Web of Sex Scandals

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:54 pm

Greg wrote:This is an even bigger surprise than Charlie Rose.


Eh, not really. Because nothing surprises anymore.

But Matt Lauer takes the cake, wears the crown, whatever cliche you want to use. Just dumbfounding.

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/matt-l ... 202625959/

The special lock he installed for his office.... the lengths NBC went to in order to protect this guy, up to and including this morning... all totally normal, right? I mean, people are not perfect and you gotta think of the bottom line.

(BTW, it was amusing to read that Keillor's wife - a classical violinist - is named Jenny Lind Nilsson. Classical music aficionados will understand.)
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby Greg » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:59 pm

This is an even bigger surprise than Charlie Rose.

Garrison Keillor Accused Of 'Inappropriate Behavior,' Minnesota Public Radio Says:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... radio-says
Bankers don’t like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.

James K. Galbraith

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12430
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:47 am

Stop comparing Al Franken to Roy Moore.

Roy Moore is a child predator and has been accused by several women.

Al Franken groped two women and has had two dozen (his former staffers and his former SNL colleagues) come forward and say the were never treated with anything but respect.

They are not equivalent. They will never be equivalent. Franken might be a tad bit skeezy at times, but he's not a fucking predator, especially not a CHILD predator.

This has zero to do with politics. Republicans tend to largely defend their predators whereas Dems tend to run them out on a rail. Clinton is not germane to the situation as we are in different clime today than we were two decades ago. It does not excuse what he did, but the two situations are not even remotely similar. Clinton hasn't been a candidate in two decades. Moore IS a candidate and whether you agree with what Clinton did or not, again, the two are NOT the same. Moore is a CHILD PREDATOR. There is no moral equivalence.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15387
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:47 am

As I said before, the charges against Clinton were dismissed because of all the proven false charges against him in other instances. And, again, he isn't running for anything!

I agree that if here are substantial charges against Franken he should e treated the same as any other politician and he should be drummed out of office as quickly as uber liberals Harvey Weinstein and Charlie Rose were dumped, but so far the charges have been more than a little on the silly side. Turn off Fox News!

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby criddic3 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:24 am

Big Magilla wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Clinton is getting hit on his past again because in the Age of Trump, many people realize how much he got away with simply because of politics. If we're going to go after the Roy Moores of the world and say he shouldn't be a Senator, then we have to be honest about how hypocritical it is to look the other way for other people.


What did Clinton do that wasn't known twenty years ago? I may be a little fuzzy on the facts, but as I recall, his relationships with those women were consensual. He was neither a predator nor a child molester. The damnable thing about the whole mess was the cover-up. It's a shame that despite all his accomplishments, the quote most of us remember from his days in the White House is "I did not have sex with that woman."

criddic3 wrote:On the other hand, we now have people rushing to Al Franken and Roy Moore's defense based on ideological grounds.


I don't find any evidence of people defending Franken on ideological grounds. No one is saying what he did in the first reported incident was excusable, but it hardly rises to the level of what Moore or Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey or Charlie Rose did. I found the second reported Franken incident silly, but then those old pictures of him grabbing Ariana Huffington surfaced, making me wonder if he really didn't grab that woman by the butt on purpose. Still, it's nothing compared to what those other men did, and in some instances (Weinstein, Spacey) were still doing when the reports surfaced.


It is true that Clinton has not been accused of being a child molester, but has been accused of rape which had been dismissed by a lot of people in the past. An open letter was released in which 30-some-odd women came to Franken's defense saying he's an "upstanding public servant" or to that effect, similar to how those on the political right are saying that Roy Moore should be given the benefit of the doubt because it will the serve conservative cause. It seems like people are willing to dismiss or set aside allegations like this when the person in question agrees with their political ideology. We can't have it both ways. Either everyone accused has to face the music or we all need to step back and let these people defend themselves without judgment until a conclusion can be made about their guilt, and how their actions should be dealt with if that is the case. I don't think it's helpful to say "he may have done something bad but let's overlook that for now to keep that seat in our column," which seems to be happening in both cases.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:32 pm

No, it doesn't necessarily have to do with power, but yes. physical attractiveness doesn't have anything to do with it.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12430
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:02 pm

It's about power. That's my point. Assault, abuse, rape, and harassment is about power, not about physical attractiveness. My point is that he would have had plenty of offers, meaning that unless he was a Grade A douchebag, he never would have had to assault, or rape, or harass someone. Attractive people who abuse others do it because of power, not because they don't have women (and men) who are readily willing to engage in physical relations with them.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5766
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby flipp525 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:49 pm

OscarGuy wrote:Attractive people generally don't have to solicit sex or force others into sex.

This is a truly ridiculous assertion.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15387
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:08 am

dws1982 wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Clinton is getting hit on his past again because in the Age of Trump, many people realize how much he got away with simply because of politics. If we're going to go after the Roy Moores of the world and say he shouldn't be a Senator, then we have to be honest about how hypocritical it is to look the other way for other people.


What did Clinton do that wasn't known twenty years ago? I may be a little fuzzy on the facts, but as I recall, his relationships with those women were consensual.

When you consider the vast power differential that was at play in the relationship he had with those women, I think it becomes really tough to argue that those relationships could've been consensual.

Maybe not, and maybe we would've been better off with Al Gore in the White House, but if Clinton "got away with it" it wasn't because of politics. It was because of politics that he was hounded by Ken Starr. He "go away with it" because after all the false charges made against the Clintons by the righteous right, it was difficult to believe that the Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick charges weren't more of the same. The Monica Lewinsky affair and some of the others when he was the Arkansas governor were seen as consensual.

If all this were coming out now for the first time, it would be seen in a different light, but there's nothing new here. Clinton never bragged about his conquests like Trump did. He's not running for anything and neither is his wife. We should be looking forward, not backward.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby dws1982 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:47 am

Big Magilla wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Clinton is getting hit on his past again because in the Age of Trump, many people realize how much he got away with simply because of politics. If we're going to go after the Roy Moores of the world and say he shouldn't be a Senator, then we have to be honest about how hypocritical it is to look the other way for other people.


What did Clinton do that wasn't known twenty years ago? I may be a little fuzzy on the facts, but as I recall, his relationships with those women were consensual.

When you consider the vast power differential that was at play in the relationship he had with those women, I think it becomes really tough to argue that those relationships could've been consensual.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15387
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:04 am

OscarGuy wrote:Huffington says that the pics that surfaced were for a comedy sketch and that she felt in no way harassed or assaulted by them.

Yes, but they do show a propensity for that kind of behavior, which though not damning, do show a pattern that makes these allegations more credible, though again nothing to demand his resignation for - so far, anyway.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12430
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:32 am

Huffington says that the pics that surfaced were for a comedy sketch and that she felt in no way harassed or assaulted by them.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15387
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:07 am

criddic3 wrote:Clinton is getting hit on his past again because in the Age of Trump, many people realize how much he got away with simply because of politics. If we're going to go after the Roy Moores of the world and say he shouldn't be a Senator, then we have to be honest about how hypocritical it is to look the other way for other people.


What did Clinton do that wasn't known twenty years ago? I may be a little fuzzy on the facts, but as I recall, his relationships with those women were consensual. He was neither a predator nor a child molester. The damnable thing about the whole mess was the cover-up. It's a shame that despite all his accomplishments, the quote most of us remember from his days in the White House is "I did not have sex with that woman."

criddic3 wrote:On the other hand, we now have people rushing to Al Franken and Roy Moore's defense based on ideological grounds.


I don't find any evidence of people defending Franken on ideological grounds. No one is saying what he did in the first reported incident was excusable, but it hardly rises to the level of what Moore or Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey or Charlie Rose did. I found the second reported Franken incident silly, but then those old pictures of him grabbing Ariana Huffington surfaced, making me wonder if he really didn't grab that woman by the butt on purpose. Still, it's nothing compared to what those other men did, and in some instances (Weinstein, Spacey) were still doing when the reports surfaced.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:57 am

OscarGuy wrote:Attractive people generally don't have to solicit sex or force others into sex.


Another clichè. Really, I don't know how some here get their ideas about this subject, because they seem so unrelated to real life. Anyway, in Italy now the "man-of-the-day", accused by several would-be actresses of having sexually harassed them, is Fausto Brizzi, one of our most popular producers/directors, is (and, especially, was at the time those acts supposedly happened) a rather handsome man.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2724
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Web of Sex Scandals

Postby criddic3 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:05 pm

Big Magilla wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:The Charlie Rose allegations -- like the Weinstein ones, and the Jeremy Piven ones -- are really serious, and seemingly broadly enough backed to merit presumption of likely guilt. But they just underscore what weak sauce the Franken accusations are. Yet there are lefties who are ready to toss Al over the side in the name of high purity (much like they once were ready to jettison Shirley Sherrod -- remember her?). They also seem to want to -- I don't know -- designate Bill Clinton an official Bad Guy (for actions that took place before many of them were even following politics)?

It brings to mind the old joke, A liberal is someone so open-minded he refuses to take his own side in an argument.


Exactly. I had to change the channel on Mika Brzezinski this morning. I don't know if I'll ever watch Morning Joe again.

She went a tirade in support of Kirstin Gillibrand this morning that included her oft given rant that Hillary needs to go away, that Bill Clinton is still making money when he should have been run out of the White House when all those women came forward in the 90s. She had a fit over Trump's tweet that Hillary should run again in 2020, not because Trump was being an asshole (as usual) but because she couldn't take another Hillary run.



Clinton is getting hit on his past again because in the Age of Trump, many people realize how much he got away with simply because of politics. If we're going to go after the Roy Moores of the world and say he shouldn't be a Senator, then we have to be honest about how hypocritical it is to look the other way for other people. I still do believe that context matters and that everyone is entitled to a defense, especially if they really are innocent or if the offense is being blown out of proportion. Yet I think it makes sense that this is happening. When the floodgates opened we saw every kind of allegation, some serious and some less so, that were all a set up for career destruction. On the other hand, we now have people rushing to Al Franken and Roy Moore's defense based on ideological grounds. Trump basically went out in front of the cameras to say Alabamans should vote for Moore so Republicans could hold the seat. I find that kind of mentality to be short-sighted and dismissive of the issues involved here. People are becoming confused and frustrated by the constant news about celebrities and politicians, some of whom have been admired in their fields for a long time. There is good and bad about all of this coming to light, but without clarity about all the facts it's becoming a free-for-all.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests