comment: >
  
  Voter fraud: a Republican's specialty
context: Tried to help her husband's political career and ended up destroying it and her own life in the process. >
  
  Supreme court material. >
  
  I don't know if I trust them to judge anything right or true anymore. >
  
  You shouldn’t. They’re blatantly corrupt. >
  
  I've been thinking about this and it's dawned on me that all current republican politicians are simply the kids of rich people. The kids of rich people that act out and are cruel because nobody ever held them accountable. >
  
  Yes. Like the other guy said, it's always been a class war dividing the few at the top from the rest of us. The cultures wars are manufactured to get people to vote Republican against their better interests.
  
  "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ
  
  It's absurd what goes on on Fox "News" to reach this end goal. They don't report on the news. It's all propaganda to make people vote in ways that hurt themselves just so they can hurt someone they don't like even more.
  And, unfortunately for society and humanity at large, it's incredibly effective. >
  
  Fox should be dismantled >
  
  Better yet... force them to live among their subjects instead of NY DC and LA >
  
  Notice how voter fraud isn't some invisible, untraceable thing. You can actually gather evidence, charge someone with it, and present it in a court of law. Who knew? >
  
  No that was a shitty thing to do. It was definitely called out for the wrong reasons at the time (unbecoming of a person in his position), but you can’t tell me he didn’t use his power to get an intern to give him a bj. We should call it out for what it is and not turn a blind eye to it. >
  
  Well, her side of the story is that she went after it, and she's an adult with agency. That said, he still had an obligation to say no. He has no way of knowing her mind in that moment (or at all). He needs to assume that the power dynamic is in play, and he needs to separate himself from that situation purely on those simple ethical grounds, let alone all of the unique things that come with his being POTUS at the time. 
  What Bill Clinton did was wrong. The reaction to it from the right and the gall of impeaching him for lying about it was over the top. >
  
  From all accounts that I’ve read she wanted to and everyone got off on the secrecy. There wasn’t an ‘I’m upper management, suck it or you’re fired” situation happening. She was pretty clear on her not feeling pressured into it.
  Was it ethical? Nope.
  Did two consenting adults make an unethical decision together regardless? Yaaass
  If anyone doesn’t “get it” at this point then I’m sorry- you most likely never will. >
  
  
  From all accounts that I’ve read she wanted to and everyone got off on the secrecy. There wasn’t an ‘I’m upper management, suck it or you’re fired” situation happening. She was pretty clear on her not feeling pressured into it.  
  Was it ethical? Nope.
  
  Monica Lewinski gave an incredibly nuanced interview a while back how #meetoo made here think about the power dynamics in their case. She still goes out of her way to make sure that, yes, it was her free decision and she wanted it but, in hindsight, it would have been ethical of Bill Clinton to not do it. >
  
  I was a kid when it happened but just think of how joyous and ravenous conservative talking heads and politicians were when they first found out about it on the news etc. They were probably literally salivating at the revelation when thinking of how they could spin it all to their advantage. Ethics has nothing of substance in politics. >
  
  The GOP is going to very publicly investigate and make an example of her, now that they finally have a verified case of voter fraud, right? /S >
  
  Any minute now.... Aaaaaaand now she's a senator. >
  
  About time. >
  
  Republican???
  checks article...
  Yep! >
  
  Party affiliation wasn't in the headline, that means republican. >
  
  Spicy layered meme, well played. >
  
  Where is the meme? This is just fact. >
  
  It's the same rhetoric those assholes use with the news "if they don't say the race, they're a minority" its just using their dumbass logic on them. >
  
  I've noticed the opposite. If American headlines don't mention someone's race, it's safe to assume they're white. >
  
  The party of law and order does it again! >
  
  Pfft, laws are for browns and poors! 
  What? Me?! I'm not poor! I'm just not rich yet!
  ...I was gonna slap "/s" on here...but is it really sarcasm anymore? >
  
  So not a brown, was she a poor? Unlikely given her husbands position >
  
  But she's married to a white guy. Changes a little >
  
  One shes a woman so shes looked down upon in republican circles anyways and shes a women of color ? Might as well be invisible, and her partner the straight white male would be the "figure head" of the family, it changes a lot when you are married to a "Straight white right wing male politician".
  Look at ole mitch mconnels wife, she is literally connected back to the CCP and ole donny barely attacked her..Then look at the attacks he made on every single democrat thats female or of color, "Mexicans"/"Pocahontas"/"Bleeding from somewhere" as long as you are on team grift they dont care. >
  
  Just another demonstration that voter fraud is extremely rare, and usually committed by Republicans. >
  
  And that it is actually catchable. If enough evidence is found.
  And they caught it in this relatively small House race. Under the biggest one, the Presidential race, with the most eyes, nothing came up as concrete as this case. >
  
  I remember at some point after the 2020 election, some Republicans insisting there was no evidence of the massive voter fraud they were claiming because Democrats were just that good at voter fraud.  Absence of evidence was actually proof of voter fraud in their minds. >
  
  Not the first time they believe something is there without evidence to prove its presence >
  
  My first thought, as well.