Harvey Weinstein
-
@booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:
How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?
Seriously.
It's a "is it ok to be a maggot because he's got money and influence?" v. "Should people be decent human beings?" debate?
The guy is a scumbag, that doesn't seem to be in doubt. But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant. Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals or organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group
-
@canefan said in Harvey Weinstein:
But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant.
-
Weinstein & Co. have been stumping about Republican so-called "War Against Women" for decades and poisoned the culture with toxic politically-correct divisiveness that's made boogeymen of conservatives since (at least) Reagan.
-
Weinstein was given enormous power, privilege & leeway within the Democratic Party and previous tenants of White House.
-
If we are to believe the news reports coming out the past few days -- and if we accept the knowing winks and elbows in clear view of "30 Rock" and Oscar ceremonies -- the testimonies to Harvey Weinstein's sexual depravity and predation are being alternately regarded as an "open secret" and Hollywood's "worst kept secret..."
-
Is it possible -- even in a liberal mind -- is it worth asking; is it it possible that for the most cynical of reasons Democrats knew EXACTLY who this guy was but the end justified the means, and if it meant using a (secret) sex predator to wear an "I'm With Her" button and bundle money to promote womens causes, so be it.
Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals and organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group.
Exclusivity. .. Who's claiming that?
Worth remembering the culture-war in lead-up to U.S. election a year ago how almost the entirety of Hollywood supported Hillary and it was a nightshow joke that the only celebrity who supported Trump was Scott Baio. That was a big joke. And it wasn't conservatives and Trump-supporters pimping that big joke. It was Democrats themselves. They want to stake out and claim that industry and those glamorous stars as THEIR exclusive property. I say, stand back, get out of the way and let 'em own it. Harvey's THEIR guy.
-
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
@canefan said in Harvey Weinstein:
But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant.
-
Weinstein & Co. have been stumping about Republican so-called "War Against Women" for decades and poisoned the culture with toxic politically-correct divisiveness that's made boogeymen of conservatives since (at least) Reagan.
-
Weinstein was given enormous power, privilege & leeway within the Democratic Party and previous tenants of White House.
-
If we are to believe the news reports coming out the past few days -- and if we accept the knowing winks and elbows in clear view of "30 Rock" and Oscar ceremonies -- the testimonies to Harvey Weinstein's sexual depravity and predation are being alternately regarded as an "open secret" and Hollywood's "worst kept secret..."
-
Is it possible -- even in a liberal mind -- is it worth asking; is it it possible that for the most cynical of reasons Democrats knew EXACTLY who this guy was but the end justified the means, and if it meant using a (secret) sex predator to wear an "I'm With Her" button and bundle money to promote womens causes, so be it.
Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals and organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group.
Exclusivity. .. Who's claiming that?
Worth remembering the culture-war in lead-up to U.S. election a year ago how almost the entirety of Hollywood supported Hillary and it was a nightshow joke that the only celebrity who supported Trump was Scott Baio. That was a big joke. And it wasn't conservatives and Trump-supporters pimping that big joke. It was Democrats themselves. They want to stake out and claim that industry and those glamorous stars as THEIR exclusive property. I say, stand back, get out of the way and let 'em own it. Harvey's THEIR guy.
What rubbish. That's like saying that everyone who reads articles on the Herald agrees with Ratpoo.
-
-
@salacious-crumb You really ought to be in politics yourself. It is a political necessity these days to make political mileage out of every little triumph or disaster.
This Weinstein story is a story of sexual preying on those less powerful, the using and abusing of many people over many years. It is about abuse of corporate power, it is about personal depravity on a huge scale. It is not about politics no matter which way this perv voted or who he gave money to.
-
@catogrande said in Harvey Weinstein:
@salacious-crumb You really ought to be in politics yourself. It is a political necessity these days to make political mileage out of every little triumph or disaster.
This Weinstein story is a story of sexual preying on those less powerful, the using and abusing of many people over many years. It is about abuse of corporate power, it is about personal depravity on a huge scale. It is not about politics no matter which way this perv voted or who he gave money to.
Sez you. The Culture War says differently.
"Those actors who lecture you from the Oscar podium every year about their virtue and your lack of it -- suddenly silent."
-
This post is deleted!
-
@salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:
@catogrande said in Harvey Weinstein:
@salacious-crumb You really ought to be in politics yourself. It is a political necessity these days to make political mileage out of every little triumph or disaster.
This Weinstein story is a story of sexual preying on those less powerful, the using and abusing of many people over many years. It is about abuse of corporate power, it is about personal depravity on a huge scale. It is not about politics no matter which way this perv voted or who he gave money to.
Sez you. The Culture War says differently.
"Those actors who lecture you from the Oscar podium every year about their virtue and your lack of it -- suddenly silent."
Oh well, that's cut and dried then.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Some of you (shall remain nameless) seem to be in deep-deep denial or else clueless -- if you'd watched Oscar ceremonies anytime the past decade and watched the Democratic National Conventions parading celebrities across their podiums giving religious testimony to the holiness of Obama and Hillary, then you haven't been paying attention. They are the EXACT same cast of characters.
