a clone mind & body of bill Clinton and John Kennedy, then yea wow, great work detective, good sleuthing.

If by treated poorly you mean fundamentally see them as inferior objects for your usage according to an Old Testament view of reality, and then legislating and rallying against them and their interests for over a century, then you've got a legitimate point about being anti-women.

One of these things is a real and present threat to womens lives.

>The mere fact that he was the President and she was an intern implies coercion
no.

both parties are defective, but one party panders to the evangelical whackos and wants to get rid of net neutrality, favors business/investors over workers/consumers

I smell a shill. We were having fun shitting on everyone until you had to come along and shill it up.

Legally, sure. Just gets muddy when promotions, layoffs, raises, and shit come around.

>she states flat out she seduced him
>republitards as usual can't understand what "consent" means

Wew. You're pretty heated bud.

I'll grant you that. Your failure to list the defects of the other Party suggests that you subscribe to the 'lesser of two evils' voting tactic, a surefire way to not get what you want. Full disclosure: you're talking to a disenfranchised ex-Dem Indy.

Yes it does. Any time you have a position of authority over another person, you can't avoid the coercion aspect of a relationship with them.

Yeah, for an intern, she made bank. But you still didn't answer the question. You just asked another one.

You said someone was treated badly. Who was it, and who were they treated badly by?

If you're talking about Lewinski, you think maybe she was treated badly by a federal investigation publicizing her love life and sex life down to the cumstains on her dress and shaming the shit out of her? Or was it the guy she was in an affair with who tried to downplay it constantly?

Oh but it's the Clintons, so naturally they must have tried to have her and her family assassinated and her village burned down now, in keeping with the times.

are you suggesting that every boss who every fucked his secretary was guilty of coercion? thats ridiculous.

Seriously -- is there any world event that the Jews don't control?

Yeah, the other party wants everyone to be nicer to each other and get along. FUCK THOSE PEOPLE AND BURN EVEYRTHING DOWN

There is that better?

you mean, is it sexual harassment?
only if its unwanted
was it unwanted?
no

Was she on the clock while on the cock?

If so weren't tax payers funding that blowjob?

I'm not sure consent would have been the concern, But rather the abuse of authority (legally consistent from teachers, bosses, presidents, etc.)
Obfuscation of facts is common in both sides. Perhaps 'consent' came from Dems trying to downplay 'abuse'.

taxpayers fund billions of hours of smoking breaks daily. im fine with using a similar amount for blowjobs, at least those dont produce trillions of cost for the health care system.

>Millenial located and destroyed.

Lewinski pursued him, got him, they had an ongoing fling. There was a fucking federal investigation publishing every tawdry detail of it. You can ignore it and make up your own narrative to try to twist it around to support the point you're trying to make, but you're talking like a kid who didn't get dragged through an hour of this shit on the nightly news every day for a fucking year, and has no idea what you're talking about.

So did she get married have kids and lead a nice normal life after blowing the President?

getting your dick blown = abusing power?
nearly every male with a girlfriend must be abusing power

>dont bother refuting his points
>insult him instead
lmao

Clearly a lost cause not worth my time. Peoples is peoples. Generally we all want the same thing. Politicians is politicians. Generally they all want the same thing, and it sure isn't what they tell the people they want.

uh yeah..I think your numbers are a little exaggerated, fag

No, after hours.

On the other hand, if you'd like to talk about taxpayers paying for excess... let me turn your attention to the last 44 presidents, and then compare that to this glorious gleaming edifice of personal expenditure the current president has racked up...

get your diaper on, because you're going to shit your pants. ...if it actually matters, and you're not just a raging retard stabbing in the dark for an argument to make.

if making him sleep on the couch = being okay with it

i realize that, but its up there in the thousands of hours every day, easy. id rather fund blowjobs than cancer sticks.

Why would she do that, it was an affair.
Are you at all familiar with adult human relationships?

ftw no tax payer funded blowjob

So it's ok for men in authority to use their power to get sexual favors from their employees.

>It's the 90s
>lol
Pick one

>ftw
tfw

refuted in the first sentence, castigated for his absurd premise thereafter

glad I could help you follow along.

well this attempt was a trainwreck, 3rd time lucky

>tfw no tax payer funded blowjob

Because it's normal human behavior to marry and have children.

If it gets him/her in hot water, then legally yes. Although consent can influence a judgement in favor of the accused.

