Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 10785 times)

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #300 on: December 13, 2017, 01:54:12 PM »
You know, Crunch, you're forgetting one obvious possibility.

That these women were telling the truth.

I'm not forgetting that, they could be. Sure they could. But when you make accusations like this, shouldn't there be at least some proof beyond the accusation itself?

The problem is that usually there is no proof beyond the woman's word.  Which is precisely what the predator counts on.

Quote
Which means, if true, your prediction that Moore's accusers will be hounded, disparaged and ruined is just another example of how revealing sexual harassment only results in further harassment of the victim.  And how jerks will defend to the death the right of males to treat females however they want, so long as they don't leave any physical evidence behind. :)
Or it could mean that people don't appreciate false accusations destroying innocent people. Cuts both ways.

Sure, if they know the woman is lying.  But as you have repeatedly stated, we don't know who lied in this case, Moore or six women.

Quote
Now, I don't know if every single one of these women were completely truthful or utter liars.  I tend to believe them, since Moore is an egotistical know-it-all who believes his beliefs are the laws of the universe, everyone else be damned. :)  But until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt, I won't call for any punishment to him for these alleged actions.

So you tend to believe it because you don't like the target of the accusations. That's a nice standard for critical thought. And the punishment just happened. What you're really saying is you won't call for any more punishment to him for these alleged actions. You already got what you wanted, why would you call for more?

I tend to find the women more believable because, based on Moore's character, I find him less credible in this situation.  He strikes me as the kind of man who would lie about it to benefit himself. 

Here's the thing, Crunch.  You may dislike trial by public opinion, but that's what elections are.  People deciding, on the basis of what they understand, who the best candidate is.

Apparently enough people in Alabama decided the accusations were credible enough that they did not want Moore in office.  And their opinions are just as good as yours, mine, or any of those jerks you believe will harass these women.

So while it is "punishment" in the fact that he didn't get the job, that is not real "punishment."  Not like being hounded and harassed until you feel you need to leave the state.  It is just the fact that he was judged by those doing the judgment that he was less suitable for the job, based on the facts in front of them.

You may disagree with their judgment, but then they are the ones who should be punished, shouldn't they? ;)

Quote
But anyone who tries to ruin these women's lives because of what they said should be punished twice as much as any punishment they inflict on them.  If not seven times as much (per the Biblical principle, which I'm sure Roy would appreciate. :) )  Because scum like them, who will take the man's side regardless of how little evidence there is that they are right, are precisely why women won't accuse their attackers and why their attackers get away with it.  It's just more bullying of women.

How about "scum" like those that take the woman side regardless of how little evidence there is? You've been conditioned to unquestioningly accept the accusations and anyone that disagrees or points out problems is demonized. That there are consequences for false or unproven accusations can only mean they're "scum". Obviously threatening the women is wrong, but giving false accusers a free pass is equally wrong.

As you have been conditioned to believe the man no matter how many women say otherwise. :p

You do realize that making the bar "unproven accusations" means that men can touch, fondle or rape any woman they want, so long as they leave no credible evidence?  And if the woman dares to accuse the rapist, then she should be subject to further harassment or violence for telling the truth?

And again, I thought you said you didn't know who was telling the truth?  So how can you a free pass to those who want to punish these women for 'giving false" accusations?  If you don't know that they are false, how can you punish them?

And what makes you think those who want to punish these women have any more information than you do? ;)

Quote
So when you talk about this, Crunch, remember to show a bit of regret that there are people in this world who would do this to women who speak out about sexual harassment.  Because it's a sad thing, an unfair thing, an unjust and horrible thing that should be eradicated.  And we should all stand up and defend these women from such scum.  Because bullies should always be smacked down, regardless of whether they are the harassers themselves or the self-righteous bigots who think that all women must be liars and should be punished for ever accusing a man.
Right back at ya there Chester, remember that there are people in this world who would do this to men for perceived slights or just for the notoriety. I guess you don't care about those.  You know, that makes you the bully right?

