Would Clinton be removed from office today

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:43 pm

Time displacement thought experiment.

Would Clinton be removed from office today, in the era of #metoo, if everything had played out exactly as it did, but in today's climate?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:49 pm

I'm not deeply read in the Clinton-Lewinski affair, but AFAIK although there was obviously a power disparity in the relationship, there has never been any hint that Clinton pressured Lewinsky in any way. She seemed to be very interested in pursuing intimacy.

But of course he would be impeached. He was impeached the first time, and that was without #MeToo.

If you mean "Would Clinton be removed from office," that depends on which party controlled the Senate, and nothing else.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:53 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:49 pm I'm not deeply read in the Clinton-Lewinski affair, but AFAIK although there was obviously a power disparity in the relationship, there has never been any hint that Clinton pressured Lewinsky in any way. She seemed to be very interested in pursuing intimacy.

But of course he would be impeached. He was impeached the first time, and that was without #MeToo.

If you mean "Would Clinton be removed from office," that depends on which party controlled the Senate, and nothing else.

Damn it, you're correct, and I knew that. Let me edit.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:18 pm

Ha ha I thought you meant would Hillary Clinton be removed if she had been elected and investigated like Trump.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:19 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:18 pm Ha ha I thought you meant would Hillary Clinton be removed if she had been elected and investigated like Trump.

I did not do that intentionally.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:54 pm

Imma go with No, because the nation today is a partisan powder keg, and that would set it off. Plus, one of the few things Republicans would hate more than President Clinton is President Gore.

But I could as easily make an argument for Yes. Democrats have a hypocritical weakness for moral righteousness, and it's not hard to imagine enough D senators turning on their own.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:41 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:54 pm Imma go with No, because the nation today is a partisan powder keg, and that would set it off.

Is it though?

Would the Dems revolt? They seem to enforce the "rules" on their own more than anyone else, as you say.

What sort of powder keg are you imagining here?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:23 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:41 pm
Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:54 pm Imma go with No, because the nation today is a partisan powder keg, and that would set it off.
Is it though?

Would the Dems revolt? They seem to enforce the "rules" on their own more than anyone else, as you say.

What sort of powder keg are you imagining here?

Well...I dunno exactly. I mean, we all know how Trump's base would react if he were removed. Shootings and bombings galore. The D base is harder to characterize, and they would not be as invested in Clinton, assuming he would still be the same old establishment compromiser. The D base just recently refused to get behind one of those...plus he's a slimeball, and Ds don't love their slimeballs the way Rs do. It's hard to imagine anyone getting passionately behind him. So maybe Dems would just react with "eh, whatever." But they do love to march and wave signs, so there's probably be a lot of that.

Now if we were talking about Bernie, or Beto, or somebody else inspirational, that might set off the Dems. Is their lunatic fringe as large and potentially violent as the Rs? I don't think so, but IDK.

I think I'm talking myself into changing my vote to Yes.

UsulofDoom · Post by **UsulofDoom** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:48 am

He should of been. Most can care less if he is having affairs. To lie under oath and to the public means he could have or most likely was compromised. There was no reason for him to lie the way he did.

Ask a girl friend or wife if getting a blow job from some one else is considered sexual relations!

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:28 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:54 pm Plus, one of the few things Republicans would hate more than President Clinton is President Gore.

Never was bothered by "Bill" Clinton himself. He could switch parties to run against the lunatics you're fielding now and I'd probably vote for him.

Assuming one of you fanatics shot Trump.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:36 pm

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 1:48 am He should of been. Most can care less if he is having affairs. To lie under oath and to the public means he could have or most likely was compromised. There was no reason for him to lie the way he did.

Just to be sure, we're still talking about Clinton and haven't switched to Trump, right?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 12:49 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:54 pm Imma go with No, because the nation today is a partisan powder keg, and that would set it off.

This actually has me thinking yes, because the GOP is more about pwning the libs than what's right for the country (probably 2-3x as much as 20 years ago).

Octopus Overlords