No totally pointless war in Libya, no Benghazi attack.
No Benghazi attack, no Benghazi hearings.
No Benghazi hearings, no e-mail “scandal”.
No e-mail “scandal”, Clinton is elected President.
What the hell Jane Fonda has to do with it, I have no idea.
One can share many of my political inclinations (which, like yours, are objectively correct) and still be a garbage human being. See, e.g., Harvey Weinstein. And I can’t speak to anyone’s specific knowledge, but I’d suggest that there are likely quite a few people who were eager to remain “unaware” of his rapiness, lest their friendship become complicated.
FYI, it was supposed to be light hearted, not “damning.”
(If you think I’m someone who gives a damn about HC one way or another, you’re mistaken.)
You DO realize that there’s no way in hell that this was the first time anybody in the “inner circle” became aware of this, right?
I’ve met people like Weinstein; like 90% of the power trip for them is making sure others witness the humiliation/abuse of their targets, otherwise why bother, you can just get a hooker if you want to privately humiliate someone.
Please don’t play the Republican game of “I’m going to keep moving the goalposts and you’re a mean jerkface if you don’t play along”; it’s gross and stupid.
It’s overwhelmingly probable that she was aware of this, because political circles are highly social, with tons of back- and side-channels for communicating, gossiping, etc. And if she knew about it (she did) then how about YOU comment on what you think of her in this case?
Because it’s incredibly likely that it’s true, how about you go on record for what you think about people that cover up sexual abuse and harassment for their own gain. And then we’ll see whether Hillary falls into that group eventually, most likely, so how about you commit BEFORE you know for sure if someone you like is in said group?
So Democrats are hypocrites for taking Weinstein’s money, and looking the other way about sexual assault allegations.
And Republicans are not hypocrites because they simply deny sexual assault ever really happens.
That said, there are two issues here:sexual assault, and how money corrupts politics. I love Bernie, but he’s an outlier, the rest of our politicians will continue to take huge donations from people they may dislike in order to be viable candidates. Until we change the entire system this kind of thing will go on.
For those of you (on both ends of the political spectrum, though most are on the right) who are now applying labels like “garbage” to HRC in connection to this affair, I can’t make out whether the assertion is (a) because she associated with this creep, therefore she is garbage, (b) she is garbage, therefore she associated with this creep, or © she is garbage, and this is a great opportunity to remind everyone of that.
To this day, having watched it for decades, I don’t understand the level of vitriol so many people have for HRC, who I see as a person of fundamentally good character who in a long career of public service has made some decisions with which I profoundly disagree. In my lifetime there have been Democratic leaders who were closer to me politically but clearly of far worse character than she – [examples deleted to avoid a derail] come to mind – but I don’t see people on the left enthusiastically joining the far right in rubbishing them every time they get a chance.
I like Bernie too, but had he won the nomination it’s entirely likely that Weinstein still would have raised money for the DNC to help put him in the White House.
So you’re here, saying that there above, but don’t care what other people think of HRC… Okay. Sounds fun.
People are “innocent until proven guilty.”
And when I say that I’m not addressing Harvey Weinstein’s guilt, which he’s already more-or-less admitted, and for which the evidence continues to mount, I’m addressing Hillary Clinton and anyone else who we all assume “must have known.”
I don’t know what Hillary or anyone in Hollywood or politics really knew, and I’m leery of accepting this idea that “it was an open secret”-- obviously the victims knew and their closest friends knew, but there must have been people who truly didn’t know. Probably the majority heard third person stories which unfortunately end up sounding like gossip or rumor, and that’s the problem: we want to condemn anyone who let this happen, except how far are any of us willing to go over something we heard around the water cooler. (I’m trying to relate to the people in Weinstein’s orbit but Hollywood is very different than my world, so I’m at a disadvantage.)
To borrow a line from Diamanda Galas, “you must be certain of the devil.”
Nope.
That’s a courtroom standard, deliberately designed to minimise false positives, at the price of hugely inflating false negatives. It is required because of the immense and dangerous power of the state.
There are good arguments for why that is the best way to run a legal system, but it’s a daft principle when taken outside that context.
For plain human judgement, with no state power attached, most folks properly rely upon a Bayesian assessment of the balance of probabilities.
You haven’t seen how the mere mention of her name will set conservatives off? No, of course not, you probably are in the same “Jane Fonda is why we lost Vietnam!” camp as the other preppie assholes who spat on returning vets and then blamed hippies. Especially since most of those vets became hippies and protesters, and a lot of those vets were poor black kids.
Really, I fear we are moving into the same twisting of truth. People are attacking Clinton because of who she is. Democrats will be spun as enabling sexual predators, when the true sexual predators roam free and continue to support the Loyalists- I mean, the Republicans. Red, Redcoat, same difference.
Let’s be honest here: for most of the people angry at Clinton over this, nothing that she did or said would have been acceptable. She’s Hillary Clinton, and as such, in the eyes of way too many Americans, everything she does, or doesn’t do, is bad and wrong.
It’s a measure of how deep the hatred for Hillary Clinton runs that the Weinstein story has become primarily about HER instead of the man who actually committed sex crimes.
Which makes it pretty goddamn amazing that people still continue to admit being republicans.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/10/lesson-every-powerful-sexual-assaulter-hillary-clinton-bad -> THE LESSON OF EVERY POWERFUL SEXUAL ASSAULTER IS THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS BAD
You are right, this should not be about Clinton.
It should be about about one-percenters who donate big and speak often on behalf of leftist causes, and whether there is a linkage between those actions and their wealth, personal behavior, and lifestyles largely being free of criticism.
It will be interesting to see if Weinstein’s is a one-off case or whether more such worm cans are publicly opened.
Why just the ones associated with “leftist” causes? Is there any reason to believe they are getting a pass that sex criminals on the right are not? Remember, the “liberal media” are the ones who exposed Weinstein. And unlike similar creeps on the right Weinstein doesn’t have a whole bunch of prominent people from the left rallying to defend him (nor should he).
Yes, Weinstein is just the latest in a long line of sexually abusive famous leftists like Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly who spent decades getting away with garbage behavior because liberals are terrible people. This isn’t a political problem. It’s a power problem.
I voted for HRC, donated to her campaign, and think she would have made a good if not great President. But she and a heck of a lot of her inner circle are just garbage human beings who I hope to never see darkening our political landscape again.
I can’t speak to anyone else’s motives for expressing this opinion, but I do so in part because I don’t want to ever see a repeat of 2016 and I want the Democrats to run people who will be able to advance a progressive agenda.
