Tipping Point - Sexual Harassment In America

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Still waiting to figure out what that point is.

You came into a thread and started comparing Laz to the serial sexual harassers that have been outed of late, I guess as some sort of revenge joke on what he did to you? I'm not sure if there's a point there, other than that you probably should have brought your complaints to diemen rather than hijacking a thread that the poster in question isn't even involved in.
Click to expand...

If you can't figure the point out then you're attacking without even reading my initial post. This is an interesting (though ultimately failed) combination of vilifying, blame shifting, and attempting to create a distorted perception.

My post wasn't a joke, a complaint, or an attempt to hijack the thread. Just found it unfortunate at best that people welcome sickening behavior from people they know (and will even attack the victim) while simultaneously casting stones at others who are famous for similar behavior.

I'm done and ready to move on as I made my point...but I'm guessing others are going to want to keep the merry go round spinning.
 
Redhill, is this thread really the place for this discussion? Really? To be honest I have no idea WTF you're talking about, and if I don't, then other people reading this don't either.
 
Nick66 said:
Redhill, is this thread really the place for this discussion? Really? To be honest I have know idea WTF you're talking about, and if I don't, then other people reading this don't either.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, you realize that the title of this thread is "Tipping Point - Sexual Harassment In America".
 
redhill said:
No disrespect, but you're talking about something you have no idea about.
Click to expand...



I do know that I don’t welcome revolting behavior, and I do know about Laz’ “joke”. It was uncalled for and he was temporarily banned, still doesn’t excuse you. So what exactly did I miss?
 
I'm so glad I have no idea what's going on here. But it's not the topic nor do I care about whatever the drama is...can only imagine though. Definitely didn't miss any of that while I was gone.
 
anitram said:
Democrats mostly calling for Franken to resign, looks like he might tomorrow.

Republicans funding a child molester by way of comparison.

Heck of a job guys.
Click to expand...

Yep. And Anthony Weiner's career in the Democratic Party died after the crap with him, too.

Bill Clinton's history certainly casts a shadow over the Democratic Party, and it does need to be acknowledged for sure. But in terms of recent behavior, the party also seem to have learned a bit from that mess and are trying to weed out the creeps as best as possible when the news about them breaks. I won't say it's been perfectly handled each time, no, but there are people doing something about it regardless. The Republicans, meanwhile, support Moore, and shrugged off the stuff with Trump. Definitely a stark contrast in actions there.

Having said that, however, Nick does raise a valid point about the "party courage" element, and how different things might be depending on who's running the state.

Nick66 said:
Doesn't everyone have their assistants do this?

Seriously though, I don't think he's a psycho. Just your run of the mill sleaze with way, way too much power. If this kind of behaviour was a result of psychosis there would be a lot less of it. Sadly this is what can happen to normal men when they think the world owes them something and they have no one to answer to.
Click to expand...

Heh, eh, I meant "psycho" in a more general insult sense than anything else, but still, you're right about this, too. The fact that this stuff can't be attributed to some sort of mental issue, that it's just a guy being a supreme asshole for the hell of it, because he can, makes it even creepier.

His behavior only makes me even further sympathetic to the people who didn't speak out despite not being personally harassed by him. If he had that kind of power to where he could be THAT intimidating and controlling a presence, it would be very scary to call him out openly, and I can totally see people thinking it'd be futile to even try.
 
redhill said:
The irony and hypocrisy were too glaring. BTW, you're proving my point.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, I think headache was correct. I had nothing to do with it and this topic is personal for me too. It's not as if I don't know that in general crap and worse conduct goes on in this forum. It's one of the reasons I took a break from it. But I just don't get what you're trying to do here. Calling people hypocrites I guess for some past stuff that my topic has nothing to do with.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
Yep. And Anthony Weiner's career in the Democratic Party died after the crap with him, too.

Bill Clinton's history certainly casts a shadow over the Democratic Party, and it does need to be acknowledged for sure. But in terms of recent behavior, the party also seem to have learned a bit from that mess and are trying to weed out the creeps as best as possible when the news about them breaks. I won't say it's been perfectly handled each time, no, but there are people doing something about it regardless. The Republicans, meanwhile, support Moore, and shrugged off the stuff with Trump. Definitely a stark contrast in actions there.

Having said that, however, Nick does raise a valid point about the "party courage" element, and how different things might be depending on who's running the state.



Heh, eh, I meant "psycho" in a more general insult sense than anything else, but still, you're right about this, too. The fact that this stuff can't be attributed to some sort of mental issue, that it's just a guy being a supreme asshole for the hell of it, because he can, makes it even creepier.

His behavior only makes me even further sympathetic to the people who didn't speak out despite not being personally harassed by him. If he had that kind of power to where he could be THAT intimidating and controlling a presence, it would be very scary to call him out openly, and I can totally see people thinking it'd be futile to even try.
Click to expand...
Naaaah.

Weiner received numerous second chances. Just watch the documentary on his mayorial campaign, which is a fascinating train wreck of a film.

