On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when your trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
If an independent has to be lured away from Trump, they aren't an independent, they are an idiot.
The problem wasn't independents voting for Trump. The problem was independents and others voting third party or not voting at all. A pissing contest over which major party is more hypocritical is a great way to encourage more of the same in the future.
I believe many people were under the illusion that Hillary had it in the bag based on the polls and didn't vote. Same thing happened with Brexit.
maybe Streep knew, maybe she didn't. but heresay isn't something to gauge your career on. I have worked with loads of people who you think are creeps in their personal life, and possibly their professional life, but until you get some sort of proof, or at least a public accusation, I don't blame anyone for just keeping on keeping on. are people going to stop accepting movie roles because they heard a rumour?
for the record, Meryl Streep and her grandstanding make my skin crawl.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall after a very restful summer exploring the Great Canadian Wilderness and beaches, listening to Pearl Jam, Headstones, Watchmen, Queens of the Stone Age, and many others.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
It is odd and quite disappointing that both Clinton and Obama have remained silent on Weinstein. As much as people get on Trump for not calling bullshit when he should, this is really not much different considering their long standing relationship and ties to him.
It is odd and quite disappointing that both Clinton and Obama have remained silent on Weinstein. As much as people get on Trump for not calling bullshit when he should, this is really not much different considering their long standing relationship and ties to him.
1) clinton and obama are no longer in public office 2) the weinstein situation isn't a natural disaster that requires leadership
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall after a very restful summer exploring the Great Canadian Wilderness and beaches, listening to Pearl Jam, Headstones, Watchmen, Queens of the Stone Age, and many others.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
It is odd and quite disappointing that both Clinton and Obama have remained silent on Weinstein. As much as people get on Trump for not calling bullshit when he should, this is really not much different considering their long standing relationship and ties to him.
1) clinton and obama are no longer in public office 2) the weinstein situation isn't a natural disaster that requires leadership
I understand that. Hillary speaks out about plenty of other things and they're both still widely followed and respected public figures who had strong ties to him. It wouldn't be unusual, especially since they've been reached out to by media.
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
It's not a fabricated narrative. Rightfully condemning Trump for his disgusting behavior while simultaneously looking away from the disgusting behavior of your own mega-donor is absolutely hypocritical. That Trump is worse is entirely beside the point.
It is odd and quite disappointing that both Clinton and Obama have remained silent on Weinstein. As much as people get on Trump for not calling bullshit when he should, this is really not much different considering their long standing relationship and ties to him.
1) clinton and obama are no longer in public office 2) the weinstein situation isn't a natural disaster that requires leadership
I understand that. Hillary speaks out about plenty of other things and they're both still widely followed and respected public figures who had strong ties to him. It wouldn't be unusual, especially since they've been reached out to by media.
I hear you but I also don't know what they can really say at this point. If no one knew he was both a predator and a scumbag, that would be one thing. It just doesn't sound like that was the case. They can condemn him now but that raises the question of why they took his money for so long. If they claim they didn't know it is going to ring hollow. Politics is a dirty business and they needed the money he bundled for them. I'm not sure how you put a positive spin on that.
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
Do you mean the entertainer that Republicans elected President? I'm all for ignoring his beliefs. Looks like you think liberal artist hold sway over people's decision. That's a fine theory but you won't find anything to support it.
What's happening is that a donor's behavior is trying to be put into the same ballpark as trump's in an attempt to discredit liberals in general and also minimize frump's behavior. Sean Hannity is loving it, if that tells you anything.
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
Do you mean the entertainer that Republicans elected President? I'm all for ignoring his beliefs. Looks like you think liberal artist hold sway over people's decision. That's a fine theory but you won't find anything to support it.
What's happening is that a donor's behavior is trying to be put into the same ballpark as trump's in an attempt to discredit liberals in general and also minimize frump's behavior. Sean Hannity is loving it, if that tells you anything.
hahaha, you are a funny guy. So liberal artist don't influence anyone, but conservative voices influence all sorts of people? I would really love to live in your world. Must be a great world when anything bad happens instead of faulting the individual, you turn it into Trumps fault. You are on a different level. Hope you have a great day.
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
Do you mean the entertainer that Republicans elected President? I'm all for ignoring his beliefs. Looks like you think liberal artist hold sway over people's decision. That's a fine theory but you won't find anything to support it.