I know women do lie about such things.  The Washington Post was contacted by one such apparently lying woman about Moore himself and reported it. ;)  I suppose you believe this woman, and those who supported her, deserve punishment for this attempt.

But this is not just saying that the women are liars.  What you are talking about is harassment to the point that you expect some of them having to leave the state.  Based on the fact that some men, who themselves only have "unproven accusations," believe that they lied.

I agree that it is wrong if a man is harassed to the point that he would have to leave a state based on "unproven accusations."  But I'm certainly not going to give a bye to men who drive a woman out of state based on their unsupported belief that the women lied. 

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #301 on: December 13, 2017, 02:42:31 PM »
Quote
As you have been conditioned to believe the man no matter how many women say otherwise. :p

That's not fair - he only believes Republicans no matter what they are accused of.  Any accusation against a Democrat, no matter how outlandish and far fetched, and no matter what the contradictory evidence - he believes the accusation completely.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #302 on: December 13, 2017, 02:46:02 PM »
Anecdotally, I know dozens if not hundreds of women personally who have been through some form of harassment. And probably many more who don't talk about it.

How many men do I know who have been falsely accused? As far as I know, zero.

You do realize you're using a different standard of counting there.  Are you honestly saying that you've never been privy to a factual situation where you thought it was not harassment?  I guaranty you've seen flirting conduct that in another context would be harassment and sometimes the women took it that way and sometimes they didn't.  Have you never known an ackward person that no matter how they ask someone out, the askee stats some form of "I wish they'd stop harassing me"?

Have you ever had a child that was accused of harassment?  How about a relative where the claim was completely out of character? 

The problem here is that we can not measure who's been harassed simple by whether they feel harassed.  Sometimes objectively fine behavior causes bad feelings, that does not transform it into harassment.  There is a non-zero group of women who feel harasssed for which there is no harasser.

Quote
The studies you cited earlier talk about 1-2%, at least the credible ones. How many more have been falsely accused by multiple women?

The studies are based on legal claims and public denouncements, meanwhile your count of hundreds is based on a single persons feelings where the other person never got to tell you what they think happened.  You know its possible for both people to feel harassed in a single interaction.

Quote
But I'll take the odds of initially believing a false report, rather than challenging all the truth tellers and making them feel they are not being heard and believed.

You can believe someone felt harassed, without prejudging whether there was harassment.  Everyone is entitled to have their feelings validated, they are not however, entitled to reign down chastisement and punishment solely because of how they feel.

Quote
Greeting accusers with disbelief and attempts to discredit them makes pressure to silence them that much more powerful.

And blind acceptance turns accusations into incontrovertible proof.  That's a standard that will be abused even if it doesn't start that way.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #303 on: December 13, 2017, 03:12:31 PM »
Regarding allegations  - for rape allegations - 10-20% are credibly false accusations;  20-40% are credibly true accusations.  Everything else there isn't enough evidence one way or the other.

So I'm certainly sympathetic regarding skepticism for a single accusation - depending on the nature of the accusation.

Also I agree with Seriati that people can reasonably have different interpretations and remembrance of events.  Also that people will sometimes consider things harrassment that objectively isn't; (as well as people will not consider things harrassment that objectively are).

Also memories aren't static - they will change each time we access them; the changes will depend on our emotions when accessing them; they can be added to or confused with other memories, confused with others experiences, combined with dreams, or incorporate details from entertainment (books, films).




DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #304 on: December 13, 2017, 03:12:43 PM »
Quote
I'm not forgetting that, they could be. Sure they could. But when you make accusations like this, shouldn't there be at least some proof beyond the accusation itself?
There is other evidence, as has been pointed out to you a number of times.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #305 on: December 13, 2017, 05:00:38 PM »
Quote
As you have been conditioned to believe the man no matter how many women say otherwise. :p

That's not fair - he only believes Republicans no matter what they are accused of.  Any accusation against a Democrat, no matter how outlandish and far fetched, and no matter what the contradictory evidence - he believes the accusation completely.

