• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Monica Lewinsky Breaks her Silence

If a CEO wants to have an affair, that is between him and his spouse.

So are ones sexual actions in ones private life the only thing that is "private"? Why singular on this.

What, exactly, is the difference between being offended by a political view a CEO stated on his private time in a private conversation (that becomes known) and being offended by an illicite action a CEO did in his private time in a private situation (that becomes known)?

That's what confuses me. People were morally outraged by a political action done by an individual, not by the company or on behalf of the company, and demanded action taken against a CEO....yet some of those same type of people seem to have an issue with people being morally outraged by a sexual action done by an individual, not by the country or on behalf of hte country, and suggest people were wrong to call for action.

I'm fine with the notion that a persons private life is their private life...it just confuses me how people on BOTH sides of the aisle seem to like to find excuses and justifications to ignore and erase that notion whenever it suits their purposes.
 
So are ones sexual actions in ones private life the only thing that is "private"? Why singular on this.

What, exactly, is the difference between being offended by a political view a CEO stated on his private time in a private conversation (that becomes known) and being offended by an illicite action a CEO did in his private time in a private situation (that becomes known)?
.


CEO's are entitled to their political opinions like everyone else. But I would certainly question a CEO's judgement if those opinions were made public.
 
CEO's are entitled to their political opinions like everyone else. But I would certainly question a CEO's judgement if those opinions were made public.

For full disclosure, I'm speaking most recently of the Mozilla CEO whose private contributions to a political cause angered employees causing some to demand his resignation and ultimately causing the board to push strongly for his resignation, with him ultimately actually resigning.

This was not something he did on the company dime. It wasn't something he did in the name of the company. It was not something directly related to his duties with the company. This was him taking a political action in his private life...and people being offended by it and demanding pressure be put on him and action be taken. His action was making a $1000 towards a group supporting Prop 8.

You can go back through that thread and see many folks of a similar persuation to those who feel that the condemnation and action against Clinton was wrongful and "private", even some who are in this thread, who had no problem with a company attempting to force out an executive because their private actions offend people since that person is the "representative" of the company. But somehow it was wrong for people to be upset about the private actions of the person representing hte country when those things offended them.

Much like the notion of a superior engaging in a sexual relationship with a subordinate is a commonly viewed as an ethical no no throughout the professional world....but is suddenly shrugged off, or the focus is on blaming the subordinate, when it's political advantageous.

It's just somewhat obnoxious with how inconsistent things can get.
 
This was not something he did on the company dime. It wasn't something he did in the name of the company. It was not something directly related to his duties with the company. This was him taking a political action in his private life...and people being offended by it and demanding pressure be put on him and action be taken. His action was making a $1000 towards a group supporting Prop 8.
.

As I stated, his judgement should be called into question. He had to know if that got out it would be problematic. Some things are better off unsaid.

I'm not suggesting it is right, but politics are a huge part of that job.
 
Oh bull crap, she seeks the press out for the publicity. Cry me a river when you take her serious after appearing on Saturday Night Live.

She is just cashing in on her fame.

That kind of thing is often a 'victim' trying to take back some control....to use humor in that case. To show you can laugh at yourself.

Look at the people the press tries to humiliate or that the media makes fun of...Christie and his weight, Hillary on SNL, Sarah Palin on SNL, etc.
 
As I stated, his judgement should be called into question. He had to know if that got out it would be problematic. Some things are better off unsaid.

Then similarly, it should've been reasonable for people to have called Clinton's judgement into question. He had to know if it got out that he was cheating on his wife, in the oval office, with a subordinate that it would be problematic. Politics play a large part in the job of a CEO, it definitely does with a President.

Then again, in both cases, it seemed many of those that had issues were more because of being offended by the action as opposed to having worries about judgement.

But I guess that's kind of my point. I have no problem if someone wants to say that the PRIVATE action of a CEO is reasonable to take into account as to whether or not a company should want to keep him employed or should exert all pressure possible to get him removed/to resign. But if you're someone that feels that way, then turning around and going "What happened with Clinton and Monica was private and should be between him and Hillary alone" is just mind bogglingly ridiculous and clearly transparent.

And vise versa.
 
That kind of thing is often a 'victim' trying to take back some control....to use humor in that case. To show you can laugh at yourself.

Fair enough.


Look at the people the press tries to humiliate or that the media makes fun of...Christie and his weight, Hillary on SNL, Sarah Palin on SNL, etc.

Nah. Everyone is fair game. One could claim the media making fun of Obama is racist just the same.
 
