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?



  • @booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:

    How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?

    The guy was one of the biggest, most high profile fundraisers and "bundlers" for the Democratic Party. And it goes a lot deeper than that.

    And then when caught and he supposedly "apologized," Harv didn't mention sexual harrassment, he didn't mention sexual assault, he didn't apologise to his victims. Instead, he virtue-signalled directly at his base:

    "I am going to need a place to channel that anger so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.

    "I hope Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah.

    "I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party.

    "One year ago, I began organizing a $5 million foundation to give scholarships to women directors at USC. While this might seem coincidental, it has been in the works for a year. It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her.”

    You'd have to have your head buried in the sand to fail to recognise the message he's sending to weasel his way out getting-by with a little help from his friends : "Give me a bweak, pwease fowgive me, I'm a good impowtant SJW Democwat."



  • @antipodean said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:

    Poor Harvey, the pile-on is starting to make me feel some sympathy for the guy.

    Seriously?

    Lindsay Lohan Defends Harvey Weinstein: ‘I Feel Very Bad for Him – Everyone Needs to Stop’

    http://variety.com/2017/film/news/lindsay-lohan-defends-harvey-weinstein-i-feel-very-bad-for-him-everyone-needs-to-stop-1202586659/

    alt text



  • @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



  • @booboo said in Harvey Weinstein:

    How does this get to be a Republicans v Democrats debate?

    Seriously.

    Because some people see conspiracies around every corner.



  • @canefan said in Harvey Weinstein:

    But the wailing about his political standpoint and whether he donates to the Dems is totally irrelevant.

    1. 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.

    2. Weinstein was given enormous power, privilege & leeway within the Democratic Party and previous tenants of White House.

    3. 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..."

    4. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. Weinstein was given enormous power, privilege & leeway within the Democratic Party and previous tenants of White House.

    3. 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..."

    4. 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...)



  • alt text
    alt text
    alt text


  • Banned

    @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.


  • Banned

    @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.


  • Banned

    This post is deleted!


  • @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.



  • As The World Turns.

    A half-day ago, Harvey was supposedly in the air flying to Europe for rehab.

    Then an hour ago, his brother Bob called Harvey "a very sick man" and said he hasn't gone.

    Just now, TMZ is reporting LAPD were called by Harvey's daughter reporting ol' Harv is suicidal.

    I see a movie here. (Made for TV.)



  • @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @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.

    Oh fuck off Crucial. There is more than enough info out there. You seriously think nobody knew about it?

    Back it up. More than enough info? Find it and show it.
    If it is meant to be that obvious as you are stating then show me and I'll accept your point.



  • @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    One scumbag.

    Are you talkin' about ol' Harv, or Ben Affleck? Or now Jimmy Kimmel? Skeletons are falling out of the closet today, expect a tsumani of names & finger-pointing and "worst kept secrets" to become exposed at any second. Ya think that Batman tentpole opening in a month might be a wee bit worried this morning?

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    CNN Senior White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny, today:

    "Largely, it was an open secret, though, in all these circles, his behavior. And the reality is, California is the biggest and most flush ATM for Democratic politics in this country. He stood at the center of that. Nancy Pelosi, add her name to this list as well. She put out a very short statement on this. But the reality is, most of the leaders of the Democratic Party are beholden to him, have been beholden to him, and she still is the leader of the House Democrats here. Why not get out and give an interview, give a press conference? I mean, they have personal relationships with Harvey Weinstein. This is hypocrisy this week, no doubt. Because this was not a secret.”

    (I hope we're in agreement that CNN isn't exactly known as a conservative and/or Republican house organ or cohort.)



  • @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    I think it would be incredibly naive to think they had no idea of his behaviour. And incredibly naive to think they haven't accepted donations from other morally reprehensible people. And also incredibly naive to think the Republicans don't do the same.

    I'm not really disagreeing with you. There will be people that will latch onto this and make it a left vs right debate, especially given the current climate of finger pointing. Just want to point out that that's not what I'm trying to do here - this is an issue across the political spectrum. It just seems you guys are more content with blatant hypocrisy than I am because "everyone does it".

    All I ask for is politicians at least try to be consistent with their values - and it's the public that should be trying to hold them accountable. Screaming about Trump's obvious moral issues while doing exactly the same thing yourself reeks to high heaven.



  • @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    Back it up. More than enough info? Find it and show it.
    If it is meant to be that obvious as you are stating then show me and I'll accept your point.

    I find it highly amusing that many actresses are now going on record stating it was an open secret and that they were warned about Harvey the minute they got into the business, yet we're supposed to believe that close friends and associates who were by his side for three decades are shocked-shocked there's gambling going on in the casino. Doesn't pass the laugh-test.



  • Seth MacFarlane just commented about his Weinstein zinger at the 2013 Oscar ceremony:

    alt text


  • Banned

    @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    The Oscars, the Emmies, even the fucking MTV awards were turned into an anti-Trump shit fest. And now you're bitching and moaning about things becoming political.

    For me this has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump but everything to do with the appalling hypocrisy of those preaching SJW piston wristed gibbons from Hollywood.



  • @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    The Oscars, the Emmies, even the fucking MTV awards were turned into an anti-Trump shit fest. And now you're bitching and moaning about things becoming political.

    For me this has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump but everything to do with the appalling hypocrisy of those preaching SJW piston wristed gibbons from Hollywood.

