|
Stereotype posted:Why would he have known though? it wasn't exactly a secret in the circles weinstein ran in, which almost certainly included obama Potato Salad posted:" oh please... Condiv fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Oct 11, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Clearly CIA/NSA domestic surveillance should have tipped him off.NoEyedSquareGuy posted:There was a video posted here maybe a month or two ago showing some open carry fanatics walking into a police station wearing balaclavas and carrying assault rifles. This one is pretty egregious, but that one set the standard for me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j8la_mu6HY Because those guys caught some felony charges and certainly didn't walk out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
I mean, I knew about the Harvey Weinstein stuff years ago because a goon I play games with works in the movie industry and told us about it. I was more surprised at how many people didn't know about it, tbh. And the worst part about this stuff is the only people who can do anything about it are actually the victims. You can't step up as a secondhand witness or with a secondhand account as evidence, it just won't hold. The only thing that kept Weinstein out of trouble was his continued power over his victims because of his power in Hollywood, and Obama couldn't have changed that even if he knew unless he had victims he could refer his AG to or whatever his avenue would be. It's why supporting victims who lay down allegations is so important and why the culture of not believing rape victims is so toxic and why the report rate for sexual assault was under 50% last I checked.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This one? Seems like the sort of thing that would get you shot to death immediately if you didn't have the benefit of the doubt, so felony charges is a decent outcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:I mean, I knew about the Harvey Weinstein stuff years ago because a goon I play games with works in the movie industry and told us about it. I was more surprised at how many people didn't know about it, tbh. there were a lot of things he could've changed, including at the minimum not palling around with weinstein. he could have also pressed to have this poo poo investigated too. as we already know, there were people who tried to file charges against weinstein for sexual assault that got shut down cause of the power imbalance, and we also know that it's not exactly an uncommon thing in hollywood (or any area of the US where men hold disproportionate power over women). obama could've made it a part of his administration to root that poo poo out and provide a better society for women, and that would've been great. instead, we get "women shouldn't have to deal with this poo poo" only after a news story is finally published about weinstein. imo, all too often people pretend obama was completely powerless, when that was hardly the case. he was willing to push the envelope when he wanted to, like when he ordered the assasination of an american citizen Condiv fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Condiv, he's been saving all that political capital. For what, we can't know. All we can know is that when he finally uses it, you'll be glad you waited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Seems like the sort of thing that would get you shot to death immediately if you didn't have the benefit of the doubt, so felony charges is a decent outcome. The only reason they didn't is that they apparently have a history of "auditing" police and knew exactly what to do/say to avoid becoming a statistic despite being insanely antagonistic, but based on that video I think they were still a hairsbreadth from being a very expensive carpet cleaning bill. One cop literally tells the dude he's going to put a round in him if he doesn't comply. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:21
|
|
Condiv posted:there were a lot of things he could've changed, including at the minimum not palling around with weinstein. he could have also pressed to have this poo poo investigated too. as we already know, there were people who tried to file charges against weinstein for sexual assault that got shut down cause of the power imbalance, and we also know that it's not exactly an uncommon thing in hollywood (or any area of the US where men hold disproportionate power over women). obama could've made it a part of his administration to root that poo poo out and provide a better society for women, and that would've been great. My entire point is if the victims aren't willing to come forward there is no path to criminal charges. What, do you think Obama can just go "I think you're guilty, lock him up!" and guards just pop out and take him away? If there is no one who is willing to press charges or come forward, what the gently caress is an investigation going to do? There's no body, just rumors and victims who stayed silent so their careers wouldn't be ruined, and even if those victims have evidence they'd still have to come forward with it. It's loving bizarre how much you don't seem to understand about how the justice system works and why this poo poo is so bad. It's like you only just now are seeing why it's so hosed up that only 40% of rape victims report what happened to them and now you're throwing a tantrum because the person you feel is literally magical didn't stop them because he's not actually magical. The fixes for this problem have to come from a lower level (us). There is no single person who can just wave their arm and make the changes necessary to fix all rape. Also take a look at the DNC donor list sometime, there's bound to be a lot of really lovely people there because rich people are lovely people. If you wanna argue that Obama should have done X thing within his power because he knew Y even though you don't actually know if he knew Y