|
Start handing out bans imo, this is beyond the pale and it isn't normal
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Like, step back and think for a minute about what condiv is trying to say
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
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. So uh, you're suggesting the president of the united states of america should be using their position to push for investigations into individual private citizens they personally believe might be criminals? And the justification for this is that the executive already has massive overreach with regards to strikes on American citizens? This seems like one of those things that if it were normalised it might come back to bite everyone in the rear end, say when you end up with potus who makes Nixon look like a rational and balanced human being.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:If only there was another president with sexual abuse scandals that we could use as a comparison for Obama's behavior. You've heard it folks, detaching politicians from the corrupt, criminal underbelly of high society is pointless. El Pollo Blanco posted:So uh, you're suggesting the president of the united states of america should be using their position to push for investigations into individual private citizens they personally believe might be criminals? And the justification for this is that the executive already has massive overreach with regards to strikes on American citizens? Probably somebody in the party should have looked into this big name that keeps appearing in relation to Democratic politicians, and make a dossier advising against associating with him. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Like, step back and think for a minute about what condiv is trying to say What am I trying to say that is ban worthy potato salad? Nocturtle posted:Arguably the reason people focus on prominent Democrats fraternizing with sexual predators or giving closed-door speeches to Wall st bankers or whatever is because there's an expectation that the Democrat party is still principled and responsive enough to identify these as problems and enact reform. It's unlikely that the Republican party will ever move to limit the influence of rich donors. The Republican party's long term strategy is to use a combination of voter suppression, gerrymandering and effectively unlimited PAC spending to keep legislative majorities despite overall lower support. The whole scheme depends on outspending the Democrats in political campaigns and as a result they're not going to do anything about rich donors who may or may not be criminals. Exactly. Dunno why this is so hard to grasp for some people
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Hi I did once meet a later-convicted mother-son rapist, I didn't do my duty at the time and launch an investigation into her personal life, excuse me I have a date with a cyanide capsule in five minutes brb
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:So uh, you're suggesting the president of the united states of america should be using their position to push for investigations into individual private citizens they personally believe might be criminals? And the justification for this is that the executive already has massive overreach with regards to strikes on American citizens? There were a lot of people who said weinstein might be a criminal. And a good number of women who said he was and were silenced by a justice system that favors the rich and powerful. I'm not saying obama should work outside our justice system, but that he could've leaned on it to do it's job. It'd of been a refreshing change from him leaning on it to ignore it's duty to the American people wrt criminal banks
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Why are you concerned about bad faith arguments from the right? And how is making the focus wider instead of narrow letting people off the hook? Bad faith arguments from the right should be ignored but won't be by the media; they shouldn't be taken at face value and cloud the overall narrative because they aren't being given in good faith. No conservative complaining about Weinstein wants to actually help women from being made into victims of powerful sexual predators. I'm concerned about them as they shift the debate from making it about women being attacked into another cudgel to use against their political opponents and nothing more. I totally agree we need to make this something we look at with a wide focus and do it yesterday. However you can't hold out for that to happen since there are very strong institutional forces pushing against that before you look at your own issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Probably somebody in the party should have looked into this big name that keeps appearing in relation to Democratic politicians, and make a dossier advising against associating with him. On the basis of what evidence exactly Or should we just have like a secret police or something that's keeping track of all the allegations and rumours about everyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:You realize there's a huge gulf between what's expected from the potus and what's expected from random joe off the street right? It is very much obama's job to be vetting people he's forming relationships with during the run up to and duration of his presidency. Saying that Obama had a relationship to a guy throwing money at him is a big stretch. Hillary too, her antisocial calculated political approach to everything doesn't really lead me to believe she was going to him for advice, or even listening to him while he yammered at her between check signings. I'm sure Obama DID try to vet the pervert too, he let his daughter intern with him (also still the only connection anyone has drawn beyond contributions and conjecture) but do you think anyone who knew and was keeping quiet was going to tell the President of the United States? I agree Weinstein is bad. I agree that everyone needs to be aware of and speak forcefully and quickly against people abusing power especially for sex, but saying that the DNC of all entities should have known or meticulously vetted him, one of thousands of donors, is a bizarre, nearly impossible standard. Once they found out they immediately denounced him. That is good and right. However you still want to talk about the insanely high bar of conduct and omnipotence that is expected of the President when Donald loving Trump is in office? He is an accused rapist, an admitted serial sexual abuser, and he wants to gently caress his daughter. The dumbass wouldn't know if he took money from Hitler himself, mustache and all, and he most certainly would not care. But yeah it's the democrats who need to have a hard look at themselves and fix long standing societal problems. Stereotype fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hi I did once meet a later-convicted mother-son rapist, I didn't do my duty at the time and launch an investigation into her personal life, excuse me I have a date with a cyanide capsule in five minutes brb Were there 30 years of allegations that the rapist was a rapist swirling around said rapist, did you choose to have a continued relationship with said rapist for over 8 years, and are you the most powerful person on earth?