No, we don't. I'm with Bannon. I want to see this country burned to the fucking ground and a new one erected in its place, based on MY people and culture. You can gfy

I think the person doing the blowing gets to decided whether or not it was unwanted
must be tough to give an unwanted blowjob unless there's physical force

Yes I'm sure that's exactly what I said, which is why I said that.

Trouble reading? Look, those words you said, are right here:

then get rid of all kinds of breaks too, first on the list: smoking breaks. im fine with that. but hey, as the other dude wrote, a lot of it actually didnt happen while she was on the clock, and im fine with her sucking the shit out of his asshole while she's off the clock.

>So it's ok for men in authority to use their power to get sexual favors from their employees.
hm, this seems to have no discernible relation to what he actually said, or what actually happened.

It's also normal to take a shit once a day, and guess what, she didn't shit in his mouth either.

no shitting in his mouth = abuse of power

if by being okay with it you mean she defended him fully, along with any other accusers, to this day? then yeah.

Bill Clinton was the first black president, and therefore had a proclivity for the big girls. Big girls are always hungry, so who can blame him for feeding the slam pig some sausage. She was doing her goddamn civic duty to assist the POTUS in dealing with massive stress. If Hillary had done her damn job by being at Bill's beck and call for head, would never have been a problem.

I said generally. That means there are those on the fringes, outside the norm. You are one of those. Nothing to get defensive about.

Dunno. The Bible also says it's normal for me to rape your whore wife and then stone her to death. I don't know why I don't do that to every woman I see.

>If it gets him/her in hot water, then legally yes.
so, if it was coercion, then it was coercion. which says basically nothing about the claim you or i are making.

just to be clear what i actually am saying: i think a boss and his employee can have a sexual relationship without coercion or abuse of power being involved, and i think that if de iure thats not the case, then the laws are over-punitive.

Reply to the wrong post?

then I guess every man with a title of any worth coerces every blowjob whenever it happens
that's great logic, retard

Wait wut... did you marry and have children with every girl you ever dated?

I don't disagreeing with you, I just wanted to interject a legal clarification. (Also, not the same user you were arguing with when I responded. Sorry to cause confusion.)

Not unless you did. I said People generally want the same thing. You said no they don't and offered your desires. I responded.

>I just wanted to interject a legal clarification
Which you actually didn't, you answered a question I didn't ask and which was obvious to everyone.

I'll bet he did. ...or rather, would, if a woman ever actually agreed to date him.

>Generally we all want the same thing.
depends on how abstractly you formulate it. in concrete terms, no we dont. i want a life of wellbeing for everyone in this world. muslims want everyone to become muslims, regardless of wellbeing in this life, and to fight the rest until they convert.

>abuse of authority
so he ordered CIA to make her blow him?
she didn't want to blow him?
identify the presidential powers used to extract blowjobs
what authority was used to make an *unwanted* sexual advance?

>are you suggesting that every boss who every fucked his secretary was guilty of coercion? thats ridiculous.

>If it gets him/her in hot water, then legally yes.
>I just wanted to interject a legal clarification

>Which you actually didn't, you answered a question I didn't ask and which was obvious to everyone.

? Done with you.

All this talk about the blowjob and no one ever remembers that he used a Cuban cigar as a dildo on her. The truth behind the bs impeachment isnt the bj, the perjury, the "defamation" to the role of the presidency....it was cause he breached the trade embrgo with cuba. Would havr been all good if Billy used a Swisher Sweet or a Philly's.

name the power used
explain the use of presidential power to extract blowjobs the blower did not want to give

>>are you suggesting that every boss who every fucked his secretary was guilty of coercion? thats ridiculous.
>>If it gets him/her in hot water, then legally yes.

Ok let me point out where you actually failed to address what I said:
>EVERY boss who ever fucked his secretary
>IF it gets him/her in hot water
I make a universal statement, you interject a conditional one where the condition is not a tautology. If you wanna rule-lawyer, make sure you don't suck at it.

does that have anything to do with sexual harassment?

You misunderstand the legal definition. It has nothing to do with the authority used, it is his professional position which is considered a position of authority. Sexual favor from a subordinate satisfies the requirements of abuse of his position.

He did not sign an executive order or pass a bill into law requiring her to do it. That's a silly argument. Are you just messing with me? Because seriously, the law is what it is, I'm not saying it's right, but arguing with me about it doesn't change the facts.

>Sexual favor from a subordinate satisfies the requirements of abuse of his position.
[citation needed]