• paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a simpler time when we could all joke about Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word “is”.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      thing about that is, clinton actually had a point. he said “there is nothing going on between [he and monica lewinsky]” when asked, and was then accused of perjury. He argued that “is” meant “is”, and because at the time of asking he and lewinsky didn’t have an ongoing relationship he didn’t lie.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      At least then we could argue about a lie being a lie, now it’s all “he never said that (literally 4 seconds ago), if he did it’s fine, if you’re mad that’s your fault, he never said it anyway. I like that he said it.”

    • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also back then a president getting a BJ was grounds for impeachment lol it really puts things into perspective

      • Oderus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        IIRC, he was impeached for lying about it, not actually doing it which IMHO, is less of an issue than cheating on your wife.

        • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Great now im imagining a timeline where bill was 100% honest about it in a congressional hearing “Yeah I solicited a blowjob from monica, im one of the most famous and wealthiest politicians of the era. Spoilers, all us rich politicians like to get away with stuff we shouldn’t be doing, and the system is rigged to let us do it. So, what are you gonna do about it?”

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Or even better:

            “Hilldawg and I have been ethically non-monogamous since reading The Ethical Slut and I don’t really understand why America should be brought into our personal business. Monica is regularly our third and we both filed paperwork with White House HR before any physical interaction to avoid suspicion of bias towards her job performance”

            I mean if it’s my dream timeline, I wanna make it fun.

            • AdamHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve always wondered why they stuck it out. It seems they both have different ideas about physical intimacy, so why stay? Is money worth years of being unloved and unhappy. It makes no sense to me.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think they’re unloved. I genuinely think more politicians than you think have “arrangements.” Even if not, infidelity happens, and I’m glad they worked through it

        • VR20X6@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cheating on his wife was reprehensible, but not really impeachment-worthy. Did it make any difference in his ability to govern? Nope. But sure, if it didn’t happen in his second term, I’m not going to say you shouldn’t have been allowed to consider it for whether or not you should vote for his reelection.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was listening a podcast abour history of philosophy and the guy spent like two chapters talking abouts the meaning of “is” is, because of a middle age philosophers called the grammaticals or something like that, that keep discussing the meaning of words.