at the time, then sure. Go ahead. It's still a really dumb loving argument that misses the lesson to be had about Weinstein (that waiting for people in power to fix the problem is loving stupid because either the person in power IS the problem or everyone else would rather let the status quo go on because it also sustains their power). LITERALLY MY FETISH fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:My entire point is if the victims aren't willing to come forward there is no path to criminal charges. What, do you think Obama can just go "I think you're guilty, lock him up!" and guards just pop out and take him away? No of course not you can't lock up an American citizen without due process. That's unconstitutional. This is America. Serious concerned people wouldn't stand for it. Obama could have just ordered an assassination on him by missile strike without due process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:38
|
|
Also Malia Obama was working as an intern for Weinstein this year, and that'd be a real bizarre thing for Obama to let his daughter do if he knew Weinstein was a sex predator. VitalSigns posted:No of course not you can't lock up an American citizen without due process. That's unconstitutional. This is America. Serious concerned people wouldn't stand for it. No, missile strikes would have been too big. That's what the drones are for.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Even talking about Obama of all people in the context of Weinstein is just accepting right-wing framing and false equivalencies. Why didn't Paul Ryan do more about Weinstein? Why didn't Mitch McConnell? WHy didn't Donald Trump It's all on the same order of stupid as "Why didn't Obama have a better response to Katrina?" Anybody on the right who's bitching about Weinstein is just trying to spin you away from thinking about the Access Hollywood tape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No of course not you can't lock up an American citizen without due process. That's unconstitutional. This is America. Serious concerned people wouldn't stand for it. I'm pretty sure you're only allowed to do that to Michael Bay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Obama sending his daughter to work for someone he knew to be a sex predator is some Breitbart level spin
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:44
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm pretty sure you're only allowed to do that to Michael Bay. It's definitely how Bay would want to go out: At least 40 missiles slamming into his mansion and a crater 60 feet deep. I hope they remember to drop american flags from an airplane over the rubble and the US Navy orchestra marches in carrying a stage with Springsteen on it blasting the national anthem.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Even talking about Obama of all people in the context of Weinstein is just accepting right-wing framing and false equivalencies. Why didn't Paul Ryan do more about Weinstein? Why didn't Mitch McConnell? WHy didn't Donald Trump Because nobody expected better from McConnell or Ryan. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Also Malia Obama was working as an intern for Weinstein this year, and that'd be a real bizarre thing for Obama to let his daughter do if he knew Weinstein was a sex predator. It just points towards a culture of complacency and double standard where rumors about your powerful buddies are dismissed or taken as a joke, even if you like to think of yourself as woke. It's the same as any other sex scandal where everybody around the criminal knew there was something suspicious but nobody really gave a poo poo. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:53
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Because nobody expected better from McConnell or Ryan. Yeah, definitely. Given everything we know, the most likely thing was he heard rumors about it but didn't want to believe it for pick-your-own-reason and that's why he didn't distance himself or keep Malia out of the internship. It's one of the many many reasons expecting a single person in power to suddenly just be better will never work. Supporting victims and making sure they don't feel like the world is against them for telling the truth is the strongest path to fixing this issue, and it takes all of us to do it and correct that lovely culture. I'm actually kind of heartened because, while I still see people pulling out the "allegations are not evidence" card with rape victims, I see it a lot less than I used to about Weinstein and that DEFY media guy who makes the honest trailers on youtube. It tells me people are finally starting to realize this poo poo has to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
the biggest surprise in all this is the revelation a powerful hollywood executive has sexual interest in adult women
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:I'm actually kind of heartened because, while I still see people pulling out the "allegations are not evidence" card with rape victims, I see it a lot less than I used to about Weinstein and that DEFY media guy who makes the honest trailers on youtube. It tells me people are finally starting to realize this poo poo has to be taken seriously. Wait what's this about the honest trailers guy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
his videos are teeeeerribleee
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:No, missile strikes would have been too big. What weapon do you think drones use? You fire a missile at a terroristic mobile phone and every dead teen-or-older male in the vicinity was a terrorist. Gives you an excellent civilian:terrorist kill ratio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait what's this about the honest trailers guy? goddammit milkshake duck
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Honest Trailers guy being a creep details, since people are asking.
Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
What is the probability that Susan Collins announces on Friday that she's running for governor? If she run's I'll  She'd easily win the governorship instead of a deserving democrat, preserve the state's GOP and then who'd take her senate seat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it wasn't exactly a secret in the circles weinstein ran in, which almost certainly included obama I don't think Obama was enough in the entertainment world to be in the know. Also why so many YouTube stars thrn out to be utterly loving deviants? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Because they are narcissists encouraged to self-indulge by their audiences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Even talking about Obama of all people in the context of Weinstein is just accepting right-wing framing and false equivalencies. Why didn't Paul Ryan do more about Weinstein? Why didn't Mitch McConnell? WHy didn't Donald Trump paul ryan wasn't hanging out with weinstein as far as I'm aware. i've asked why both the clintons and obama were ok with weinstein though quote:Anybody on the right who's bitching about Weinstein is just trying to spin you away from thinking about the Access Hollywood tape. i don't think anyone in the thread has even mentioned the access hollywood tape
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't think anyone in the thread has even mentioned the access hollywood tape That's my point. This is just yet more whataboutism, it's ridiculous; the whole point is to present a false equivalency that prevents mention of and distracts from Trump's horribility. Listen to Fox News and Obama's somehow magically responsible for every bad thing ever done by anyone to the left of Goering, and meanwhile the self-confessed sexual assaulter in the White House gets a pass. Going "what about Obama" in response to Weinstein is just buying into a white-wing (I honestly typed that by accident but drat it's apropos so I'll leave it) frame. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's my point. This is just yet more whataboutism, it's ridiculous. Listen to Fox News and Obama's somehow magically responsible for every bad thing ever done by anyone to the left of Goering, and meanwhile the self-confessed sexual assaulter in the White House gets a pass. this is pretty ridiculous you know? obama's brought up because he was palling around with weinstein a lot, to the point where his kid was interning with the ghoul. if obama had actually kept away from weinstein he'd not be being discussed at all. but when he was close to weinstein, and then comes out with a public statement saying what weinstein did is bad and deserves derision and women deserve protection, it comes off as hollow considering he had more of a chance than most to put a stop to it. i've observed the opposite of what you're claiming btw. trump rightfully deserves and deserved derision for admitting to rape and pussygrabbing, and p much everyone on the left has said it's terrible. but when you bring up weinstein's misconduct, there's whataboutism thrown around saying that trump is worse or something. Or that we need to be discussing trump's flaws instead. it feels like trying to shield from our flaws (and lets face it, guys like weinstein, bill clinton, and anthony weiner make us dems look bad) by demanding everyone discuss trump's first and foremost and acknowledge his are king we need to, in this moment, introspect as to why our party, which is supposed to be extremely pro-women, keeps having rapists in high-places. we need to drive rapists and people who commit sexual assault out of the leadership of our party so our party is more truly inclusive to women (including, more, and younger women leaders). Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
What's the purpose of constantly reminding people in a 100% anti-Republican forum about Republican scandals? There's little value in that, unlike in searching for unexamined flaws in one's own camp. And talking about Democrats' problems in a 100% anti-Republican forum is not going to empower Republicans. What I'm saying is that the causes and effects of talking about things in this small and very strongly politically profiled space should not be conflated with general political environment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
I think you have an argument with Weiner, and, hell, even with Bill Clinton, but Weinstein doesn't have a "high place" within the Democratic Party; he's a donor, not a politician. That distinction may seem like it's superficial or technical but it matters; there's no indication Obama had any idea about any of these scandals (the fact he sent his daughter to work there rather indicates the precise opposite). I'd rephrase your proposition there as Condiv posted:we need to, in this moment, introspect as to why our nation which is supposed to be extremely pro-women, keeps having rapists in high-places. Focusing on "It's our problem as Democrats" is packed with like a zillion false assumptions, not least among them buying into the false assumption that Weinstein is somehow part of "Team Democrat" and that therefore Democrats are more to blame for his behavior than any other participants in capitalism are. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What's the purpose of constantly reminding people in a 100% anti-Republican forum about Republican scandals? They're sometimes really funny. Though not after a few million times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
It is pretty much beyond any doubt that donors are currently an extremely integrated part of political parties, even if they are not politicians themselves (your own post goes from "He's not involved in the party" to "The president sent his daughter to work for him"), and it should be very troubling that political parties effectively tie their fortunes to people who they have no way of influencing (and that their representatives casually mix political, business and even family interactions with this class of people the public has no way of knowing about)
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
Weinstein just cements why we need more Sanders figures who can thrive without the need to kneel before rich pedophiles and sexual predators. Also R. Guyovich posted:the biggest surprise in all this is the revelation a powerful hollywood executive has sexual interest in adult women
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
