Donald Trump makes con comment about some sort of sexual contact that might or might not have actually happened, and pretty much the entire country reacts negatively.
Then we find out that Harvey Weinstein has been engaged in a pattern of sexual assault/sexual harassment/ inappropriate sexual contact for years and, we get a lot of excuses. Oh, did I mention that this guy is a major financial contribute to various Democrat presidential candidates? Raised and bundled donations for Obama, Clinton, and lord knows who else. Where are the cries for the candidates to return the donations? The calls for him to uninvolve himself in political fundraising?
We've seen a recent spate of democrat office holders having to resign for various sexual improprieties, Anthony Wiener and his well documented problems, Jeffry Epstein and his history of pedophilia being intimately involved with the Clintons and others.
It just seems a bit strange at the disproportionate response depending on which side of the aisle and how involved in Hollywood they are.
33 comments:
Is it a double standard, or is it because no one expects much out of the other side?
I think it a little of both. We certainly expect the other side to behave worse than we do. But in these cases, if these folks had been Trump supporters or Republicans, the left would be calling for all sorts of action, demanding the return of funds raised for starters. They would also be trying to broad brush this across as wide a swath as possible.
We wouldn’t hear that these individuals are responsible for their actions, we’d hear that the GOP suppoorts and harbors racists.
The Epstein story has been out there for years, and it’s hardly been covered in the msm. You’d think that pedophilia would get folks more worked up, than some possible grabbing.
I also think it’s because they’re not in government. But, I think you can argue that donors and bundlers are a part of the political process and that Hollywood might have more influence on culture than DC.
I think the difference between us and the Clintons is that we’re nit so blinded by greed and a lust for power that we would associate with these sorts of vile humans. We wouldn’t let s rich pedophile seduce us with free rides on the private jet.
So, okay, you pointed this out early in the story's life. Now that Dems and liberals are pretty universally condemning the man for his piggish and perverse (or, as some might call it, Trumpish) behavior, will you note that, Yes, the Dems ARE being consistent to their values?
Really, I haven’t heard much outcry. Certainly no calls for severing financial ties with these slime. You gonna stay quiet next presidential election when they start funneling cash to your candidates? Did you call out the Clintons for their ties to Epstein?
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Perhaps maybe read the news.
Weinstein fired. Progressives, feminists and Dems condemning this man.
And hell, he wasn't even running for president.
If only the conservatives stood up against Trump in these sorts of numbers.
Now, if you want to compare apples and apples, let's run Weinstein for president and see if he gets anything like a majority of liberal/feminist/Dem votes.
Here's a news flash for you: He wouldn't.
Only the GOP, conservatives and the Evangelical church, writ large, is willing to actively support a pervert like Trump or Weinstein.
Perhaps, if I repeat myself enough. Where are the calls for Dema to return the money he raised? Where is the criticism related to Epstein? Maybe I’ve missed this alleged loud condemnation, all ive heard is excuses. I’m not saying it isn’t there, just that it’s more muted.
It’s a bit hard to take your claims seriously when you make idiotic broad brush statements like”Only the GOP...”.
But that just kind of makes the point of the post. You are making more noise about one statement that you can’t actually demonstrate represents an actual action, than about a years long pattern of actual behavior.
I have to note that you haven’t condemned Weinstein’s actions, the DFL candidates who took money from him, or acknowledged the Clinton/Epstein friendship and how problematic friendship with a pedophile might be.
But yes, let’s compare the hue and cry of the early days of the Trump comment versus the revelation of Weinstein’s pattern of actions.
I would say it's a safe bet to say that Repubs in general are equally outraged by sexual improprieties by their own as they are by Dems. I've never seen the same with regard to Dem response to those of their own. For example, though he was eventually censured, Gary Studds was not initially compelled by his party to step down after his homosexual affair with a 17 yr old page. Trump's lechery was widely criticized by his own party and held as a reason to oppose him in the primaries. The people saw things differently and thus came the choice between him and a far worse choice in Hillary, who Dan hasn't the integrity to admit had proven herself unfit for the presidency.
But now that he's president, I've heard absolutely nothing about Trump stepping out or anything like it. He, at this point, seems every bit the devoted family man Obama is held up as being. Bill Clinton had many affairs and accusations under his belt by this point in his presidency...most of them quite public...and all of it dismissed by the left as inconsequential with regard to his fitness and ability to lead.
Indeed, the left in general, and Dan specifically, says very little about the indiscretions and shortcomings of leftist politicians (since he supports much of their immoral and damaging proposals and policies), and hypes up those of Republicans. This is currently evident in Dan's post regarding 60,000 mental health "professionals" opinion of Trump's fitness, wherein his narcissism, ego and self-promotion is somehow worse than that of either Clinton or Obama simply because he displays it without filter...a filter meant to distort for the benefit of maintaining support.