And Bill is obviously not shunned by the Democrats, either.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I don't think so, I think headache was correct. I had nothing to do with it and this topic is personal for me too. It's not as if I don't know that in general crap and worse conduct goes on in this forum. It's one of the reasons I took a break from it. But I just don't get what you're trying to do here. Calling people hypocrites I guess for some past stuff that my topic has nothing to do with.
Click to expand...

Ah, it's the same exact thing. Not sure what you're on about.
 
Redhill, like others stated, a public thread is not the place to rehash a personal beef with another member here.

Quit with the persecution complex and move on.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Naaaah.

Weiner received numerous second chances. Just watch the documentary on his mayorial campaign, which is a fascinating train wreck of a film.

And Bill is obviously not shunned by the Democrats, either.
Click to expand...

I'll definitely try and find that documentary, 'cause now you have me quite curious. I could've seen people not caring about his affairs, but I'd thought everyone generally distanced themselves from him once the underage texting stuff came out. If that's not the case, however, then yeah, shame on those who gave that a pass, then.

And you're right that Clinton himself has yet to be shunned, which goes back to my point about the party acknowledging that issue head on. I was mainly trying to note that I could see this situation with Franken being a good opportunity for the party to.show they're learning from their past errors in regards to how they dealt (or rather, didn't deal) with the accusations against people like Clinton and Weiner, and apply those lessons going forward with any other politicians in their ranks who commit similar crimes and offenses.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
I'll definitely try and find that documentary, 'cause now you have me quite curious. I could've seen people not caring about his affairs, but I'd thought everyone generally distanced themselves from him once the underage texting stuff came out. If that's not the case, however, then yeah, shame on those who gave that a pass, then.

And you're right that Clinton himself has yet to be shunned, which goes back to my point about the party acknowledging that issue head on. I was mainly trying to note that I could see this situation with Franken being a good opportunity for the party to.show they're learning from their past errors in regards to how they dealt (or rather, didn't deal) with the accusations against people like Clinton and Weiner, and apply those lessons going forward with any other politicians in their ranks who commit similar crimes and offenses.
Click to expand...
Definitely do. It's phenomenal in that it's an as it happens documentary on his comeback exploding into flames.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
I'll definitely try and find that documentary, 'cause now you have me quite curious. I could've seen people not caring about his affairs, but I'd thought everyone generally distanced themselves from him once the underage texting stuff came out. If that's not the case, however, then yeah, shame on those who gave that a pass, then.
.
Click to expand...

The Weiner thing was downright embarrassing for many on the left (not pols, bloggers), a number of whom insisted he was being framed (by Andrew Breitbart) up to the moment he resigned. They were analysing the pixels in the jpeg and insisting it was photoshopped and some were saying (and I'm not kidding about this) that he was being set up by the Vatican at the behest of Clarence Thomas.

Whereas any person who paid attention would know he was guilty right away. The fact that he first insisted his Twitter account was hacked, then said he couldn't rule out that it was him in the pic, then said he didn't want to involve the FBI, and that his office would conduct a "private investigation" was all a pretty good sign he might be guilty.

I can't remember what Dem politicians were saying at the time, but again I don't remember it being a profile in courage. At lot of let the investigation play out kind of stuff. He basically had no choice but to resign once it became untenable to continue lying about it.

I second watching that Weiner doc. It's excellent. Cringey, but excellent. And no one comes across looking particularly good in it. I thought I'd have more sympathy for Huma, (and I did a bit at the end) but she's pretty calculated in enabling him through much of it. You're going to wonder to yourself, over and over again while watching, what were they thinking when they let those cameras into their lives.
 
Last edited:
Nick66 said:
The Weiner thing was downright embarrassing for many on the left (not pols, bloggers), a number of whom insisted he was being framed (by Andrew Breitbart) up to the moment he resigned. They were analysing the pixels in the jpeg and insisting it was photoshopped and some were saying (and I'm not kidding about this) that he was being set up by the Vatican at the behest of Clarence Thomas.

Whereas any person who paid attention would know he was guilty right away. The fact that he first insisted his Twitter account was hacked, then said he couldn't rule out that it was him in the pic, then said he didn't want to involve the FBI, and that his office would conduct a "private investigation" was all a pretty good sign he might be guilty.

I can't remember what Dem politicians were saying at the time, but again I don't remember it being a profile in courage. At lot of let the investigation play out kind of stuff. He basically had no choice but to resign once it became untenable to continue lying about it.

I second watching that Weiner doc. It's excellent. Cringey, but excellent. And no one comes across looking particularly good in it. I thought I'd have more sympathy for Huma, (and I did a bit at the end) but she's pretty calculated in enabling him through much of it. You're going to wonder to yourself, over and over again while watching, what were they thinking when they let those cameras into their lives.
Click to expand...




I don’t remember anyone defending Anthony Weiner. It’s false to view this as in any way comparable to Moore.
 
Is there any evidence, other than testimony, that goes any way to proving or suggesting Moore is guilty? Not a veiled argument - just a question.
 
Irvine511 said:
I don’t remember anyone defending Anthony Weiner. It’s false to view this as in any way comparable to Moore.
Click to expand...

I was just going to say that's an absurd comparison.

What some kooky bloggers may have said is as relevant as what the comment thread on Breitbart or Reddit says.

There was no concerted effort to get this guy re-elected or fund him or President Obama to publicly endorse him and direct funding or whatever.

Weiner was a laughingstock pretty much immediately.

The only defence I remember that relates in any way to him is of his wife, who had no role in his perversion.
 
Irvine511 said:
I don’t remember anyone defending Anthony Weiner. It’s false to view this as in any way comparable to Moore.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing Weiner to Moore (though you could make such a comparison, as both preyed on children). I was talking about Weiner. Crikey, every other comment from some of you is "You can't compare x to Moore." I just said dumping Weiner wasn't some kind of act of courage by the party. Nancy Pelosi didn't even ask for his resignation until 2 weeks after the story broke, and 5 days after Weiner confessed to what everyone not in denial already knew.

And I never said anyone elected in the party was defending Weiner, I made it clear that it was (sizeable) contingent of the progressive blogosphere. And if you don't remember "anyone" defending Weiner, I'm afraid you weren't very politically plugged in back then.

kiwilad said:
Is there any evidence, other than testimony, that goes any way to proving or suggesting Moore is guilty? Not a veiled argument - just a question.
Click to expand...

There's just a very decent amount of corroborating, and IMO credible statements from multiple victims, along with some incidental non-dispositive physical evidence that he knew at least one of the vics. While as a rule I don't automatically believe an accusation, I like to asses the credibility of what I heard myself, I've heard enough that I'm convinced that he's "guilty" of doing most, if not all, of what he's been accused of doing. Interestingly there's no more evidence that Moore is guilty than Franken, in Moore's case the allegations are just much more serious (though much older as well).

But in terms of being "guilty", I think in only one case is what he's been accused of a crime, and that was his alleged molestation of a 14 year old (a crime for which the SOL has long since passed). Though obviously all of it was sleazy, criminal or not. He wasn't fit for public office before these accusations, and he's obviously even more unfit now.
 
Last edited:
anitram said:
There was no concerted effort to get this guy re-elected or fund him
Click to expand...

Well, after he resigned from Congress in disgrace, actually for a while he was doing better than expected in the Democratic primary for NY Mayor, and he even picked up some endorsements, including from Rep. Keith Ellison, who is currently the vice-chair of the DNC. That was of course until his second sexting scandal broke in the midst of that campaign, at which time Ellison bravely jumped ship.
 
Last edited:
Nick66 said:
But in terms of being "guilty", I think in only one case is what he's been accused of a crime, and that was his alleged molestation of a 14 year old (a crime for which the SOL has long since passed).
Click to expand...

The 16-year-old he allegedly assaulted in his car (forcibly kissing, pushing her head down into his crotch) would qualify as a crime as well.

The others are more curious in the sense that some of them were actually quite complimentary to him and how he behaved towards them yet he is denying all of those as well. It's fairly clear the man is a liar, and for me once somebody lies about things they don't even have to lie about, their statements in general no longer pass the smell test.
 
Nick66 said:
There's just a very decent amount of corroborating, and IMO credible statements from multiple victims, along with some incidental non-dispositive physical evidence that he knew at least one of the vics. While as a rule I don't automatically believe an accusation, I like to asses the credibility of what I heard myself, I've heard enough that I'm convinced that he's "guilty" of doing most, if not all, of what he's been accused of doing. Interestingly there's no more evidence that Moore is guilty than Franken, in Moore's case the allegations are just much more serious (though much older as well).

But in terms of being "guilty", I think in only one case is what he's been accused of a crime, and that was his alleged molestation of a 14 year old (a crime for which the SOL has long since passed). Though obviously all of it was sleazy, criminal or not. He wasn't fit for public office before these accusations, and he's obviously even more unfit now.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
What's so jarring is it feels like only yesterday that even the sniff of something like this would derail a political career.
Although as I type that I think 'Bill Clinton'. But then he's never run for office since his scandal...

Regardless, for some voters the traditional intolerance for scandal, dishonesty and abuse has basically vanished. It wasn't Trump who did it. Basically his whole team/party abandoned him after Access Hollywood.
It was the voters who chose this new paradigm. Baffles me.
 
From his POV, why would Thomas resign? He's steadfastly denied Hill's allegations (i.e. that he harassed her by making unwanted sexual comments at work) from the start, and as far as I know no serious person in either party is calling on him to resign. I'm not sure why he'd feel the need to step down after all this time, which would be tantamount to admitting he's been lying for 25 years. And I'm wondering if there's any politician who would be willing to fight that battle anyway.

In any event, I'm sure Trump would be delighted if Thomas stepped down. It would give him an opportunity to put an even more conservative (though that would be hard) Justice on the court, and a much younger one at that.

But I'm taking your question was rhetorical and bourne more out of frustration...i.e. if one of ours has to go then one of theirs should as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
872
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
32K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
SoHo Racist Karen
Replies
5
Views
917
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7
MrsSpringsteen
Eliza Dushku OpEd
Replies
1
Views
749
Moonlit_Angel
Moonlit_Angel
A
The little Stranger chapter 11
Replies
0
Views
744
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom