Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Oct '17 11:58 / 1 edit
    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/matt-damon-russell-crowe-reportedly-190438755.html

    As many know, Harvey Weinstein was a powerful man in Hollywood who ran the show. Trouble is, he loved to abuse women and even those who did not tow his political leanings.

    Because of his power and influence and political leanings, people simply did not report him. For decades, or more, Harvey was free to sexually harass women and threaten those who opposed him on political matters.

    For example, it is now reported that Harvey sent Matt Damon and Russell Crow to "dispel" allegations of sexual misconduct a reporter was about to expose.

    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/matt-damon-russell-crowe-reportedly-190438755.html

    So what broke the camel's back? Why was he exposed now? From what I hear, he was a big Hillary supporter. Was the fact that Hillary lost part of the reason people felt empowered to bring him down?

    We have this article from the Daily Beast.

    Hours after The New York Times released a report alleging numerous instances of sexual harassment by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, the Republican National Committee was capitalizing on the scandal, demanding Democrats return hundreds of thousands of dollars Weinstein donated over the years. The move smacked of opportunism—but it was savvy, because what the RNC clearly knows that some Democrats don’t is that Harvey Weinstein and men like him have already helped the GOP. In fact, Harvey Weinstein serves as the perfect symbol of why Hillary Clinton failed to defeat a candidate many of us had presumed was laughably beatable.

    Harvey Weinstein represents much more than the reviled coastal elites disdained by Trump voters (despite the fact that Donald Trump is one himself.) Weinstein’s growing scandal represents yet another instance of liberal hypocrisy on issues liberals relentlessly criticize conservatives on. After all, conservatives were allegedly responsible for a War on Women, but yet again we have a liberal man accused of privately mounting his own War on Women, and hiding in part behind his public support of feminist causes and candidates to do so. Conservatives will be quick to point out it’s not the first time, and they’d be right. (Weinstein is even blaming a right-wing conspiracy. Sound familiar?)

    It is worth noting that Weinstein, while issuing an apology for some bad past behavior, has also challenged some of the claims in the Times piece, and has threatened to sue. But even if only a fraction of what is alleged in the piece is accurate, combined with previous reports and public knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior and statements, it is baffling that he has remained a welcome face of the Hollywood liberal political establishment.

    For instance, as I wrote years ago, long before these latest allegations surfaced, Harvey Weinstein was one of the most prominent defenders of filmmaker Roman Polanski who admitted raping a young girl. Apparently, that wasn’t an important enough detail to matter to Weinstein because Polanski makes good films, so the mogul was a key force behind a petition supporting the director’s release after being taken into custody again in Switzerland in 2009.


    Now I want you to take a moment and consider what the reaction would be from prominent progressives if any of the country’s leading conservative donors (The Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, take your pick) actively defended an admitted pedophile. I have a feeling the protests and think pieces would never end—at least not until candidates backed by said donors returned money from them.

    You know, sort of like the Republican National Committee is asking recipients of donations from Weinstein to do. (Some Democratic elected officials, among them Sen. Elizabeth Warren, had begun donating contributions from Weinstein to charitable causes at the time this piece was filed.)






    Not to mention widely circulated tales of poor treatment of employees—of all genders and at all levels—by Weinstein, that if true represent the kind of work environment those who claim to care about labor issues normally balk at.
  2. 10 Oct '17 12:11
    Is Harvey Weinstein misunderstood?

    YouTube : michelleobamapraisesharvey
  3. 10 Oct '17 12:15
    Why is it powerful men like Bill Cosby and Weinstein are free to abuse women for so long? Do people fear them that much or is it a combination of fear and others around them suppressing those who would expose them?

    Is the message, enjoy your escapades while young, because we will all turn on you when you get old and weak?
  4. 10 Oct '17 12:38
    Nathan Lane alleges that Weinstein threw him up against a wall and threatened him for making a political joke he did not like.

    http://www.hollywood.com/general/nathan-lane-harvey-weinstein-threw-me-against-a-wall-60699025/

    It appears that politics factors into this abuse with such powerful leanings.
  5. 10 Oct '17 12:59
    Are you enjoying yourself, Whodey?
  6. 10 Oct '17 14:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Is Harvey Weinstein misunderstood?

    [youtubemichelleobamapraisesharvey]rJnxPmOorjM[/youtube]
    They are all hypocrites. Left and right. They will do anything for money. Watch your back people. Met a guy in jail. Going to get fried for murder. Had a big tattoo on his back. A big knife sticking in w/blood running down. Caption, FROM A FRIEND. Edit to add, He was a really nice guy.
  7. 10 Oct '17 15:22
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Why is it powerful men like Bill Cosby and Weinstein are free to abuse women for so long? Do people fear them that much or is it a combination of fear and others around them suppressing those who would expose them?

    Is the message, enjoy your escapades while young, because we will all turn on you when you get old and weak?
    I guess it doesn't help that you can rape, abuse and harass women, walk away scot-free and become president. I suppose what that tells you is that many Americans don't think it's a big deal if you do these things. Unless you're of the wrong political clan, of course.
  8. 10 Oct '17 15:47
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    I guess it doesn't help that you can rape, abuse and harass women, walk away scot-free and become president. I suppose what that tells you is that many Americans don't think it's a big deal if you do these things. Unless you're of the wrong political clan, of course.
    Do you think they will have to wait until Trump is out of power and older so they can bring him to justice or is he just too powerful like Hillary to be brought to justice?
  9. 10 Oct '17 15:56
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Do you think they will have to wait until Trump is out of power and older so they can bring him to justice or is he just too powerful like Hillary to be brought to justice?
    What should Hillary Clinton be "brought to justice" for?
  10. Subscriber karoly aczel
    Fortnite Kid
    10 Oct '17 16:43
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Why is it powerful men like Bill Cosby and Weinstein are free to abuse women for so long? Do people fear them that much or is it a combination of fear and others around them suppressing those who would expose them?

    Is the message, enjoy your escapades while young, because we will all turn on you when you get old and weak?
    Huh?/
    I simply dont believe you care at all as long as you single out someone you dont like and throw heavy damage their way.
    Saga? Should the title not have been 'Trump Saga' ?
  11. Subscriber karoly aczel
    Fortnite Kid
    10 Oct '17 16:45
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    I guess it doesn't help that you can rape, abuse and harass women, walk away scot-free and become president. I suppose what that tells you is that many Americans don't think it's a big deal if you do these things. Unless you're of the wrong political clan, of course.
    Beat me to it .
  12. 10 Oct '17 16:54 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    What should Hillary Clinton be "brought to justice" for?

    and

    [youtubeclintoncash]C5aYgFts_Ag[/youtube]
    YouTube : hillarylies

    and

    YouTube : clintoncash
  13. 10 Oct '17 16:59
    Originally posted by @whodey
    [youtubehillarylies]wbkS26PX4rc[/youtube]
    You think that administration officials using personal e-mail for their work should be jailed, is that it?
  14. 10 Oct '17 16:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    You think that administration officials using personal e-mail for their work should be jailed, is that it?
    Not done, watch the rest.

    To not see how corrupt they were is to be blind, ignorant, or just plain stupid.
  15. 10 Oct '17 17:03
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Not done, watch the rest.

    To not see how corrupt they were is to be blind, ignorant, or just plain stupid.
    I'd rather you just tell me what you think Hillary Clinton should be put to trial for.