Obviously not true and you certainly know that. I said the same things about Franken as I have Moore and the need to allow for due process. You're just making things up as you go along now. :o

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #306 on: December 13, 2017, 05:05:40 PM »
Quote
I'm not forgetting that, they could be. Sure they could. But when you make accusations like this, shouldn't there be at least some proof beyond the accusation itself?
There is other evidence, as has been pointed out to you a number of times.

Yeah, I've seen you say that over and over but you never back it up.  You just say it. What evidence is there that does not come down to he said/she said and/or circumstantial? I think all you have is some people saying Moore dated young women - something that is not a crime nor is it all that unusual. But you want to link to the physical evidence, please do. I'd like to see it since even Slate couldn't do it.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #307 on: December 13, 2017, 05:22:51 PM »
You don't like witness testimony, so what are you looking for?  Video evidence?  Tape recordings? 

There are more than 25 people corroborating the 5 women's accounts.  The high school yearbook is also evidence.  Sure, if you ignore all the evidence, there is no evidence.

As for "circumstantial": a) circumstantial evidence is still evidence, b) even in a court, sufficient circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to convict in criminal proceedings or win a civil suit, and c) Moore is not being charged, nor is he being sued.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #308 on: December 13, 2017, 06:42:21 PM »
You do realize you're using a different standard of counting there.  Are you honestly saying that you've never been privy to a factual situation where you thought it was not harassment?  I guaranty you've seen flirting conduct that in another context would be harassment and sometimes the women took it that way and sometimes they didn't.  Have you never known an ackward person that no matter how they ask someone out, the askee stats some form of "I wish they'd stop harassing me"?

Have you ever had a child that was accused of harassment?  How about a relative where the claim was completely out of character? 

The problem here is that we can not measure who's been harassed simple by whether they feel harassed.  Sometimes objectively fine behavior causes bad feelings, that does not transform it into harassment.  There is a non-zero group of women who feel harasssed for which there is no harasser.

Honestly, no, I haven't had that come up with relatives, friends, countrymen. I have had people complain to me that they were being unfairly accused of bad behaviour. When they relate the story, there has always been bad behaviour. "All I did was...." go ahead and mad lib whatever you want there.

I've seen people engage in "flirty conduct" that could more rightfully be called assault. And then get mad about it when they get yelled at. To them, it was "objectively fine".

It is true that some of this is dependent on social skill. Anyone from a boor to someone on the autistic spectrum can harass or behave inappropriately without intent - that doesn't stop it from being harassment. And back to the original question of "who do you believe" - most of these scenarios are not in dispute about what happened, but rather what it meant. Whether that is sending an unsolicited photo of your genitals, or shouting something vulgar out a van window.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #309 on: December 13, 2017, 07:08:37 PM »
Crunch,

Quote
Obviously not true and you certainly know that. I said the same things about Franken as I have Moore and the need to allow for due process. You're just making things up as you go along now. :o

You have repeatedly stated that the photo shows Al Franken groping the women, even after it has been demonstrated that he is pantomining.  So yes, you believe bad things about Democrats even after there is evidence contradicting your belief.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #310 on: December 14, 2017, 09:05:28 AM »
Crunch,

Quote
Obviously not true and you certainly know that. I said the same things about Franken as I have Moore and the need to allow for due process. You're just making things up as you go along now. :o

You have repeatedly stated that the photo shows Al Franken groping the women, even after it has been demonstrated that he is pantomining.  So yes, you believe bad things about Democrats even after there is evidence contradicting your belief.