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hi I did once meet a later-convicted mother-son rapist, I didn't do my duty at the time and launch an investigation into her personal life, excuse me I have a date with a cyanide capsule in five minutes brb Why are you lying about the extent of involvement of this guy with your party? If he was such a nobody, why did Democrats feel compelled to issue official statements about him? Weird. Also why are you trying to make it all about Obama when it's about structural issues of the party? There is nothing to be lost from admitting that Democratic leaders should be more transparent and more discriminating in associating with high profile figures, it is this defensive flailing that is very offputting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
I'm not saying obama should have launched an illegal investigation, I'm just saying he should have influenced the Justice system to start potentially spurious investigations into private citizens because You understand this is exactly what DJT is doing right now with data on protesters? Looking into people's lives to find whether they're undocumented, whether there are any victimless crimes they can issue warrants for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:
Admit this is you walking it back a good deal. This right here, this is a good take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Arguably the reason people focus on prominent Democrats fraternizing with sexual predators or giving closed-door speeches to Wall st bankers or whatever is because there's an expectation that the Democrat party is still principled and responsive enough to identify these as problems and enact reform. It's unlikely that the Republican party will ever move to limit the influence of rich donors. The Republican party's long term strategy is to use a combination of voter suppression, gerrymandering and effectively unlimited PAC spending to keep legislative majorities despite overall lower support. The whole scheme depends on outspending the Democrats in political campaigns and as a result they're not going to do anything about rich donors who may or may not be criminals. The problem with this is that. . .that's already happening. As soon as the problem was identified with evidence, people stood up and spoke out, from Obama to Clinton to prominent celebrities and activists. That happened and is continuing to happen. The complaints I'm seeing aren't about that. They're a slightly more wordy version of "why didn't OBAMA wave his magic obama wand before Weinstein was born"; I used the analogy of "why didn't Obama do more to stop Katrina" deliberately. Obama was apparently omnipotent and omniscient and his failures to stop every imaginable evil just prove that he is also omnimalevolent. Radish posted:Bad faith arguments from the right should be ignored but won't be by the media; they shouldn't be taken at face value and cloud the overall narrative because they aren't being given in good faith. No conservative complaining about Weinstein wants to actually help women from being made into victims of powerful sexual predators. I'm concerned about them as they shift the debate from making it about women being attacked into another cudgel to use against their political opponents and nothing more. Ding ding ding. It doesn't even make sense to say that critiques of Obama are critiques of the Democratic Party because Obama is no longer in leadership; it makes as much sense to use Obama as a proxy for Democrats generally as it does to use Jimmy Carter. But the goal isn't to spark reform of the Party; the goal is to slander Democrats by association. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
From what Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie (who were both assaulted by Weinstein) said it was pretty much an open secret what this guy was like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
[quote="“LITERALLY MY FETISH”" post="“477266666”"] 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. [/quote] He could have refused the rapist's money. He could have even said why he was refusing the rapist's money and maybe started a Cosby snowball situation as far as empowering victims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Saying that Obama had a relationship to a guy throwing money at him is a big stretch. Hillary too, her antisocial calculated political approach to everything doesn't really lead me to believe she was going to him for advice, or even listening to him while he yammered at her between check signings. I'm sure Obama DID try to vet the pervert too, he let his daughter intern with him (also still the only connection anyone has drawn beyond contributions and conjecture) but do you think anyone who knew and was keeping quiet was going to tell the President of the United States? There is a very simple solution to all of this that would place all Democratic officials out of any suspicions of ethical misconduct: Do not pursue any sort of relationship with your large donors, no matter how benign it may appear. Do not receive gifts, do not give gifts, do not seek favors or offer favors, for yourself or your family. Leave any fundraising to be done by bureaucracy. That is the basic code of ethics that is expected to be followed by pretty much anybody who works with people, and it is insane that public servants can't even adhere to such a basic level of protection from conflicts of interest and PR damage. The fact that such a model is going to be shut down as financially unsustainable explains why politicians are prone to scandals and to being caught in bed with unsavory individuals. The