    Maybe I’m even more simple than I thought, but I thought this was about some bloke called Harvey Weinstein.

    As for the rest of it. A pile of various wrongs still isn’t adding up to a right.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @salacious-crumb I'm not sure how that answers my question.

    @salacious-crumb said in Harvey Weinstein:

    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...)

    We've known for quite some time that Ben was a virtue signalling hypocrite. His mealy mouthed apology is a disgrace.

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    For me this has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump but everything to do with the appalling hypocrisy of those preaching SJW piston wristed gibbons from Hollywood.

    On that we definitely agree: Congratulations, you can stand where the director told you to and repeat some lines someone else wrote. You're entirely a better person than me. Please continue preaching so that I may be worthy..


  • Banned

    @donsteppa said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    The Oscars, the Emmies, even the fucking MTV awards were turned into an anti-Trump shit fest. And now you're bitching and moaning about things becoming political.

    For me this has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump but everything to do with the appalling hypocrisy of those preaching SJW piston wristed gibbons from Hollywood.

    Maybe I’m even more simple than I thought, but I thought this was about some bloke called Harvey Weinstein.

    As for the rest of it. A pile of various wrongs still isn’t adding up to a right.

    The connection has been explained multiple times. Try to keep up.



  • @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @donsteppa said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    The Oscars, the Emmies, even the fucking MTV awards were turned into an anti-Trump shit fest. And now you're bitching and moaning about things becoming political.

    For me this has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump but everything to do with the appalling hypocrisy of those preaching SJW piston wristed gibbons from Hollywood.

    Maybe I’m even more simple than I thought, but I thought this was about some bloke called Harvey Weinstein.

    As for the rest of it. A pile of various wrongs still isn’t adding up to a right.

    The connection has been explained multiple times. Try to keep up.

    The ‘but this fuckwit is a bigger fuckwit than that fuckwit’ is hopelessly moronic whataboutery.


  • Banned

    @donsteppa said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @donsteppa said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    The Oscars, the Emmies, even the fucking MTV awards were turned into an anti-Trump shit fest. And now you're bitching and moaning about things becoming political.

    For me this has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump but everything to do with the appalling hypocrisy of those preaching SJW piston wristed gibbons from Hollywood.

    Maybe I’m even more simple than I thought, but I thought this was about some bloke called Harvey Weinstein.

    As for the rest of it. A pile of various wrongs still isn’t adding up to a right.

    The connection has been explained multiple times. Try to keep up.

    The ‘but this fuckwit is a bigger fuckwit than that fuckwit’ is hopelessly moronic whataboutery.

    You're clearly not even reading if that is your take. In fact that's pathetically simple.



  • Here's a fun read:

    The bio for 30 year Republican Congressman and eight year House Republican leader Dennis Hastert:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert

    Oh, he was also a child abuser who had been paying hush-money to victims.



  • @dogmeat said in Harvey Weinstein:

    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.

    @dogmeat

    Trump apologists? Well seen as you want to start throwing shite....
    I find it incredibly tiresome about people bitching about a political angle being talked about a scandal in a POLITICS forum. It is not fucking rocket science... did you look at the title of the forum? Did you look at the title of the thread and think.. hey maybe the political angle might be discussed to this scandal? I am guessing not.. I assume you just jumped straight in and decided you would have a crack at restricting the discussion. Nearly every news article on this scandal has mentioned the Clintons and Obamas very close ties to Weinstein.. are they all Trump apologists as well?

    FFS we created this sub forum due to the loud and consistent bitching form the likes of you and those that liked your posts that politics was coming up in off topic thread way to much.. the fact you are still bitching just shows it was never really about keeping politics away from off topic and everything to do with making sure you don't have to read about politics you don't like.

    Weinstein was heavily involved in politics, sexual misdemeanors are a relevant topic in US politics, Hollywood is a relevant topic in US politics, combine all those things together and you have very relevant US politics talking point. It is not hijacking just because you don't want to discuss it.. although you then discussed it.. which would have been funny if it hadn't been so stupid,



  • @donsteppa said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @donsteppa said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @crucial said in Harvey Weinstein:

    @no-quarter 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?

    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.

    One scumbag. And when his scumminess has come to attention they have rounded on him.
    If you want some whataboutery then think back to how many Trumpites rounded on him after his scumminess came to attention.

    I think people are going well out of their way to join this to the divisive political situation.

    As I said. If there is evidence that the Dems cuddled up to him in full knowledge of this behaviour then I'm happy to accept the point.

    The Oscars, the Emmies, even the fucking MTV awards were turned into an anti-Trump shit fest. And now you're bitching and moaning about things becoming political.

    For me this has nothing to do with Republicans or Trump but everything to do with the appalling hypocrisy of those preaching SJW piston wristed gibbons from Hollywood.

    Maybe I’m even more simple than I thought, but I thought this was about some bloke called Harvey Weinstein.

    As for the rest of it. A pile of various wrongs still isn’t adding up to a right.

    The connection has been explained multiple times. Try to keep up.

    The ‘but this fuckwit is a bigger fuckwit than that fuckwit’ is hopelessly moronic whataboutery.

    Sorry Don that is dishonest. Where has anyone said anything like that? If that is your take on it, you are just not reading what people are saying.


Log in to reply