Contrast to the past two GOP National Convention's where you had Clint Eastwood last time (for Mittens), and this time for Trump the long celebrity list was.... Dana White .... and that was about it!
You can pretend otherwise, but Hollywood and the Democratic Party are joined at the hip, and when there's an event of enormous cognitive dissonance and psychological trauma like we're seeing here, that spotlight is going to be directed where it is.
It's also worth asking -- were political connections involved to protect their asset and get law enforcemet to lay off investigating him...?
Maybe we'll get to see a Special Counsel appointed with full subpoena power to investigate whether known sex predators colluded with politicians and interfered in the 2016 election in exchange for FBI protection. Some lovely comeuppance medicine that would be!!
-
This post is deleted!
-
Ben Affleck is getting dragged into this for his own, ummm, indiscretions... and maybe with underage girls?
(Rose McGowan must be their worse nightmare about now...)
-
-
@canefan said in Harvey Weinstein:
@booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:
How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?
Seriously.
It's a "is it ok to be a maggot because he's got money and influence?" v. "Should people be decent human beings?" debate?
The guy is a scumbag, that doesn't seem to be in doubt. But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant. Let's not pretend that the GOP don't accept money from individuals or organizations with questionable ethical credentials, this is not a phenomenon restricted to either group
The whole point is that Hillary Clinton, the Dems and Hollywood went ballastic on Trump about his alleged treatment of women. They screamed, the yelled, they organised protests, they preached. Yet they turned a blind eye to a Hollywood heavyweight who was a major Democrat donor and fund-raiser. A guy who had visited the White House a dozen times. Female "pundits" or comedians blasted Trump for being a sex fiend were actually friends with this fucker.
In other words this incident has shown them up as a bunch of pathetic hypocrites and cowards.
It's just like one of those ministers or hyperconservative politicians who scream about moral fibre being caught in a brothel or with underage boys.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel where on earth do you get that they turned a blind eye? I'm happy to accept your argument if if has some proof behind it but this is just joining dots.
-
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@Rancid-Schnitzel where on earth do you get that they turned a blind eye? I'm happy to accept your argument if if has some proof behind it but this is just joining dots.
Are you serious?
-
It gets really tiresome so many threads being hijacked by Trump apologists
1 Hilary has publically stated that she is appalled by Weinstein and he should suffer full consequences of his actions
2 Yeah Hollywood majority is liberal but given the Sec State allegedly called Trump a moron why shouldn't an actor
3 Weinstein's abhorrent behavior doesn't excuse Trumps abhorrent behavior. There's plenty of allegations about him doing more than just grope but he's made to POTUS
4 Although it seems knowledge of Weinstein's behavior was indeed widespread politicians and political parties of all persuasions take money and endorsements from all manner of scumbags. Is it hypocritical to blame one when you have direct knowledge of the other and still cosy up to the second. Definitely but everyone's doing it - unfortunately.
5 The direct knowledge thing is interesting. Don't underestimate peoples ability to ignore stuff that with hindsight is obvious - not because of any benefit they receive - but because the facts are just too heinous for their mind to accept. Unfortunately I have some experience here. A guy once worked in one of my sites. He was an evil paedophile of the worst order. His workmates were defending him rigorously despite evidence to the contrary right up until he confessed because they could not believe someone they worked with and knew was a monster. I'm sure we've all had conversations like "wouldn't surprise me if X was done for Y" but we do nothing about it because we refuse to countenance reality and fall back to thinking he's a bit strange sure but No way. That's before you factor in the power and influence, money and lawyers and shit that Weinstein employed to ensure he could maintain a patina of respectability. -
@booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:
How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?
Seriously.
It's a "is it ok to be a maggot because he's got money and influence?" v. "Should people be decent human beings?" debate?
Hold on, I never said anything about this being a "Republicans v Democrats" issue. As @canefan says there are many examples of the Republicans taking money from dodgy sources as well, and I'm sure you could make a thread about that too. That doesn't mean this isn't a political issue though - if we really think this has nothing to do with politics then why is this thread sitting in the politics sub-forum?
To me, and @Catogrande's example of Saville also proves this, is that this type of thing is exactly what is wrong with politics. We have these people running for positions of power, preaching moral values to gain our votes, but at the same time are in bed with morally reprehensible people. I know this is nothing new in politics, we all suspect it, but when we get clear evidence that this is the case then we should be calling it out as loudly as possible.
In this specific example, it is the Democratic party of the USA that is clearly in bed with absolute scumbag Hollywood elites. This is not OK, these people hold positions of power that impact the entire world, and they are being influenced by people that you and I would not want anything to do with.
So yeah, in summary this obviously isn't a left vs right debate (though in this case it is the left caught with their pants down), but it absolutely is deeply political.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:
@crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:
@Rancid-Schnitzel where on earth do you get that they turned a blind eye? I'm happy to accept your argument if if has some proof behind it but this is just joining dots.
Are you serious?
Yes. Your whole rant was based on something you are stating as fact but is an assumption.
-
This post is deleted!