| ▲ | ZeroConcerns 5 hours ago |
| Well, good to see Hahhvuhhhd is not above the British monarchy when it comes to eventually ejecting sex pests! A low bar to clear, but well done! Now, just for certain ex-Brit colonies to follow their example! Quick... who can think of a popular leader who is, ehhhm, quite intricately linked to the same, ehh, gentleman with pretty specific tastes? Anyone? |
|
| ▲ | ciconia 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| In a way it's comforting to know those people who hold these positions, with distinguished careers and supposedly made of better stuff than us mere mortals, are in fact just a bunch of miserable weasels, a-holes and sycophants. We in western democracies used to regard with disdain those corrupt, ridiculous leadership figures in so-called banana republics and third-world dictatorships, with their openly corrupt dealings and amoral excesses. Now that the moral posturing of the west is unraveling, the question is really what comes next. Fukuyama talked about western liberal democracy being the "end of history", but it is more and more evident that this is a system ripe for disruption. |
| |
| ▲ | frmersdog 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >We in western democracies used to regard with disdain those corrupt, ridiculous leadership figures in so-called banana republics and third-world dictatorships, with their openly corrupt dealings and amoral excesses. Not that I wholly disagree, but in the interests of robust conversation, I feel compelled to ask: When? | | |
| ▲ | ebbi 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's in everyday things. Like this most recent headline from AppleInsider: "Cook controversially dines with Saudi Crown Prince at White House" Now, I'm no Saudi Crown Prince stan, but would the word 'controversially' have been used if Cook dined with Biden - who funded and supported a genocide, in which hundreds of journalists were killed? Why was the word 'controversially' not used to refer to also being at the table with Trump there? Yes, it's controversial that Cook had dinner with the Saudi Crown Prince. In my view it's even more controversial to be having dinner with Trump. This is just the most recent headline I can give as an example. But there are many like this. |
| |
| ▲ | nixosbestos 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > In a way it's comforting to know those people who hold these positions, with distinguished careers and supposedly made of better stuff than us mere mortals, are in fact just a bunch of miserable weasels, a-holes and sycophants. There's nothing that quite makes me feel like humanity has undergone speciation than the fact that this STILL HAS TO BE FUCKING SPELLED OUT FOR PEOPLE. Hero worship is sycophancy of the highest order. Ugh, and I know you're so right. |
|
|
| ▲ | jalapenof 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | pessimizer 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And, to be less coy, how is the opposition party the one that treats Bill Clinton as its most valuable elder statesman? It's somehow Epstein all the way down. Glad I'm a left-wing Chomskyite, cynical about all of those corrupt, elite institutions. Wait... |
| |
| ▲ | stouset 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Bill Clinton hasn’t been relevant in politics for like twenty years. Nobody on the left thinks about or cares about him. | | |
| ▲ | ZeroConcerns 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He's still extremely relevant, if only to derail discussions as demonstrated here. I'm waiting for someone to bring up Al Franken! | | | |
| ▲ | frmersdog 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Depends on how deep the pillow talk went during the Obama admin. |
| |
| ▲ | runako 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > its most valuable elder statesman That's Barack Obama. Among other things, he's not 80 and still has the vigor of youth. Clinton is just old at this point. | |
| ▲ | WhyOhWhyQ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pretty sure Obama is the MVES of the Democratic party. | | |
| ▲ | fsckboy 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Obama was the hothouse flower of the Democrat party that Bill Clinton singlehandedly wrought. No Bill Clinton, no Barack Obama. Before Bill Clinton, here's what the NYTimes (left wing though not as far left as now, but i.e. sympathetic) had to say about the field of Democrat candidates for president: "The strongest and saddest impression this viewer took away from the collective appearance of the Democratic Presidential candidates on national television was that Snow White was missing, while the Seven Dwarfs prattled on." https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/04/opinion/in-the-nation-the... and you saw similar dynamics at play in the most recent series of elections. Biden was rammed into the nomination in 2020 because non of the field of candidates had a broad enough base of support. On the other side, Trump did what Clinton did, reshaped his party in his own image. |
| |
| ▲ | benhill70 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As someone who voted for Bill Clinton. If Bill Clinton is implicated, then he needs to suffer for it. I think the real question is why didn't the Biden administration release the files. How many very powerful people left and right are in there? | | |
| ▲ | KerrAvon 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | tl;dr: Because there were ongoing investigations (which was true) and it's generally considered bad to release your evidence before trial, or something like that, IANAL. This will also be Trump's (false) reason for not releasing them. | | |
| ▲ | GenerocUsername 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why was t true before but false now? I suspect it's been the false reason the whole time. No one is investigating anything, only wiping hard drives and tying up loose ends |
| |
| ▲ | koolba 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think the real question is why didn't the Biden administration release the files. How many very powerful people left and right are in there? If I had to guess it's because there's nothing incriminating about Trump in them. Otherwise we all know they would have been leaked a long time ago. |
| |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Bill Clinton as its most valuable elder statesman? Huh? Bill Clinton has been a relatively invisible ex-president compared to the other modern ones (aka Carter & Obama, Biden hasn't been gone long enough for data). Perhaps that's because he didn't want to overshadow Hillary, but it's at least partly because of the Lewinsky affair. | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