The man's resigning.  It went beyond that and it's kinda silly to argue this point.  While Crunch's "what about Franken?" sure had the look of 'whataboutism', he was consistent on this.  Him being labeled as purely partisan (on this subject) was juvenile and, IMO wrong.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #311 on: December 14, 2017, 10:42:35 AM »
Crunch,

Quote
Obviously not true and you certainly know that. I said the same things about Franken as I have Moore and the need to allow for due process. You're just making things up as you go along now. :o

You have repeatedly stated that the photo shows Al Franken groping the women, even after it has been demonstrated that he is pantomining.  So yes, you believe bad things about Democrats even after there is evidence contradicting your belief.

You neglect to mention that Franken also admitted to "crossing the line". Your generous interpretation is good for you, but when someone admits to it it's kinda moot. This strawman you're building is pretty irrelevant too. I'm not arguing about belief in wrongdoing, I'm arguing about due process.  So, once again, you're being kind of dishonest in your post. It's a bit of a habit for you, you know. :)

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #312 on: December 14, 2017, 06:56:04 PM »
You neglect to mention that Franken also admitted to "crossing the line".

I didn't 'neglect' anything.  The 'crossed a line' was in reference to claims that he touched a woman's butt during a photo op.  I was talking about your false accussations of claims there was a photo showing him sexually assaulting a woman.

Here is the actual quote of what Franken said,

Quote
“I’ve learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women — and I know that any number is too many,” he said in part.

So you again falsely accuse him.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #313 on: December 14, 2017, 06:58:21 PM »
 ;D ::) right.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #314 on: December 14, 2017, 07:09:26 PM »
Quote
Delaware senator Tom Carper admitted to slapping his wife in a 1998 interview with a veteran political journalist in the state, confirming an accusation he denied when first running for Congress.
Carper represented Delaware first in the House, then was elected governor in 1993, and has been in the Senate since 2001. He fought the accusation that he hit his wife when it first emerged during his 1982 run for Congress, saying it was "without basis in fact" and pledging to sue the New York Post, which first published the accusation in 1982, for libel.

Carper won in 1982 largely by attacking his Republican opponent for his "vicious" efforts to "smear" him and his wife, but 16 years later he admitted to Delaware reporter Celia Cohen that the accusation was true all along.

“Did I slap my wife 20 years ago? Yes," Carper said

Obviously, Carper must resign or be driven from office immediately. Right? He assaulted a woman, we gotta burn the witch, right?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #315 on: December 14, 2017, 07:38:36 PM »
Sure sounds good to me. Especially since he impugned the integrity of his opponent and the media while he was covering it up.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #316 on: December 15, 2017, 01:06:56 AM »
Quote
Delaware senator Tom Carper admitted to slapping his wife in a 1998 interview with a veteran political journalist in the state, confirming an accusation he denied when first running for Congress.
Carper represented Delaware first in the House, then was elected governor in 1993, and has been in the Senate since 2001. He fought the accusation that he hit his wife when it first emerged during his 1982 run for Congress, saying it was "without basis in fact" and pledging to sue the New York Post, which first published the accusation in 1982, for libel.

Carper won in 1982 largely by attacking his Republican opponent for his "vicious" efforts to "smear" him and his wife, but 16 years later he admitted to Delaware reporter Celia Cohen that the accusation was true all along.

“Did I slap my wife 20 years ago? Yes," Carper said

Obviously, Carper must resign or be driven from office immediately. Right? He assaulted a woman, we gotta burn the witch, right?

Well, if he didn't slap his wife until 1998, the 1982 report about him doing so would have been inaccurate at the time. :)

Of course, I think that's supposed to read that he admitted in 1998 to having slapped his wife as accused, rather than that he slapped his wife during an interview in 1998.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #317 on: December 15, 2017, 10:40:53 AM »
Another witch burned.  Plot twist, the predator is a woman and victim a man.

Quote
Andrea Ramsey, a Democratic candidate for Congress, will drop out of the race after the Kansas City Star asked her about accusations in a 2005 lawsuit that she sexually harassed and retaliated against a male subordinate who said he had rejected her advances.