Afternoon Mason. She had an unpaid summer White House internship in the office of White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta. It is said she got the job through family connections. She started that internship when she moved to DC in 1995. That same year she received a paid position in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. It is said the White House staff had her transferred to the Pentagon when they noticed how much time she and Clinton were spending together.

Thanks Vesper for clearing that up.

It still seems weird for a 22 year old to be able to spend that much time with the President.
 
Meanwhile, Hillary continues to blame and trash Monica, other women, the media, Republicans, etc. etc. etc. for all that and has yet to criticize or accuse Bill of any wrong doing of his own volition. And Monica, understandably, highly resents the characterization that she 'serviced Bill' when in her mind it was a completely consensual relationship and she was being 'serviced' as much as he was.

I'm not a big Hillary fan but she is a woman and any married woman deserves to be pissed at the 'other woman' if that other woman KNOWS she's messing with a married man. I realize Monica probably was overwhelmed by his power and influence and made an immature mistake but I still believe it's wrong...and she knew it...to get involved with a married man.

So I totally get a woman calling out someone cheating with her husband. I actually would have respected her more...and any of these other political wives in the same position...if she had been more honest about it instead of sucking it up and 'standing by her man.'

(by no means am I excusing Bill at all, just not addressing him here).
 
I hope she makes a fortune off of it.

Consensual 'sex acts' in the Oval Office with the President of the United States when you are a 22 year old intern?

Riiiight...I am sure she felt 100% certain she could say 'no' with zero negative ramifications...NOT.

I am not saying she was not all for it (I don't know)...but don't tell me it was an atmosphere that allowed her to feel free to say 'no'.

The guy is a coward (for this and other things) and a loser and I hope she makes piles of dough off of this...and I could care less what her motives are.
 
Then similarly, it should've been reasonable for people to have called Clinton's judgement into question. He had to know if it got out that he was cheating on his wife, in the oval office, with a subordinate that it would be problematic. Politics play a large part in the job of a CEO, it definitely does with a President..

I agree. But the problem is the religious nut jobs on the right got a flaming woody for the wrong reason. If they would have been a little smarter they could have easily made it a national security issue instead of trying to prosecute morality. Clinton's affair put him in the position of being bribed. Big no no in my book.

Again, the rest of the affair stuff is between him and Hillary.
 
Fair enough.




Nah. Everyone is fair game. One could claim the media making fun of Obama is racist just the same.

Obama's done it too, most recently about the Obamacare mess.

I agree tho, everyone is fair game but that wasnt a point I was trying to make.
 
I hope she makes a fortune off of it.

Consensual 'sex acts' in the Oval Office with the President of the United States when you are a 22 year old intern?

Riiiight...I am sure she felt 100% certain she could say 'no' with zero negative ramifications...NOT.

Her history suggests that she was a willing participant, as do her own words.
 
Do you care why the story came out in the first place? Do you care that the President (the same guy it turns out that was accused of raping a campaign staff worker and groping a White House employee on the day of her husbands funeral) actually committed perjury while on trial for yet another act of sexual misconduct...one in which he ultimately pled no contest to having a state trooper escort a campaign staff worker to his room to discuss the next days strategy and instead, she walked in on him with his sweatpants around his ankles flogging the donkey, then stood up and exposed himself to her and asked her to 'kiss it'?

The whole ordeal was about so much more than a consensual act. And you may have noted...Monica actually takes RESPONSIBILITY for her role and choice in the relationship. Not Bill. Not Hillary.

You are a crack up. Its going to be ****ing hilarious watching you and others digging the Hillary Clinton "War on Women" meme during the 2016 campaign.

You do realize I can't stand Hillary? Or do you assume because I am a lefty I'll blindly follow her?
 
Her history suggests that she was a willing participant, as do her own words.

I could care less if she begged him on her knees to let her blow him...the guy is a loser for doing it and a coward for trying to cover it up to the pathetic extent that he did.

And I hope she makes millions off of this.
 
I could care less if she begged him on her knees to let her blow him...the guy is a loser for doing it and a coward for trying to cover it up to the pathetic extent that he did.

Some studies suggest that 70% of men and over 50% of women have cheated on their spouse. Seems like he's in pretty good company.

I'm willing to bet many of his opponents were cheating as well.

Remember this guy?

 
I'm not a big Hillary fan but she is a woman and any married woman deserves to be pissed at the 'other woman' if that other woman KNOWS she's messing with a married man. I realize Monica probably was overwhelmed by his power and influence and made an immature mistake but I still believe it's wrong...and she knew it...to get involved with a married man.

So I totally get a woman calling out someone cheating with her husband. I actually would have respected her more...and any of these other political wives in the same position...if she had been more honest about it instead of sucking it up and 'standing by her man.'

