The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment
-
@raphjd
Speaking of being honest with ones' self - can you admit that the only thing you can hate Joe Biden's Presidency for yet is that HE'S NOT DONALD TRUMP!!!There hasn't been enough time for Biden to do anything meaningful.
I wasn't thrilled with voting for him - and I wasn't thrilled in 2016 either! (I held my nose voting for Biden, just as I held my nose voting for Trump!) (yes, I voted for Trump in 2016 - but I learned from my mistakes! LOL)
But whether on the winning side, or the losing side, when we get a new President, you gotta give 'em a chance before you love or hate them!
I would LOVE to be able to vote for the likes John Kasich or Adam Kinsinger in Nov, 2024... but there's a LOT of time between now and then... and I'm not ready to fold and wait... I'm going to stay engaged, and hope that this President is as moderate as he promised he would be...
I hope this for the good of our Country... we need some healing time... time to put away the vitriol and polarization... time to remember that there's so much more that we share and agree on, than what we don't!
-
You said: "Asia Argento knowing had sex with Harvey Weinstein to advance her career."
Improper grammar aside, are you saying that this, in any way, makes Harvey Weinstein any less of a monster??
Back to the point: John Weaver's victims weren't solely adults - some were teens as young as 14. So far, we only know of 21 victims - but I'm pretty sure there are more... MANY more... many (most?) sexual abuse victims carry a lot of shame... there are most likely others who are too ashamed to come forward.
One doesn't have to be pure to be a victim! A prostitute - who voluntarily takes money for sex - can still be raped! And the fact that the rapist threw a benjamin her way when he was done does NOT change the fact!
NOTE: I do NOT HAVE AN ISSUE with John Weaver wanting to have sex with younger men. I DO have an issue with him doing so with a promise of getting advancement in exchange for sexual favors.
Guys 18 and over can have sex with anyone they choose to (sigh: for you, I have to say it: providing its consensual)... I don't even object to prostitution! If you'll suck on an old-man's cock for $50, and he wants to get off that way, then you're consenting adults. There are also younger men who prefer older men as companions (partners, pick your label).
THIS AIN'T THAT!
When you say "I'll hire you if you'll bend over and take one for the team", you're way over the line!
One is a simple transaction, the other is an invitation to ongoing abuse and intimidation.
-
I hate Biden because of Biden.
His 1994 crime bill and co-sponsoring at least 1 of the most homophobic laws the US ever had, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act authored by Schumer.
He's also dirty as fuck.
It's od that you are so generous to Biden, considering the people you claim we should compromise with never gave Trump a chance.
19 minutes after Trump was sworn in, I think it was the NYT that posted the article saying that now is the time to start impeaching Trump and it went from there.
The swamp monsters in both parties did everything they could to screw over Trump.
-
You also pointed out in your post that Asia Argento "also knowingly got Jimmy Bennet (a minor at the time) drunk and raped him."
The fact that you're a victim does not exclude you from the possibility of also being a perpetrator. Come on.
Geez... I'd sure love to live a few hours in your world, where everything is black and white: you're a victim OR a perp. You're 100% right, or 100% wrong. Liberal or Trumpite.
Life would be so easy for you if we realists would just stop interfering!
-
Everyone knows the term "casting couch". Not only that, but Asia admitted she knew all about Harvey before agreeing to go to his room to give him a naked oil massage.
Harvey may be a pig, but she knew what she was doing. Harvey being a pig was no secret in Hollywood.
What is the difference between selling your ass for $20 or a $5 million movie role?
Ongoing abuse? End that transaction and quit.
I see your stance as hypocritical.
-
@raphjd
I gave Trump a chance. I cannot, and do not, speak for others.Let's not forget that this polarization didn't start with Trump, it just got worse with him.
It STARTED (ok, re-started) in the Clinton administration and the "revolution" of Newt Gingrich. It got markedly worse with Obama (remember the Republicans' statement that their sole agenda item in 2009 was to ensure that Obama was a 1-term President?)
But it's not fair to pin the early years of this on Republicans... Democrats did it too, doing everything in their power to make Bush 43 look bad. The only "saving grace" for Bush was the 9/11 attack in 2001 - which "called off the dogs", at least for a while.