hunt for money overrides all considerations of common sense regarding how a public representative should behave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why are you lying about the extent of involvement of this guy with your party? If he was such a nobody, why did Democrats feel compelled to issue official statements about him? Weird. Lol. Yeah I have no idea why they would condem him. I can't think of any reasons. Except that they KNEW. case closed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There is a very simple solution to all of this that would place all Democratic officials out of any suspicions of ethical misconduct: Do not pursue any sort of relationship with your large donors, no matter how benign it may appear. Do not receive gifts, do not give gifts, do not seek favors or offer favors, for yourself or your family. Leave any fundraising to be done by bureaucracy. That is the basic code of ethics that is expected to be followed by pretty much anybody who works with people, and it is insane that public servants can't even adhere to such a basic level of protection from conflicts of interest and PR damage. Actually this corruption is noble because it's siphoning away money from the even more corrupt people who would win if we were ethical
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
[quote="“Moxie”" post="“477269573”"] Who cares about Harvey Weinstein being sleazy and rapey? Fuckin Trump is president. [/quote] lol we're loving doomed as a society
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:On the basis of what evidence exactly The CIA/FBI/whoever already has one if their name is foreign sounding
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Don't feed the right wing bad faith arguments. There is a huge difference between where people on this page have walked the argument back to versus the propagation of Right wing attack propaganda on the last few.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
This whole thing started out like Republican chain email This is not tone policing, its is rhetoric policing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
On the topic of being acquaintances with someone who's a massive piece of poo poo - turns out that happened to me. I host a regular board game night and I encourage people to bring friends, etc. So this guy comes over a few times and he seems ok enough. Maybe a little socially awkward but this is a group of board gamers, nothing new there. A few weeks later I hear from a direct friend that the guy was let go from his job because he harassed something like 4-8 women at his office - had multiple warnings - and just kept doing it. He even offered a woman money to retract her HR statement. Guy would follow women into restricted areas in the company or sneak into spots to try to corner them. Just all kinds of creepy poo poo. So anyway - you can easily run in the same circles with someone, rub elbows with them, and never know that they are loving sleazy assholes. Even if you are someone who is ultra aware of these things - I'm a woman in IT and I get misogynistic crap and weird dudes hitting on me alot so I felt super surprised when heard about the harassment and I felt gross since I spent time with him, luckily never alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Don't feed the right wing bad faith arguments. There is a huge difference between where people on this page have walked the argument back to versus the propagation of Right wing attack propaganda on the last few. The clear whatabout-whataboutist argument is Dennis Hastert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:On the topic of being acquaintances with someone who's a massive piece of poo poo - turns out that happened to me. Nah man. I can look at someone and know if they have ever committed a crime. Git guud
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Probably somebody in the party should have looked into this big name that keeps appearing in relation to Democratic politicians, and make a dossier advising against associating with him. This George Soros guy keeps on popping up. I bet he's up to no good. Hieronymous Alloy posted:On the basis of what evidence exactly When you operate from the assumption that any sort of political operator or rich donor is A Bad Person then it's pretty easy to jump to such a conclusion. Also makes those people rather eager to start taking their talking points and implied marching orders from the ultra-right. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Look, get with the times, it's 2016 we have to be on the take from superrich scumbags that everyone hates or Republicans will win this November. Do you want to see Trump in the White House, no, therefore no donor is too scummy it's for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Saying that Obama had a relationship to a guy throwing money at him is a big stretch. Hillary too, her antisocial calculated political approach to everything doesn't really lead me to believe she was going to him for advice, or even listening to him while he yammered at her between check signings. I'm sure Obama DID try to vet the pervert too, he let his daughter intern with him (also still the only connection anyone has drawn beyond contributions and conjecture) but do you think anyone who knew and was keeping quiet was going to tell the President of the United States? remember that article i linked that you said mentioned nothing about obama? i linked it to demonstrate how well known the allegations against weinstein were. Here's another. Even cursory vetting would've dragged this info up, so it's pretty ridiculous to act like hillary and obama had absolutely no idea who they were dealing with. Also, malia interning with weinstein doesn't prove that the obamas had no idea. you'll notice that weinstein's victims, the people he preyed upon, were all too powerless to go against him. malia was the safest of any woman around weinstein (with the exception of michelle hereself). quote:I agree Weinstein is bad. I agree that everyone needs to be aware of and speak forcefully and quickly against people abusing power especially for sex, but saying that the DNC of all entities should have known or meticulously vetted him, one of thousands of donors, is a bizarre, nearly impossible standard. weinstein is a major donor and has donated to multiple democrats beyond the obamas and clintons. he was a vocal supporter of clinton during the lewinsky scandal. he's more than just