(by no means am I excusing Bill at all, just not addressing him here).

It wasn't just anger at the women having an affair with her husband. Of course any of us would feel that way toward the person who was having an affair with our spouse. It is the fact that he and his chief staffers had the power to destroy these women, to turn the focus strictly on them and away from him, in the most cruel and destructive manner. Some have testified they actually feared for their lives during that time. It was vicious and brutal, something that would have outraged Hillary had it been a Republican or anybody else that it was politically correct to attack. But she was and is silent about that. And that I find very difficult to forgive. And I won't trust her to do the honorable and honest thing as President either.
 
Some studies suggest that 70% of men and over 50% of women have cheated on their spouse. Seems like he's in pretty good company.

I'm willing to bet many of his opponents were cheating as well.

Remember this guy?



70% of men and 50% of women are not the POTUS getting sexual favours from a 22 year old intern while in the Oval Office.

I don't care that he fooled around.

I care that he took advantage of a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office to do it and then acted like a 12 year old to try and cover it up.
 
I care that he took advantage of a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office to do it.

As is evidenced by her own admission and her history, the affair was consensual.
 
Let's agree that Monica was no victim here. Do you believe Hillary was a victim? Seems to me the Clintons and those promoting Hillary for numerous "jobs" have classed here as the loyal wife, willing to forgive her man to save her marriage and family. Considering that Hillary has hung onto Billy Boy's coat tails for decades as a means to her political ambitions/ends, I'd consider her a conniving bitch who milks it for all she can. As for Monica being a little "porker" - have you had a look at Hillary? Perhaps Billy Boy isn't turned off by a little meat on the bones, so to speak.
Dude, she's 66. Even now she doesn't look quite so rotund as the hungry hungry hippo Lewinsky. I look at Miss Gravitation, and I half expect that at any minute, she'll wade out among some reeds or start grazing.

But yeah, Hilary's colder than ****, no doubt.
 
As is evidenced by her own admission and her history, the affair was consensual.

So you keep saying.

If you think that a 22 year old intern realizing that the POTUS wants her to give him sexual favours in secret in the Oval Office is a 100% consensual-zero pressure situation...then I feel sorry for you.

We are done on this for now...I am not wasting any more time on you over this.


Good day.


Btw...I had opportunity (and sometimes desire) to fool around on women I was with...but I chose not to because I had too much respect for myself and for them.

Only the weak fool around on their 'partners' IMO (assuming violence/extortion is not involved).

If that offends people that have strayed...good.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the women he is accused of raping, sexual assaulting, sexual harassing, having affairs with (and yes...even the one he 'married') Bill has a thing for women with low self esteem. Wonder why that is...
Kindred spirits, one shouldn't wonder.
 
Her history suggests that she was a willing participant, as do her own words.

You realize though that doesn't really counter the notion of WHY it's often viewed as an extremely unethical thing to do in a professional setting. Indeed, it actually kind of goes along with it.

Superiors, by the nature of their position, have a certain amount of appeal and allure granted to them by that position. Utilizing that as a means of sexual actions with a subordinate, even if you're not directly initiating it, is problematic. As has been noted, part of the "concensual" nature of it was specifically a desire to fool around with the President. It was his position as a superior which was the allure, and by engaging in sexual actions with a subordinate he was utilizing that allure.

It was absolutely seemingly concensual. That doesn't make it any less ethical.

Whether or not you care about the Ethics of the person sitting at the top position of some kind of professional entity is something each person can decide...but the notion that this would be unethical would be without question if not for the political strings that it tugs on.
 
You do realize I can't stand Hillary? Or do you assume because I am a lefty I'll blindly follow her?
Not really relevant (and yes...I think you will vote for her). The relevant fact is that every time the subject of Monica Lewinsky comes up, people ignore all of the relevant facts that led to the revelation of the affair. They pretend the impeachment of Clinton was about consensual sexual relations. They ignore the instances of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment that preceded the perjury charges. Your comments were typical. Nope...dont care about all that other stuff.

Thats pretty tragic if you ask me.
 
So you keep saying.

If you think that a 22 year old intern realizing that the POTUS wants her to give him sexual favours in secret in the Oval Office is a 100% consensual-zero pressure situation...then I feel sorry for you.

We are done on this for now...I am not wasting any more time on you over this.


Good day.

LOLOLOL Hilarious.

Look, you may well be right. But you can't base it on any of the facts as we know them.

1. Her history. She already had a consensual affair with an older man previous to BC. This is not speculation.
2. She says it was consensual. This is not speculation.

Everything else is speculation.
 
Back
Top Bottom