Craig...
I have to note that you haven’t condemned Weinstein’s actions
Dan
Now that Dems and liberals are pretty universally
CONDEMNING THE MAN
FOR HIS PIGGISH AND PERVERSE
(or, as some might call it, Trumpish) behavior...
[Only the GOP...] is willing to actively support a pervert like Trump or Weinstein.
I've just called the man piggish and perverse. Hell, I've compared him to the utterly depraved pervert, Trump.
To you, this is not "condemning his actions..."???
Again, it seems you have a reading comprehension problem. In the real world, when a man who has committed sexual assaults and harassments is being criticized as "piggish, perverse and Trumpian," that IS a criticism.
Now you know.
You're welcome.
There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
Dan specifically, says very little about the indiscretions and shortcomings of leftist politicians (since he supports much of their immoral and damaging proposals and policies), and hypes up those of Republicans.
See my repeated condemnations of the Clintons I just listed. I called for B Clinton to step down following his "indiscretion." I have not talked much at all about politicians other than presidents and I have strongly criticized the Clintons, along with Reagan/Bush/Bush and now, Merv the Perv.
That Obama was, in comparison, SO VERY clean, so VERY moral, so VERY much better than all these others is not my fault. It's the fault of these politicians. Again, I'd point to the scandal sheets of these administrations. I'd point to the arrest records for these administrations.
The Reagan/Bush/Bush scandal and arrest records, along with the Clintons (to a lesser degree) shows a very real problem with these last Republicans. And don't even get started on the Pervert in Chief, the Head Stupid Liar of our nation. With all the scandals and crimes of these previous administrations, Trump is clearly going to out do them on that front, and probably in the first year of his shipwreck of anti-American/anti-Christian "leadership."
I had many problems with Obama and talked about some of them. It's just, by comparison to these others, the man is a saint.
That's a problem with these leaders, not with my "saying very little..."
30 years, Weinstein got away with this and wined, din d, bundled for, and raised millions for every democratic presidential candidate to come down the pike. How can those who took the millions not be tainted by this?
The only problem with you saying very little, is your insistence that others denounce everything you perceive as a peccadillo. It’s just one more instance of you having one standard for others and another for yourself.
One more time, for the slow-to-understand section:
Weinstein is a TV flunkee.
Trump is the president of the US (no matter how perverted or idiotic or mentally ill or corrupt he is).
I don't generally talk about the moral failings of conservative TV producers because, who cares?
And yes, both GOP/conservatives and Dems/liberals have had leaders with varying degrees of peccadilloes (although the record shows it's way skewed in favor of conservative types doing the pecadilling) and I don't generally talk about State Representative Joe Conservative or Ralph Liberal because, well, I have a life. BUT, as I've oft noted: IF Trump or another equally perverse and corrupt idiot were running as the Dem candidate for president, we would be calling him down vociferously.
The problem is: Conservatives did not stand up to Trump in sufficient numbers.
That's on y'all.
Some of the hard data on the numbers regarding sex scandals...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-weiner-photos-scandal-which-party-has-the-most-sex-scandals
and...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/04/10/how-republican-and-democratic-sex-scandals-differ/?utm_term=.a95a655e3fe8
I'll note that, to the best of my recollection, I have rarely commented on any average non-presidential dalliance or harassment. So, clearly Weiner is wrong for his stupidity. Of course. But of course, I would say that because I am consistently opposed to any sort of sexual harassment or abuse. As you can tell by my calls for Clinton to resign when he had sex with a consenting adult... because the balance of power was ugly and, to my tastes, abusive.
And yes, of course, I am opposed to all the perverts and deviants and racists who supported Trump financially (or otherwise) and any who may have supported Dems financially (or otherwise). Would that the GOP and conservatives were consistently calling for Trump to return the money of all the racists, bigots and perverts that were sending money his way. And would that the Dems did the same (as they are doing in the Weinstein case).
You have clearly chosen to respond to my last as if I said something else, even after copy/pasting my words. I referred to the clear disparity in tone between how you respond to presidential lechery. Indeed, it would be equal treatment to simply refer to both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as lechers. But I don't recall anything near the level of drooling hatred and vitriol directed toward Clinton as you so routinely puke out like Linda Blair toward Trump.
And this is the general thrust (no pun intended) of my premise regarding the difference between how those from each side of the political divide respond to the bad behaviors of their own. This is due in part to the immorally high regard the left, like you as well, have for sexual immorality.
As to your other comments attempting to paint the GOP as guilty of more than the left, that's a matter of subjective accounting.
There is a overflowing toilet's worth of difference between Trump's abuses and Clinton's philandering. I treated each accordingly.