Multiple sources with knowledge of the case told The Star that the man reached a settlement with LabOne, the company where Ramsey was executive vice president of human resources. Court documents show that the man, Gary Funkhouser, and LabOne agreed to dismiss the case permanently after mediation in 2006.

Ramsey’s announcement:
Quote
Ramsey will drop out on Friday, her campaign said.

“In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard,” Ramsey said in a statement Friday. “For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”

She’s right, of course.  The accusation is made, burn the witch. That’s the entire process. The DNC says:
Quote
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has not endorsed anyone in the race, said in a statement that members and candidates must all be held to the highest standard.

“If anyone is guilty of sexual harassment or sexual assault, that person should not hold public office,” said committee spokeswoman Meredith Kelly.

Obviously that part about being guilty is a typo, they meant “accused”.  This basically boils down to he said/she said - sounds familiar. Potentially disgruntled ex-employee files complaint, settled by everyone because that’s usually rhe quickest and easiest thing to do. Or maybe Ramsey tried to get into his pants and retaliated when turned down. Who really knows?

You watch, 2018 is gonna be full of this and it’s not about sexual harassment. It’s about impeachment. The democrats and republicans are willing to burn a lot of their people to lay this groundwork.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #318 on: December 15, 2017, 10:55:35 AM »
Doesn't quite rise to my standard, single accuser no apparent corroboration. That said, I tend to believe there was something behind this.

Quote
Ramsey repeatedly said that she was not aware of any settlement in the case, but said that if she had been a party to the case she would have opposed settling.

That kind of stretches credibility. You run the HR department. Company lawyers come and ask you about the case. Then they just go away, and you never follow up? She might have opposed settling, but to be unaware? I'm assuming her department probably had to revise their training in such matters as well. ;D

The allegations about “unwelcome and inappropriate sexual comments and innuendos” makes me think she probably did some of that. Again, stipulated, no proof just opinion and guesswork.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #319 on: December 15, 2017, 01:41:44 PM »
So, motive speculation, really hooked on that are we?

How about getting their 15 minutes of fame? That’s far from unusual. Did any if them get paid for appearances or received free travel?

Did any of them get paid ....

Quote
A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews.
California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.

The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted during the effort.


Bloom, who has assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended film executive Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two went public, and two declined.

In a statement to The Hill, Bloom acknowledged she engaged in discussions to secure donations for women who made or considered making accusations against Trump before last year’s election.

"Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented," said Bloom, whose clients have also included accusers of Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly.

Maybe not for Moore, maybe. Who knows. But women are getting paid to take down Trump and that's what all this is about.


Doesn't quite rise to my standard, single accuser no apparent corroboration.

How many accusers are required to burn the witches? Bloom (and the DNC) could establish a budget if she had a specific number of people to target.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #320 on: December 15, 2017, 02:45:38 PM »
Quote
Ramsey repeatedly said that she was not aware of any settlement in the case, but said that if she had been a party to the case she would have opposed settling.

That kind of stretches credibility. You run the HR department. Company lawyers come and ask you about the case. Then they just go away, and you never follow up?

That's not unusual.  The company would have made a determination if Ramsey needed to be sanctioned or fired, but that's all she would have been informed of.  She certainly would have been completely firewalled off from a case in which she was involved.  We don't know the settlement amount, but small settlements rarely have anything to do with whether or not the case is proven.

Quote
I'm assuming her department probably had to revise their training in such matters as well. ;D

Again, probably not, most current programs are adequate.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #321 on: December 17, 2017, 09:34:31 AM »
Chris Matthews, burn him!

It’s been confirmed that NBC paid off at least one of Matthews’ victims and bought her silence. NBC refuses to comment on how many others victims there are..

This guy’s gotta go, immediately. No final show, no more media time of any kind. Destroy him! Burn the witch!