What's happening is that a donor's behavior is trying to be put into the same ballpark as trump's in an attempt to discredit liberals in general and also minimize frump's behavior. Sean Hannity is loving it, if that tells you anything.
hahaha, you are a funny guy. So liberal artist don't influence anyone, but conservative voices influence all sorts of people? I would really love to live in your world. Must be a great world when anything bad happens instead of faulting the individual, you turn it into Trumps fault. You are on a different level. Hope you have a great day.
You misunderstand
Liberals have the critical thinking skills necessary so as to not be influenced as easily as conservatives.
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
Do you mean the entertainer that Republicans elected President? I'm all for ignoring his beliefs. Looks like you think liberal artist hold sway over people's decision. That's a fine theory but you won't find anything to support it.
What's happening is that a donor's behavior is trying to be put into the same ballpark as trump's in an attempt to discredit liberals in general and also minimize frump's behavior. Sean Hannity is loving it, if that tells you anything.
hahaha, you are a funny guy. So liberal artist don't influence anyone, but conservative voices influence all sorts of people? I would really love to live in your world. Must be a great world when anything bad happens instead of faulting the individual, you turn it into Trumps fault. You are on a different level. Hope you have a great day.
You really ran with your own thing there. I don't think I commented on how conservatives can be influenced. You seemed to be pushing some notion that people stand around waiting for celebrities to tell them who to vote for. I also don't think I said anything bad that happens is trump's fault.
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
Do you mean the entertainer that Republicans elected President? I'm all for ignoring his beliefs. Looks like you think liberal artist hold sway over people's decision. That's a fine theory but you won't find anything to support it.
What's happening is that a donor's behavior is trying to be put into the same ballpark as trump's in an attempt to discredit liberals in general and also minimize frump's behavior. Sean Hannity is loving it, if that tells you anything.
hahaha, you are a funny guy. So liberal artist don't influence anyone, but conservative voices influence all sorts of people? I would really love to live in your world. Must be a great world when anything bad happens instead of faulting the individual, you turn it into Trumps fault. You are on a different level. Hope you have a great day.
Hard to deny that the Rs keep on electing entertainers, though.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
On the left we have a party supported by a sleazy industry. On the right we have a party that happily voted the sleaziest of men into the highest office in the land. As always there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.
Since Weinstein isn't President, I'm thinking one side has more hypocrisy than the other.
Sure, but "Their hypocrisy is worse than our hypocrisy!" isn't a very inspiring message when you are trying to lure Independents and get to 270.
Anyone dim enough to be factoring a movie producer's behavior into their presidential vote is most likely already voting for trump. That this is getting tied to liberal politics is only the result of right wing media trying to fabricate a liberal hypocrisy narrative.
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
Do you mean the entertainer that Republicans elected President? I'm all for ignoring his beliefs. Looks like you think liberal artist hold sway over people's decision. That's a fine theory but you won't find anything to support it.
What's happening is that a donor's behavior is trying to be put into the same ballpark as trump's in an attempt to discredit liberals in general and also minimize frump's behavior. Sean Hannity is loving it, if that tells you anything.
hahaha, you are a funny guy. So liberal artist don't influence anyone, but conservative voices influence all sorts of people? I would really love to live in your world. Must be a great world when anything bad happens instead of faulting the individual, you turn it into Trumps fault. You are on a different level. Hope you have a great day.
Hard to deny that the Rs keep on electing entertainers, though.
The Ds just hang out with them.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall after a very restful summer exploring the Great Canadian Wilderness and beaches, listening to Pearl Jam, Headstones, Watchmen, Queens of the Stone Age, and many others.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
Only on AMT can people argue in a thread about an obvious sexual predator...taking the same sides they normally do. If this was a trump donor most of you would be losing your shit.
Only on AMT can people argue in a thread about an obvious sexual predator...taking the same sides they normally do. If this was a trump donor most of you would be losing your shit.
Don't forget that Meryl Streep spoke about this and all is forgiven.
0
curmudgeoness
Brigadoon, foodie capital Posts: 4,123
Um, so, back to sexual predators, instead of politics? Because, again, this is about power, not politics. Some things are always wrong, regardless of one's political affiliation. Rape? Always wrong. Torture? Always wrong. Always. There are no exceptions for "S/he's on my team, so it's okay!"
I don't know where people are getting the idea that Dems are silent on the topic or that "If this was a T**** donor most of you would be losing your shit." I'm a socially liberal libertarian, and I lose my shit when anyone's rights are violated. Period.
1) Silent Dems?? I've been following Chris Hayes on Twitter, and Weinstein has been the dominant story for the last few days. Slate has a bunch of stories about it. My husband came home from the gym the other day, actually rattled by the number of enraged women he saw on television (hint: he wasn't watching Fox News).
