I’m pretty sure it wasn’t irrelevant, and was in fact a selling point for Trump. The Republican base are the sort of people who like rapists and abusers, men who “put women in their place”.
God ,I hope all repubs aren’t that way! It is bad enough the potus is smarmy and creepy. What are we teaching our young people!!
Boy howdy, you’re just piling extrapolations on top of extrapolations, aren’t you?
I guess that’s what passes for ‘common sense’ in your head. Just don’t go expecting it to match up well with the meaning other people give to it.
Y’all need to remember, the Clinton’s are private citizens, Nothing they do or say is in any way on the scale of what Trump is doing to this country. It don’t matter anymore about Bill’s philandering or Hillary’s emails. Look forward, do you see a future free from war and clean air and water? Think not!
I’m not sure I follow your logic here. Is there some great comico-industrial complex that is currently making so much money from Louis CK that it would squash like a bug anyone who dared to step forward? Is the New York Times (which broke the Weinstein story) in the pocket of Big Comedy?
Whatever the confluence of events that caused the Weinstein story to really blow up this time around, it’s hard for me to see how it has anything to do with him being less rich and powerful.
Seems easy to me. He’s becoming an old relic in Hollywood, and thus has less power than he used to. If he still had power, he could have kept the whole thing under wraps the way he has for decades.
Though, really, the better link with Louis C.K. is Cosby, not Weinstein. He is a comedian. As long as people like him as a comedian, it is really, really hard for any accusations to stick. As long as he has a lock on the cultural zeitgeist in his comedy, it’s hard to take him down.
I still am not sure where I stand on the C.K. thing. Granted, I’ve not researched it at all. But a lot of there reason I’ve not done research is that I like his comedy, and don’t want to lose my ability to enjoy it. I justify this by saying that, if I knew, I still couldn’t do anything about it, so knowing doesn’t help, and only hurts. If there is proof, I do want it to go big, to send a message, but I’m not going to actively search for it.
Taking down people that everyone likes currently only works after they have lost the limelight for a while. Weinstein is someone a majority of us didn’t even know existed, so I think that’s different. It was just about raw power.
I’m pretty sure he pissed someone else off, and they started the ball rolling. And, while I’d prefer better motives, I do think it makes it easier for it to come to light on others. And, if C.K. is one of them, I’ll accept that. But I really doubt it. It’s going to be people who have lost their cachet.
The world is a pretty shitty place. There’s a reason why those arguments about “sexism is over” are so laughable.
Considerable the moral absolutism you so often engage in when making arguments on important social and political issues, this type of head-in-the-sand, if-i-don’t-see-it-then-maybe-it-doesn’t-exist attitude seems rather perplexing, and not a little hypocritical.
I dunno. Ten years ago, did he have the power not only to make or break a young actress’s career, but to intimidate the New York Times into silence?
I mean, I can’t prove you’re wrong… but I strongly suspect that the proximate cause of HW’s downfall was as much changing societal mores and enough brave women to really get the ball rolling as it was a decline in his influence.
The Clintons never would’ve done that mawkish pre-election interview if Bill’s adultery hadn’t been common knowledge. There were jokes all over about it, I can still remember them.
What would happen if the three presidential candidates were with you when your car broke down?
Perot would be under your hood, tearing your engine apart.
Bush would be telling you that your engine was just fine.
And Bill Clinton would be trying to get you into the back seat.
Nobody believed for one minute that Bill was innocent.
The key issue is that adultery and sexual assault are not equivalent. Both are bad but one is about twenty times worse than the other.
Republicans are now trying to sell the idea that the two are equivalent because their guy has admitted to committing the one that’s worse. So now they have to try to restore parity by either claiming adultery and sexual assault are equal or by trying to build up the case that Clinton committed sexual assault.
Point is, if the Catholic Church came out with a scathing editorial about the evils of Child Sexual Abuse, it would be completely accurate and correct, but the message would be totally lost, because the obvious response would be, “Well, who the fuck are you to talk? Get your own shit in order first!”
But Hillary seems to be too stupid or arrogant to see this. A little of Part A and a little of Part B…
She should really just Shut The Fuck Up.
That’s all.
That’s what the Right has always wanted. She’s a woman, so she’s supposed to just stand in the background and stay silent like a good little slave. They still can’t stand the fact that she’s not quiet and submissive like a woman is “supposed” to be.
Hillary did not commit adultery or sexually assault anybody. She is an American citizen with a right to free speech. Hey it’s completely alright for her to write a book, give interviews, and omg have an opinion. Harvey whats-his-name just did what all those jerks in Hollywood do to young women looking for a movie career. My big question is why those young actresses, as they got more powerful didn’t try to do something about him. I could see maybe a coalition of them bringing a class action suit or something. Seems to me they lost a opportunity to put him down years ago.
Trump certainly couldn’t stand that simple fact. That’s why he stalked her all over the stage during the debate.
exactly
Yet the general happening in the US [and frequently the world] is to see an old guy with a young trophy wife/mistress and pretty much applaud him [for still being able to get it up, or at least being rich enough to get a new trophy woman …] cough Hugh Heffner cough <while any woman with a younger guy is desperate enough and paying for companionship …>
This.
I may have my differences with various people running for office, but I research and will vote for the lesser of evils [in a manner of speaking] and I really can’t find much to fault with Hillary. No matter what Bill did, she didn’t do it, he did. She may have negotiated a peace with him to stay married and she may actually really love the guy and want to stay with him for nonpolitical reasons …
And with the way rape victims are treated by everybody you really expect women [ok, and men as it does go both ways] to come out publically? Really?
Hells bells, I was assaulted outside a university library, I was wearing a sloppy old fishermans sweater and painter pants and carrying a back pack full of books. I was obviously out trolling for sex, I mean - such lust inducing clothing!!! And despite the huge chunk of shoulder I bit out and handed over to the cops with the rape kit, I was asking for it and it was obviously consensual … and the double black eye, cracked jaw and broken nose were simply ‘love taps’. I really love being asked by 2 overweight university rentacops and matching city cops asking if I really wanted to report a rape.
And if that’s what Clinton had done, I would agree she should be excoriated. But if someone asks the Pope, “What do you think about Jerry Sandusky?” and he replied, “We have assholes molesting children everywhere!”, would it equally raise your ire?
Just because a university has a police department does not make their officers “rentacops”. For example, the police at the University of California are swirn police officers exactly like the “matching city cops”.
And given your previous asinine postings regarding police which show you really go to town with nothing but your own prejudices as your motivating and guiding factor, I find it rather hard to believe what you posted above. Mind you, I am not belittling how bad rape is. I am simply calling you a lying bigoted jackass. Actually, you’re just trolling.
Just because a university has a police department does not mean those officers are “rentacops”. For example, the police at the University of California are sworn police officers just like the “matching city cops”. And given your previous posts about police which show your prejudice is your motivating and guiding factor, I find it impossible to believe what you posted above.
Mind you, I am not belittling the issue of rape. I am belittling you. You are simply trolling, using a very serious and hot button issue to troll for attention. You cannot get banned soon enough. And that sentiment has nothing to do with your gender.
Dratted connection kept timing out. I left something off, even with the duplicate posting.
Before you spew your usual insane nonsense in response to me, do a search of this board for my posts regarding rape of both women and men. Or you can continue to troll.