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #322 on: December 17, 2017, 11:00:23 AM »
Woody Allen, serial perv, has a new movie coming out. The child he allegedly raped when she was but 7 years old (there is some corroboration here) has laid into him and the Hollywood machine that continues to embrace him. Obviously, Allen needs to be burned along with the rest of the witches. But then Farrow says this:
Quote
To fundamentally change how society responds to sexual assault, we must change ourselves, at every level. We must subordinate art to morality, not morality to art. We must subordinate power to morality, not morality to power.

I can’t think of any better slogan for The Great Cleansing,  where we purge our society of the hate filled predators and destroy their lives than “subordinate to morality”. Art, power, thoughts, all must be subordinated to morality.

Quote
We must make the personal sacrifices necessary to take away the power and influence from those who abuse it, and we must do it by standing together... It won't be easy, but it will be worth it. The time is right for a cultural change. We owe it to our world, to our children, and to the generations to come... Are you with me?

I, for one, welcome our new moral police and praise their efforts. You will too, or you’re next.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 11:03:38 AM by Crunch »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #323 on: December 17, 2017, 12:49:28 PM »
Chris Matthews, burn him!

It’s been confirmed that NBC paid off at least one of Matthews’ victims and bought her silence. NBC refuses to comment on how many others victims there are..

This guy’s gotta go, immediately. No final show, no more media time of any kind. Destroy him! Burn the witch!

Well, that might explain the "thrill up his leg" whenever Obama spoke.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #324 on: December 18, 2017, 09:06:37 AM »
How many accusers are required to burn the witches? Bloom (and the DNC) could establish a budget if she had a specific number of people to target.

Let me get this straight. You think the DNC is not only willing, but also capable of orchestrating multiple accusers who will not only be able to claim credible contact with their falsely accused victim, but also be willing to participate in such a scheme. And that they will be okay with having their lives upended and scrutinized over it - presumably because the DNC is giving them duffel bags full of cash? And that enlist people who knew them at the time to also back up their story? And that the DNC, despite not being capable of securing their own emails, will be able to use this tactic repeatedly with no exposure?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #325 on: December 18, 2017, 11:23:32 AM »
Chris Matthews, burn him!

It’s been confirmed that NBC paid off at least one of Matthews’ victims and bought her silence. NBC refuses to comment on how many others victims there are..

This guy’s gotta go, immediately. No final show, no more media time of any kind. Destroy him! Burn the witch!

I'm glad to see how you've become so enthusiastic about protecting women, Crunch, and punishing those who have used their positions of power to bully, harass or exploit them.

But what about the elephant in the room?

What about the Big Guy who has bragged about being able to touch women in inappropriate places and get away with it?  What about the guy who has 16 women who have accused him of inappropriate behavior?  The sensitive guy who bragged about his great sex with his mistress while still married to his wife?

Or does having an "(R)" affixed to a name preclude you from believing anything bad said about a person? ;)

I applaud you righteous wrath against these sexual predators.  But I'm wondering, how much longer will it be before you recognize the one in the White House?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #326 on: December 18, 2017, 12:19:45 PM »
Chris Matthews, burn him!

It’s been confirmed that NBC paid off at least one of Matthews’ victims and bought her silence. NBC refuses to comment on how many others victims there are..

This guy’s gotta go, immediately. No final show, no more media time of any kind. Destroy him! Burn the witch!

I'm glad to see how you've become so enthusiastic about protecting women, Crunch, and punishing those who have used their positions of power to bully, harass or exploit them.

But what about the elephant in the room?

What about the Big Guy who has bragged about being able to touch women in inappropriate places and get away with it?  What about the guy who has 16 women who have accused him of inappropriate behavior?  The sensitive guy who bragged about his great sex with his mistress while still married to his wife?

Or does having an "(R)" affixed to a name preclude you from believing anything bad said about a person? ;)

I applaud you righteous wrath against these sexual predators.  But I'm wondering, how much longer will it be before you recognize the one in the White House?

