What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Harvey Weinstein Scandal / The Me Too Movement (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is everything political? First thing anymore is, who did this criminal vote for? Then it goes into "now what does your side have to say about this guy. "
LOL my friend I'm trying. I originally posted this in FFA. Then I thought 'uh oh some will want to make this about his role as a Dem donor' and I didn't want to be impolite by bringing a political topic into the FFA. Then I posted here and I was asked why is this political? I kind of agree, I'm interested in the journalism and entertainment industry issues. So I deleted it. THEN HT posted a politically driven topic on this in the FFA, so I thought it would be best to bring it over here. Help.  :doh:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Weinstein has given $1.4 million in political giving since the early 90s. The Kochs and the Mercers give that much over breakfast. 
Besides this, he isn't known for his political stuff. He's known for being a Titan in the entertainment industry. 

I don't care about this being in this forum but don't really see how it belongs here. 

 
Besides this, he isn't known for his political stuff. He's known for being a Titan in the entertainment industry. 

I don't care about this being in this forum but don't really see how it belongs here. 
Ha, see? I can't do this right. Should I delete it? HT has one in the FFA. I feel bad for even trying this.

 
He's a gigantic financier and influencer within the Democratic party. 

If a story came out about the Kochs like this, it would be fair to call that a political story as well.
What sort of dollar amounts and influence are we talking about with Weinstein?  The Kochs donate hundreds of millions each election cycle, and have input on candidate selection and policy.  Are you saying Weinstein is equivalent to the Kochs, or did you just choose them because they have relatively high name recognition?      

 
Ha, see? I can't do this right. Should I delete it? HT has one in the FFA. I feel bad for even trying this.
Nah, just let it ride. If it dies, it dies. It's a nice interlude from Trump being horrible and Tim's recent race rampage. 

I'm glad we're moving to a place in society where these monsters are being pushed from the shadows. Hopefully society will continue to improve.

 
It’s fine in the politics thread. Because it will be made into a political story whether it really is one or not. 

He's a ####bird. The smart and decent democratic candidates will return his money. But he’s not Ailes. He gave money and threw fundraising parties. He didn’t have any influence on the message the way Ailes did. And certainly not to the extent a few billionaire families influence the GOP agenda. 

 
It's crazy how the liberal media has hid this story.
I don't think it was hidden. I am not sure to the extent it was known in the "liberal media" and to the extent that it was, what they could have reported on without being sued by Weinstein for defamation (he is already threatening lawsuits for what has been reported). And the settlements Weinstein had made for sexual harassment were all out of court and subject to non-disclosure agreements, so those victims could not publically come forward.

 
Trump made it political when he said he wasn't surprised by this story.

On the other hand, he strongly backed Ailes and O'Reilly, two "good men."

Hmmm ... so what's the difference between Weinstein and the other two? 
When Trump was asked what was different between things he'd heard about Weinstein and things he said on the Access Hollywood bus, "that's locker room" and ignored follow-up questions.  

 
When Trump was asked what was different between things he'd heard about Weinstein and things he said on the Access Hollywood bus, "that's locker room" and ignored follow-up questions.  
There's no difference between any of them. Old rich white men who think they can abuse women at their whim and women are there to serve them.

The big difference, of course, is millions of people voted for one of them to be President. 

Sexual Abuser In Chief. 

 
I don't think it was hidden. I am not sure to the extent it was known in the "liberal media" and to the extent that it was, what they could have reported on without being sued by Weinstein for defamation (he is already threatening lawsuits for what has been reported). And the settlements Weinstein had made for sexual harassment were all out of court and subject to non-disclosure agreements, so those victims could not publically come forward.
Reading the links SID included in the OP, it seems they did help cover this up for years as he was ridiculously well connected and extremely powerful. 

 
When Trump was asked what was different between things he'd heard about Weinstein and things he said on the Access Hollywood bus, "that's locker room" and ignored follow-up questions.  
Weinstein seems to admitted to acting a lot of this stuff out and made settlements with many of the women.  Is there evidence of Trump doing the same?  I’m actually curious.

 
Weinstein seems to admitted to acting a lot of this stuff out and made settlements with many of the women.  Is there evidence of Trump doing the same?  I’m actually curious.
I've heard reports that he would walk into the changing rooms at his beauty pageants.  Not sure if it went beyond that level of creepiness though.

I hope Weinstein loses everything.  Sick of how money in this country allows people to get away with abuses.

 
I've heard reports that he would walk into the changing rooms at his beauty pageants.  Not sure if it went beyond that level of creepiness though.

I hope Weinstein loses everything.  Sick of how money in this country allows people to get away with abuses.
When Trump and his supporters want #MAGA what they really want is a return to a time when white men were able to get away with everything, especially when it came to dealing with women and minorities. 

 
I don't think it was hidden. I am not sure to the extent it was known in the "liberal media" and to the extent that it was, what they could have reported on without being sued by Weinstein for defamation (he is already threatening lawsuits for what has been reported). And the settlements Weinstein had made for sexual harassment were all out of court and subject to non-disclosure agreements, so those victims could not publically come forward.
He was trying to be sarcastic, which is rich in irony since the NYT basically killed the story in 2004.

 
It’s fine in the politics thread. Because it will be made into a political story whether it really is one or not. 