I mean, this isn't the first big-name hollywood creep democrat donor, not even the first democrats have had friendly relations to. I doubt it will be the last, either. The issue here is that for once the republican framing is true; Hollywood is a disgusting pool of monsters and their crimes are ignored because they back the right people. The only addendum required is that republicans are equally guilty, just from other sources. If republicans breathe air we dont need to switch to nitroglycerin, yaknow
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Even talking about Obama of all people in the context of Weinstein is just accepting right-wing framing and false equivalencies. Why didn't Paul Ryan do more about Weinstein? Why didn't Mitch McConnell? WHy didn't Donald Trump Why didn't Bernie use his soapbox to draw attention to Harvey Weinstein being a predator  
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It is pretty much beyond any doubt that donors are currently an extremely integrated part of political parties, even if they are not politicians themselves (your own post goes from "He's not involved in the party" to "The president sent his daughter to work for him"), and it should be very troubling that political parties effectively tie their fortunes to people who they have no way of influencing (and that their representatives casually mix political, business and even family interactions with this class of people the public has no way of knowing about) late-stage-oligarchical-capitalism.txt Yes? But that isn't a problem unique to Democrats or to Obama. It's a problem we generally face as Americans. Again, this may seem like a trivial or pollyanish distinction but it's extremely important to resist team-think reflexes. The second Weinstein hit the news, Fox and other Republican partisans were instantly trying to turn this into a partisan, left-right, "why isn't Colbert making jokes about Weinstein" issue. Or, in other words, quote:"Freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Saul Alinsky's 13th and final rule for radicals is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." There's a lot to talk about regarding the influence of money in politics and the donor class but good lord the rush to WHY DIDNT OBAMA DO SOMETHING is just inane; believe it or not, Obama's not omniscient, the rule of law is a thing, and there were prior intervening factors (like the absence of evidence because no victims had come forward & local level law enforcement had been reluctant to act). The Weinstein incidents don't really tell us anything meaningful about Obama. It's just taking two people who had professional contact and sliming one with the sins of the other, on the basis of nothing more than the mere fact of the professional contact. Show some actual evidence that OBAMA KNEW and then it would be worth discussing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think you have an argument with Weiner, and, hell, even with Bill Clinton, but Weinstein doesn't have a "high place" within the Democratic Party; he's a donor, not a politician. That distinction may seem like it's superficial or technical but it matters; there's no indication Obama had any idea about any of these scandals (the fact he sent his daughter to work there rather indicates the precise opposite). We've needed to do that for a long time, yeah. But the dems should be an easy step towards that, since supposedly they care about women and women's rights more than republicans. As for "obama sent his daughter to work for the rapist so obviously he was unaware", that's a little naive don't you think? Not that obama wanted his daughter raped or something, but weinstein didn't get away with raping women for 3 decades or more cause he was raping every woman he encountered. He was specifically targeting women he had power over. Those whose lives he could utterly ruin on a whim and those he could bully into silence. Malia doesn't fit that profile at all, and raping her could've ended very badly for weinstein. Whether or not obama had a problem with malia interning with weinstein (and we can't claim one way or another cause malia could've interned with weinstein ignoring her father's objections) we can't say. However the fact that she interned with him also doesn't prove obama was in the dark, cause if any woman was safe around weinstein, malia was. as for the sins of weinstein not reflecting on the dems, I disagree for two reasons. First of all, weinstein has had outsized influence with our leadership for a long while, having a direct line to hillary and her advisors like mook, and rubbing elbows with the clintons for a long time and the obamas more recently. Second, we never have trouble laying the sins of scumbags like the Koch brothers at the feet of republicans, and that's kind of a two way street. As long as the dems are slurping up donations from mega donors they are vulnerable to being considered a party to the hosed up poo poo their mega donors do. That's one of many reasons why we need to stop taking huge piles of money from the rich and powerful
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
To be fair, it really is bizarre how entertainment media is avoiding Weinstein jokes. SNL pulled an entire bit they wrote about him for no described reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:late-stage-oligarchical-capitalism.txt Sorry, but you are the only one showing team-think tendencies in this case. Your argument is that we shouldn't be talking about this when there are other things to focus on that would hurt the GOP instead. As for evidence, that's the problem with these behind closed doors relationships, isn't it. There can be no evidence, because everything happened in secret, with plausible deniability and with alibis provided by friends and friends of friends, with nothing but hushed whispers to arouse suspicion among outsiders. That's why the wider network of enablers that made Weinstein's crimes possible will escape consequences. Nevertheless, even without evidence indicting Obama or other politicians in this case in particular, we should be extremely critical of the willingness with which they get involved in these circles that are universally known to be corrupt and ridden with sex pests etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Condiv posted:it wasn't exactly a secret in the circles weinstein ran in, which almost certainly included obama Why would Obama, who moved from Hawaii to the east coast to Chicago while being a constitutional scholar and community organizer, be running in the same circles as LA movie moguls?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 12:39
|
|