You’ve completely missed my point. I get the need you have to put this in terms of D vs R so you can understand it, the conditioning/indoctrination to reflexively do that is hard to get past. What you should be wondering is how long before the witch hunt gets to you and what the long term impact of this hunt will be.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess, I’d expect
« Reply #327 on: December 18, 2017, 12:35:17 PM »
How many accusers are required to burn the witches? Bloom (and the DNC) could establish a budget if she had a specific number of people to target.

Let me get this straight. You think the DNC is not only willing, but also capable of orchestrating multiple accusers who will not only be able to claim credible contact with their falsely accused victim, but also be willing to participate in such a scheme. And that they will be okay with having their lives upended and scrutinized over it - presumably because the DNC is giving them duffel bags full of cash? And that enlist people who knew them at the time to also back up their story? And that the DNC, despite not being capable of securing their own emails, will be able to use this tactic repeatedly with no exposure?

Willing? Of course they are. The DNC was willing to rig a primary for a favored candidate, this is even easier to do than that.

Willing participants among alt left anti-Trumpers? You can’t possibly think that would be difficult. Some money helps, sure. Convincing them that they’ll be heroes, feted in the media and by the glitterati of Hollywood for their courage in coming forward, guests of honor at gatherings of the political ruling class, that’s how the willing participants will be “bought”.  The hard part will be filtering people to find those with a workable timetable for the possibility for their accusations, putting the target in the room, so to speak.

Why would the DNC fear exposure? Who’s gonna even try to find out, much less report it? CNN? NYT?MSNBC? ABC/CBS/NBC? These guys virtually work for the DNC and they hate Trump. If anything I’d expect the media to help.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #328 on: December 18, 2017, 02:57:55 PM »
I guess Kozinski is the latest to fall from a brilliantly choreographed set of 15 (and counting) accusations from respected fellow judges, lawyers, and one professor.

Well done DNC, well done!

Or maybe occams razor suggests that he just liked groping women, making lewd comments, and generally being a giant *censored* for decades.

Maybe Breitbart and friends will put the women through hell to make them leave the country or recant their stories.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #329 on: December 18, 2017, 03:44:12 PM »
Quote
You’ve completely missed my point. I get the need you have to put this in terms of D vs R so you can understand it, the conditioning/indoctrination to reflexively do that is hard to get past. What you should be wondering is how long before the witch hunt gets to you and what the long term impact of this hunt will be.

Sorry, Crunch, but I've been subject to the "witch hunt" for years now.

It must have been over 10 years ago that my team leader had to fire a newly-hired man because he was harassing women at work.  Being overly friendly, making suggestive suggestions, rubbing backs without consent, stuff like that.  He didn't last three months, IIRC.

So, no, I've always known that if I treat women as badly as the way any of these men are accused of doing, I will get fired.

What's changing is that status and power are no longer reason to keep the job.

These accusations do need to be investigated and verified, so long as Project Veritas and their ilk are around.  But when the evidence is credible, should the behavior be swept under the rug through non-disclosure agreements or intimidation? 

It's about time everyone be held to the same standards.  Which hardly counts as a "witch hunt."

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #330 on: December 18, 2017, 07:10:42 PM »
I guess Kozinski is the latest to fall from a brilliantly choreographed set of 15 (and counting) accusations from respected fellow judges, lawyers, and one professor.

Well done DNC, well done!

Or maybe occams razor suggests that he just liked groping women, making lewd comments, and generally being a giant *censored* for decades.

Maybe Breitbart and friends will put the women through hell to make them leave the country or recant their stories.

You’re confusing the means with the ends. Sure, find as many dirtbags as possible to burn. Establishes the moral authority. It’s nice if they’re guilty but, as anyone can see, thats not a requirement. The only requirement is the accusations. Then, once moral authority is sufficient, get a few women to accuse Trump.

If you think there won’t be payoffs, then you missed out - there already have been payoffs to accusers. Lisa Bloom, not so coincidentally the daughter of Gloria Alredd, has been exposed doing it as she began the build up to target Trump.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #331 on: December 19, 2017, 01:37:04 PM »
Quote
Then, once moral authority is sufficient, get a few women to accuse Trump.

I don't know why Lisa Bloom bothered to solicit funds.  It's not like there aren't more than enough accusers already, and have been around for a long time.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #332 on: December 19, 2017, 02:19:31 PM »
My God! The Democrats even got Ivana to describe an encounter with Donald as rape in a 1989 deposition!! Clearly the DNC has access to TIME TRAVEL!

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #333 on: December 26, 2017, 07:40:56 PM »
It is worth noting that POLICE need to do their diligence when it comes to arresting someone.

Quote
It is understood police had looked at thousands of phone messages when reviewing evidence in the case, but had failed to disclose to the prosecution and defence teams messages between the complainant and her friends which cast doubt on the allegations against Mr Allan.
A Met spokesman said the force was "urgently reviewing this investigation and will be working with the Crown Prosecution Service to understand exactly what has happened in this case.
"The Met understands the concerns that have been raised as a result of this case being dismissed from court and the ongoing review will seek to address those," he said.

rape accusation ruin

Did the cops review the records they pulled? Why didn't they at least let prosecutors know? Is this a situation of wanting their arrest rate to go up?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #334 on: January 01, 2018, 04:52:43 PM »
My God! The Democrats even got Ivana to describe an encounter with Donald as rape in a 1989 deposition!! Clearly the DNC has access to TIME TRAVEL!

With enough money, just about anything is possible.

Quote
A nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians…

Ms. Allred’s daughter, the lawyer Lisa Bloom, seized on the political potency of sexual harassment charges against Mr. Trump not long after he clinched the Republican presidential nomination. She said she reached out to a pro-Clinton “super PAC” — though she declined to identify which one — for money to help her vet a sexual misconduct claim against Mr. Trump.

That case collapsed one week before Election Day, but as a result of the attention it generated, several donors reached out to Ms. Bloom “asking how they could help,” she said. She told them that she was working with “a few other women” who might “find the courage to speak out” against Mr. Trump if the donors would provide funds for security, relocation and possibly a “safe house.”

Ms. Bloom would not identify the donors. But two Democrats familiar with the arrangements said a nonprofit group founded by Mr. Brock, American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, gave $200,000, while the fashion entrepreneur Susie Tompkins Buell, a major donor to Mr. Brock’s suite of groups, gave $500,000 to Ms. Bloom’s firm for the last-ditch effort.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #335 on: January 02, 2018, 11:23:08 AM »
Crunch, that story is something that bothers me.  Clearly it could be spun either way, on the one hand its a seedy tale of paying for scandal to try and undermine a democratically elected President, on the other hand, it's struggle against an oppressive and powerful man that needs extra resources to make it to a fair fight.  There's no good way for anyone to know the truth, and every reason to be suspicious of either or both sides.

I don't think the country has settled out on what we think is reasonable.  So far, we just have people that are willing to commit to political convenience.  What do you think should happen?  What if the allegations are true?  What if they aren't?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #336 on: January 02, 2018, 04:00:38 PM »
Quote
I don't think the country has settled out on what we think is reasonable.
The problem isn't about what is reasonable.  We could very easily agree on that standard.  In fact, we have laws that if followed and enforced already go a long way towards that end.

What we suck at, is the sliding scale of how much value we place on an individual and balance that against their behavior (known, alleged or suspected).  There is no 'scandal' when it's a nobody who gets caught acting in a way we find 'unreasonable'.  What we haven't settled on, is how much hypocrisy are we willing to allow ourselves when the 'unreasonable behavior' demands we sacrifice someone of value to us.