Compromise is what made this country great! (Curious? ask a historian!)
Today, thanks to extremists in both parties, compromise is a curse-word! -
I was pointing out that she played the victim in both cases.
Of course, everything isn't absolute, except that Dems (except a few) and RINOs are swamp rats.
Realists, under your definition, means don't fix anything and just accept that most politicians are scum.
If those of us who actually cared, just acted like the swamp monsters, then we can just sit back and say "oh fucking well, the swamp is gonna swamp".
-
@bi4smooth
Hmmmm you think I am hyporitical (of course you do!)I see things in a myriad of colors, and few, if any, sharp lines of differentiation... a little of this, a little of that. Almost nothing is pure good, or pure evil. Almost nothing is "pure" anything!
Whereas you see most everything as black and white. This or that. Good or Bad.
Looking at it from your perspective, I can see your point. I don't agree with it, but I see where my "green" becomes your grey and then becomes black.
-
Obama lied to his voters, me included, I'm ashamed in retrospect to say.
He promised that he was going to reverse most of the crap GWB did due to 9/11. Obama expanded all that crap, not end it as he promised.
I already pointed out Mad Maxine's disputing the Electoral College votes for GWB, but against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer. She said that she didn't give a damned about the rules, GWB was not going to be President.
I didn't, and still don't, like GWB. He was a shitty Gov and a worse President.
-
As I said, people like you don't want to drain the swamp because you don't like change.
Your fellow RINOs support social media abusing Section 230.
You guys are in bed with the liberals in only allowing speech that you like.
There is no real push to end or reform Section 230, because the swamp loves things as they are.
-
@raphjd
Thanks for the personal inventory, but you're not very good at reading me.
I thrive on change! In my job (a computer consultant), I couldn't survive without change.
But that doesn't mean chaos! Change has to be managed, and change has to have a goal of improving things, not just change for change's sake.My older brother is an avowed anarchist. He thinks the whole idea of government is inherently and irretrievably corrupt. (A child of his times: he grew up in the late 60's LOL)
No, you've got me all wrong. I'm a systems guy! I think you reform the system best when you reform it from within!
Just as in the case of election issues, if the only acceptable goal is perfection, you'll never achieve it, and you'll drive yourself batty trying to achieve the unachievable. (Not to mention: your idea of perfection likely will not jive with everyone else's!)
Instead of perfection, I seek improvement. We don't have to dismantle the election system in America to make it better. Indeed, ours is a better, more resilient system than any other in the world! But it still needs improving!
WRT: MoC's raising objections to Electoral College votes: it is not illegal, indeed, not even improper for a MoC to raise an objection to Electoral College delegations. What's rare (virtually unheard of) is doing so to attempt to change the result of the election.
If you read your history, most Presidential elections have had objections raised about one state or another. They are usually objections over some kind of voter suppression or local issue of one kind or another. They seldom have the requisite member of the House and Senate needed to move the objection into a full-on debate, but this isn't a first for that, either.
What happened this time that was a first was that the intent of the objections wasn't so much to highlight some kind of voter suppression or voting irregularity, as to attempt to change the outcome of the election itself!
Still, what has (thus far) NEVER occurred is the successful rejection of a slate of delegates from a state.
-
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
I already pointed out Mad Maxine's disputing the Electoral College votes for GWB, but against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer. She said that she didn't give a damned about the rules, GWB was not going to be President.
Another correction, Maxine objected, as she has a right as a House member to do, knowing that no Senator would co-sponsor her objection. She was making a point.
Because of no co-sponsor, there was no debate on the objection, nor a vote in both chambers, so your characterisation of "against the rules doing it without a Senator co-signer" is nonsense.
The difference between what she did and what the treasonous GOP did is that they raised their objections based on the evidence free claims of fraud, and, because they got senators to co-sponsor there was a debate and vote on the objection where it was, correctly, swatted away for the anti-democracy rabble rousing it was.
It was within the rules, and they're entitled to do it, but they did it with treasonous intent. She didn't.
-
LOL, "Treasonous".
Liberals crack me up.
What about the "treasonous" Democrats that objected to the last 3 Republicans elected President?
2001, 2005 and 2017
-
-
You still sound like a swamp monster.
Very few things can change from within.
The EU is a prime example. Hell, they are so morally corrupt that they are even getting remoaners in the UK to turn on them.
What has the swamp done about Section 230 abuses? Most have ignored it. While some Democrats want more abuses. Only a few Repubs have called for either ending it or reforming it.
Nothing in government changes.
For 30 years, there has been a push to make pet theft a crime in its own right, like livestock theft. But the government refuses to budge from treating it like stealing a plastic spoon.
-
Ok, mister hypocrite.
-
@raphjd
Are you implying that there were no objections when Obama... or Clinton... or Carter were elected?You don't Google very well, do you! As I said earlier: it's harder (since the law was changed post-Civil War) to find an Electoral College count that DIDN'T have a house member object to something... (nearly always without a Senatorial co-sponsor).
Again, the purpose of those objections was never to change the outcome of the election, rather than to draw attention to some perceived grievance - nearly always in their home state. What made things different this time:
- multiple state's electors were challenged
- the intended purpose was to change the result
- the objectors were mostly (though not entirely) from other states
-
Calling me juvenile names doesn't change the facts.
-
@raphjd
Agreed that the National Government changes slowly... but it certainly does change, and the pace of that change has been getting faster and faster. Especially with each ensuing administration since Nixon seemingly expanding the powers of the Presidency (and Congress all too often complicit in the usurpation of powers not provided for in the Constitution!).But I question whether you actually understand what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 really does!
At its core, Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. For God's Sake man, this is a torrenting site! Take away Section 230, and the content producers will shut this baby down faster than you can say howdy!
It's BECAUSE of Section 230 that content owners have to send the site a request to remove copyrighted content, and cannot sue the site owners over the fact that the lion's share of content shared here is copyrighted somewhere else.
(For those who care, a modification to Section 230 that was made in 2018 is the cause for the demise of the Craigslist personals - once a treasure-trove of prostitution, sex trafficking, and a ton of horny guys just looking to get off! -- in other words: a "den of iniquity with some good and some bad actors).
Anyway, without Section 230, the Internet would not even closely resemble what we know it as. Facebook couldn't exist. Nor Twitter (too much risk someone would publish "illegal" content, for which the ISP & website owner could be held legally and civilly liable!) OOOMMMPPPHHHH!
The issue some people have arising from Section 230 is the misguided (well, I think it's misguided) belief that large Internet content providers (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are filtering Conservative viewpoints. They want to tie "free speech" rights to private companies (no-go there, the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government!). Conspiracy theorists and their followers believe there is a concerted effort on the part of these Internet companies to squelch Conservative voices on their platforms. The companies, naturally deny any bias.
Aside: As a Conservative (a non-conspiracy-theory-believing one), I don't see evidence of bias. But I do see extremists on both ends of the spectrum getting better and better at organizing and leveraging social media; and I see these tech companies trying (albeit imperfectly) to avoid being the tool by which these groups cause real harm.
As Parler & IONOS have shown, there is little-to-no barrier to entry for creating competitive platforms to Facebook, Twitter, etc... and there is already large-scale competition in the Google marketplace.
Thus, and in no small part because I like to download porn, I stand strongly in favor of keeping Section 230, if not re-strengthening it!
(That out to light a fire under @raphjd's pants!)
-
I never implied that it didn't happen to Obama. All I did was point out that it's extremely hypocritical to whine about it being done to Biden.
It's also IDIOTIC to call someone treasonous for something that is part of the rules.
Section 230 abuses are rampant.
Clearly, you have no idea what the problems are with 230. You choose whether to be a publisher or a platform. If you are a publisher, then you are responsible for the content on your site. If you are a platform, which social media claims to be, then you are not responsible. Social media acts as both.
If you can find it, Tim Pool was on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey and his top legal person. It's explained quite well. Also, in the Congressional hearing on the topic.
As for Parler and the like, that was big tech collusion. Zuckerberg admitted that they all talk and work together
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login