Tipping Point - Sexual Harassment In America

[redhill]

Originally Posted by BVS

Airing your beef in a completely unrelated thread while trying to equate this poster with the subject of this thread.

It's perfectly related ...and I wasn't just "airing beef".

[redhill]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

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.

Ah, it's the same exact thing. Not sure what you're on about.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by redhill

Ah, it's the same exact thing. Not sure what you're on about.

I'm asking nicely if you could please just stop.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by redhill

It's perfectly related ...and I wasn't just "airing beef".

Then I’m afraid you don’t understand the thread.

[redhill]

Originally Posted by mrsspringsteen

i'm asking nicely if you could please just stop.

Okay.

[Diemen]

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.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

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.

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.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

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.

Definitely do. It's phenomenal in that it's an as it happens documentary on his comeback exploding into flames.

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

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.
.

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Nick66

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.

I don’t remember anyone defending Anthony Weiner. It’s false to view this as in any way comparable to Moore.

[kiwilad]

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I don’t remember anyone defending Anthony Weiner. It’s false to view this as in any way comparable to Moore.

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.

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I don’t remember anyone defending Anthony Weiner. It’s false to view this as in any way comparable to Moore.

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.

Originally Posted by kiwilad

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.

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.

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by anitram

There was no concerted effort to get this guy re-elected or fund him

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Nick66

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).

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Nick66

And if you don't remember "anyone" defending Weiner, I'm afraid you weren't very politically plugged in back then.

Right. This totally describes me.

[kiwilad]

Originally Posted by Nick66

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.

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.

[Irvine511]

Time for Clarence Thomas to go, yes?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Time for Clarence Thomas to go, yes?

I think you're confused, Irvine. Clarence Thomas is conservative.

[Nick66]

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.