He's a ####bird. The smart and decent democratic candidates will return his money. But he’s not Ailes. He gave money and threw fundraising parties. He didn’t have any influence on the message the way Ailes did. And certainly not to the extent a few billionaire families influence the GOP agenda. 
Democrats giving charities money donated by Harvey Weinstein

 
Now imagine the POTUS admitting to sexually assaulting women. 
Well, I think that is the unspoken point of the article. Dems should be able to kill Trump for all of his sexist acts yet this whole Weinstein situation leaves them in a worse position to do so.

 
Trump made it political when he said he wasn't surprised by this story.

On the other hand, he strongly backed Ailes and O'Reilly, two "good men."

Hmmm ... so what's the difference between Weinstein and the other two? 
He's a major Democratic fundraiser?  It's not that surprising is it, just like Obama and Clinton staying mum. 

 
A d-bag is a d-bag regardless of political affiliation.  I liked how Entourage made fun of this clown with a Harvey Weingard character.  

 
The issue here is not directly with the dems but with the Hollywood elite which has turned into the left's cultural storm-troopers...there is a lot of hypocrisy with this story from that world...overall, there is a cluelessness with the left in that they don't understand the more these Hollywood elites yap the more many of the "common-folk" get turned off by their yapping...mock Trump all you want but he fully understands that and that is why he wades into stuff like this and the NFL/Anthem issue...it is  political winner for him... 

 
Just makes you wonder how many of these guys are out there right now, in the mainstream, doing horrible things but folks are too scared of them to do anything about it.

 
The issue here is not directly with the dems but with the Hollywood elite which has turned into the left's cultural storm-troopers...there is a lot of hypocrisy with this story from that world...overall, there is a cluelessness with the left in that they don't understand the more these Hollywood elites yap the more many of the "common-folk" get turned off by their yapping...mock Trump all you want but he fully understands that and that is why he wades into stuff like this and the NFL/Anthem issue...it is  political winner for him... 
There has been pretty much universal outrage from both the "Hollywood elite" and the Dems towards Weinstein. The DNC and many members have directed donations from Weinstein be sent to women's groups.  Meanwhile the same right wing politicians and media who are trying to make this a political issue have not just turned a blind eye to Trump and Ailes but have embraced them fully.  Tell me again who the hypocrites are here?

The real problem with "cluelessness" are the people who don't see that the "common folk" are being manipulated into hating millionaire actors and athletes by billionaire GOP donors- the Adelsons and Mercers and Thiels and NFL owners of the world. It's frustrating because it's painfully obvious to the rest of us.

 
There has been pretty much universal outrage from both the "Hollywood elite" and the Dems towards Weinstein. The DNC and many members have directed donations from Weinstein be sent to women's groups.  Meanwhile the same right wing politicians and media who are trying to make this a political issue have not just turned a blind eye to Trump and Ailes but have embraced them fully.  Tell me again who the hypocrites are here?

The real problem with "cluelessness" are the people who don't see that the "common folk" are being manipulated into hating millionaire actors and athletes by billionaire GOP donors- the Adelsons and Mercers and Thiels and NFL owners of the world. It's frustrating because it's painfully obvious to the rest of us.
:lmao:

Except the two that have and continue to benefit the most.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Continue to benefit?  Two people who are literally barred from running for President by the Constitution and one who would get run out of the party with pitchforks and knives if she tried to do it again?  Nah.

Save your outrage for the President of the United States and the former head of Fox News, both of whom are obvious sexual predators and neither of whom have been held accountable in the slightest by any GOP politicians.  After you've condemned each and every one of them you can double back and explain to us why Dems are responsible for a donor who, as RHE pointed out, isn't even a major donor by GOP standards. Until then the GOP hypocrisy on this is totally absurd to anyone with half a brain.

 
Continue to benefit?  Two people who are literally barred from running for President by the Constitution and one who would get run out of the party with pitchforks and knives if she tried to do it again?  Nah.

Save your outrage for the President of the United States and the former head of Fox News, both of whom are obvious sexual predators and neither of whom have been held accountable in the slightest by any GOP politicians.  After you've condemned each and every one of them you can double back and explain to us why Dems are responsible for a donor who, as RHE pointed out, isn't even a major donor by GOP standards. Until then the GOP hypocrisy on this is totally absurd to anyone with half a brain.
:lmao:   Defending a sexual predator isn't a good look for you.  FYI.  

 
Continue to benefit?  Two people who are literally barred from running for President by the Constitution and one who would get run out of the party with pitchforks and knives if she tried to do it again?  Nah.

Save your outrage for the President of the United States and the former head of Fox News, both of whom are obvious sexual predators and neither of whom have been held accountable in the slightest by any GOP politicians.  After you've condemned each and every one of them you can double back and explain to us why Dems are responsible for a donor who, as RHE pointed out, isn't even a major donor by GOP standards. Until then the GOP hypocrisy on this is totally absurd to anyone with half a brain.
Hillary should have made sure the Weinstein story broke in summer 2016 so she could have added Harvey to the campaign staff without any consequences.

 
:lmao:   Defending a sexual predator isn't a good look for you.  FYI.  
Ah, right. You're one of those.

I'll give you credit, based on your avatar it appears you do seem to have a nice balance going. You spend your weekdays trolling in support of men who sexually assault and harass women, but your weekends cheering on men who just beat the crap out of them.  Which do you find more rewarding?

 
  • Smile
Reactions: rct
:lmao:   Defending a sexual predator isn't a good look for you.  FYI.  
Hopefully someday the GOP will rid themselves of their warts (and they do have them) and replace them with a champion of women like Bill Clinton or a donor like George Soros or a media mogul like David Brock...

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top