2) "If this was a T**** donor..." Wait. How about, "If this was T****..." -- because it IS T****. He IS a sexual predator, never mind what his donors are doing, he himself is a known, admitted, sexual predator. So I'm really not sure what your point is.
There's also a story today about how Terry Crews was assaulted by a top Hollywood executive last year -- in front of his wife, no less. Sexual assault is about power. Predators are protected because people are scared and/or because they value money more than the rights of the victims. Could we maybe have a discussion about straightening out those skewed values? How about a discussion of what we teach our children? I have two sons, and we made sure both of them knew about consent and appropriate behavior, and that they need to intervene if at all possible if they see someone who is in danger. My younger son just started college, and he is disturbed by the predatory behavior he is seeing in some of his peers. I think there is an important discussion to be had here,
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
Only on AMT can people argue in a thread about an obvious sexual predator...taking the same sides they normally do. If this was a trump donor most of you would be losing your shit.
I agree with you. There's some sort of justification being made to save face for people who don't need it. If you didn't know, then fine. Not improbable but then speak out against it as fast as you would if it was Trump. It shouldn't take 5 days to be disgusted by this.
Only on AMT can people argue in a thread about an obvious sexual predator...taking the same sides they normally do. If this was a trump donor most of you would be losing your shit.
trump did worse. I wish it just a trump donor that we were worried about. What sides are people taking, by the way?
Only on AMT can people argue in a thread about an obvious sexual predator...taking the same sides they normally do. If this was a trump donor most of you would be losing your shit.
trump did worse. I wish it just a trump donor that we were worried about. What sides are people taking, by the way?
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
for the record, Meryl Streep and her grandstanding make my skin crawl.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
@mrussel1 , @Go Beavers , @tbergs, @mickeyrat, @brianlux, @PJ_Soul, @The Juggler, @Gern Blansten
They are still idiots.
Haha...true. Although he didn't call THEM idiots.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
2) the weinstein situation isn't a natural disaster that requires leadership
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
@mrussel1 , @Go Beavers , @tbergs, @mickeyrat, @brianlux, @PJ_Soul, @The Juggler, @Gern Blansten
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
What You Giving
I suggest you step out on your Porch.
Run away my son. See it all. Oh, See the World!
I'm glad we agree. Anyone that listens to any entertainer to get their political beliefs is dim. Half of the left is just as dim as half of the right. And you don't think that there are people that voted democratic just because their favorite band, or actor, or athelete said they should? Did you not follow the election? It was nothing but celebrity endorsements for Hillary. At least I never saw celebrities crying when the republicans lost and writing apology letters.
It's tied to liberal politics because he was a big donor and fundraiser for them. No hypocrisy there.
What's happening is that a donor's behavior is trying to be put into the same ballpark as trump's in an attempt to discredit liberals in general and also minimize frump's behavior. Sean Hannity is loving it, if that tells you anything.
Liberals have the critical thinking skills necessary so as to not be influenced as easily as conservatives.
Put another way
tRump loves the poorly educated
Hard to deny that the Rs keep on electing entertainers, though.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
@mrussel1 , @Go Beavers , @tbergs, @mickeyrat, @brianlux, @PJ_Soul, @The Juggler, @Gern Blansten
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Don't forget that Meryl Streep spoke about this and all is forgiven.
I don't know where people are getting the idea that Dems are silent on the topic or that "If this was a T**** donor most of you would be losing your shit." I'm a socially liberal libertarian, and I lose my shit when anyone's rights are violated. Period.
1) Silent Dems?? I've been following Chris Hayes on Twitter, and Weinstein has been the dominant story for the last few days. Slate has a bunch of stories about it. My husband came home from the gym the other day, actually rattled by the number of enraged women he saw on television (hint: he wasn't watching Fox News).
2) "If this was a T**** donor..." Wait. How about, "If this was T****..." -- because it IS T****. He IS a sexual predator, never mind what his donors are doing, he himself is a known, admitted, sexual predator. So I'm really not sure what your point is.
There's also a story today about how Terry Crews was assaulted by a top Hollywood executive last year -- in front of his wife, no less. Sexual assault is about power. Predators are protected because people are scared and/or because they value money more than the rights of the victims. Could we maybe have a discussion about straightening out those skewed values? How about a discussion of what we teach our children? I have two sons, and we made sure both of them knew about consent and appropriate behavior, and that they need to intervene if at all possible if they see someone who is in danger. My younger son just started college, and he is disturbed by the predatory behavior he is seeing in some of his peers. I think there is an important discussion to be had here,