one of thousands quote:Once they found out they immediately denounced him. That is good and right. However you still want to talk about the insanely high bar of conduct and omnipotence that is expected of the President when Donald loving Trump is in office? He is an accused rapist, an admitted serial sexual abuser, and he wants to gently caress his daughter. The dumbass wouldn't know if he took money from Hitler himself, mustache and all, and he most certainly would not care. But yeah it's the democrats who need to have a hard look at themselves and fix long standing societal problems. actually, they took around a week to denounce him after the allegations surfaced. and yes i want to talk of the high bar of conduct for the president cause trump clearly falls below that bar and we shouldn't lower it just because the pissgoblin is making a mess of the US. hopefully we get someone actually qualified as president in 2020 (if we're still having elections)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Look, get with the times, it's 2016 we have to be on the take from superrich scumbags that everyone hates or Republicans will win this November. Do you want to see Trump in the White House, no, therefore no donor is too scummy it's for the greater good. This is an example of the bad faith arguments that's really have no place here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This is an example of the bad faith arguments that's really have no place here. You really think leftist poo poo posting has no place in nuD&D? You must be new here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:actually, they took around a week to denounce him after the allegations surfaced. and yes i want to talk of the high bar of conduct for the president cause trump clearly falls below that bar and we shouldn't lower it just because the pissgoblin is making a mess of the US. hopefully we get someone actually qualified as president in 2020 (if we're still having elections) There's a rather big risk to reacting immediately as well. See: Shirley Sherrod.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:On the basis of what evidence exactly What about that NYC journalist who got his investigative article shitcanned because Weinstein met his higher-ups flanked by two big stars? Or the DA he paid off? Seems like some pretty big red flags. The problem with saying "dont take bad faith republican propoganda rhetoric at face value" is that's what they want. Their goal isn't "make democrats filter out disgusting donors" it's "make democrats look hypocritical". And guess what pointing at Trump instead does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:This George Soros guy keeps on popping up. I bet he's up to no good. If the argument is "should we move to a system of small individual donors and/or public financing" then . .ok sure but Obama is like the last person short of Bernie you'd attack on that basis because both of his campaigns drew on small-donor individual contributions to a greater extent than ever before in American politics. One of the giant red flags here that this argument is being made in bad faith is that the attacks are focusing on Obama, rather than (for example) Bill Clinton, who is an actual accused rapist, and who also took Weinstein money. Why? Because Obama has a stronger brand and is still considered a left wing leader, whereas Bill is seen as retired. Condiv posted:remember that article i linked that you said mentioned nothing about obama? i linked it to demonstrate how well known the allegations against weinstein were. Here's another. Even cursory vetting would've dragged this info up, so it's pretty ridiculous to act like hillary and obama had absolutely no idea who they were dealing with. quote:Almost all of it was gossip, unverifiable and unreportable If unverified gossip is enough to reject a donor then both Obama and Hillary need to reject themselves, rumour has it they're both gay atheist muslim pedophiles Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm not saying obama should have launched an illegal investigation, I'm just saying he should have influenced the Justice system to start potentially spurious investigations into private citizens because so the new york times' investigation into weinstein was unwarranted? or is our justice system only allowed to go after rich people who've been shown to be likely guilty in the media? look, there were consistent allegations of sexual assault against weinstein for 30 years. having the government investigate that is not a slippery slope into investigators going through random citizens personal lives looking for crimes to charge them like you're trying to pretend it is potato salad
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If the argument is "should we move to a system of small individual donors and/or public financing" then . .ok sure but Obama is like the last person short of Bernie you'd attack on that basis because both of his campaigns drew on small-donor individual contributions to a greater extent than ever before in American politics. Remember though, Obama is a filthy centrist neolib traitor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:On the topic of being acquaintances with someone who's a massive piece of poo poo - turns out that happened to me. does the secret service also run background checks on anyone that enters your house to play the board games?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Also, malia interning with weinstein doesn't prove that the obamas had no idea. you'll notice that weinstein's victims, the people he preyed upon, were all too powerless to go against him. malia was the safest of any woman around weinstein (with the exception of michelle hereself). This is legit sickening, and you should probably have a serious think about the arguments you're making here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If unverified gossip is enough to reject a donor then both Obama and Hillary need to reject themselves, rumour has it they're both gay atheist muslim pedophiles actually it is reason enough to reject a donor cause you don't want that poo poo blowing up in your face at a later date (like it is now) being gay, athiest, or muslim are not bad things either. also, pretending like the rumors of rape around weinstein were comet ping pong grade is extremely insulting to his victims and is what allowed him to operate like he did for decades
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:59
|
|