B Clinton, according to the data, engaged in consensual affairs between adults. Trump assaulted and harassed and maligns women as par for the course.
Now, there are unsubstantiated allegations of more criminal abuses against both Clinton and Trump (Trump raping women and girls, Clinton raping and assaulting women). I am treating those both warily, as they are unsubstantiated. The difference there is that Trump has an established self-testimony of being abusive and perverted, whereas Clinton appears slimy as hell and engaging in sex with a 21 year old is too abusive of the office for my tastes, but still, it was nominally consensual.
Still, I'm not calling for Trump to be arrested and imprisoned for these allegations of child rape, any more than I'm calling for Clinton to be arrested. Due process and all that.
But I DID call for Clinton to step down because of the acknowledged affair and abuse of power and I think Trump should step down for his repeated acknowledged abuses of power and just general perversion.
I'm consistent that way.
You're lying again. Trump has not admitted to that which you need to believe he did. You Trump haters are all alike. The guy's legitimate shortcomings aren't good enough for you. You insist on over-hyping that which doesn't affirm your hatred.
As to the data, you forget all the women who have accused him of assaults that were in no way consensual.
In what way has Trump abused his power as president? What perversion is he even hinted at having indulged while in office, or even while married to his current wife? Clinton did most of his philandering while in office at one level or another.
The pervert is you, Dan. You're a pervert for being fixated on an 11 yr old interview and other public displays of sophomoric behavior (Howard Stern's show, for example), but no solid proof of any allegations against him.
My point stands regarding the disparity in tone. Your sentiments toward leftists seem to be token gestures by comparison to your hatred toward Trump.
Actually Dan, you said “dems and liberals” are condemning Weinstein you didn’t actually condemn him. You just gave the impression that you did.
Weinstein is not a “TV flunky”, quite the opposite. He’s a rich and powerful liberal who has huge influence in the political process due to the massive amounts of money he raises and bundles, and massive amounts of cultural influence due to the movies he chooses to produce. As I pointed out earlier Weinstein and his ilk probably have more power and influence than Trump.
How many women have accused Trump of tape? Even in the aftermath of the tape, how many came forward? Where is the actual evidence that Trump ever did more than talk about “grabbing”, where is the evidence that he continues to “assault, harass, or malign” women? Where is the evidence that Trump engaged in “child rape”?
FYI, I’ve posted the language of the Statute before, but you choose to pretend otherwise, Clinton’s affair with Lewinsly fits the legal definition of sexual harassment to a t. Meanwhile the Clintons hang around with, accept favors and donations from, and protect an actual child sexual abuser and you can’t be bothered to write comment on the people your candidates surround themselves with, you only hold Trump to that level of scrutiny.
Dan,
In an effort to correct the false impression you’ve chosen to give at your blog, I’ll post this here.
1. I found nothing on Snopes that contradicts or even addresses the multiple claims in the Slate piece. I guess that as long as snopes has something, you can put your head back in the sand.
2. If your going to arbitrarily delete my comments explaining why I’ve got higher priorities than digging through every comment you’ve made about Hillary, at least don’t lie about it.
3. You’ve made multiple claims in this thread, if you can’t support them, I’ll simply apply your version of grace to you.
This is a comment I just posted at Dan's. I wanted to get it here before he deletes it over there.
"Like her or not, she is the only qualified and serious candidate in this election."
4 · July 5, 2016 at 8:43pm
"Clinton, for her part, is at least smart and qualified,"
July 6, 2016
"Of the two, there is no choice," (referring to Clinton and Trump
July 6, 2016
That all sounds pretty supportive to me. But, please bring on the semantic arguments and excuses. OH, I'd argue that voting for her could be construed as pretty supportive of her.
I could waste more time looking for stuff, but I have a job to find and other more valuable things to do, than continue to pander to your graceless impatience.
In fairness I’m starting to hear about liberal politicians returning contributions from Weinstein. Hillary also managed to finally come up with a short statement. If only she’d have been so solicitous of Bill’s accusers.
Dan,
I'll have to ask, because slogging through more months of your blog and social media posts doesn't excite me.
Were you this quiescent and silent when Roger Ailes and Bill OReilly were accused of similar things?
That's a good point in your comments you tried to post at Dan's. He now looks at my vote for Trump as support for him personally and all his lechery, while engaging in the same "lesser of two evils" argument to defend his voting for her. While that's crap, and she was clearly NOT the lesser, it's typical of Dan to engage in the routine double-standard behavior.
Michelle O, described Harvey as a “wonderful human being” and “very good friend”, not the kind of friend I’d want my daughters around.
In my search of Dan’s comments he actually says that, while at the same talking about how qualified she is. Double standard indeed.
Were you this quiescent and silent when Roger Ailes and Bill OReilly were accused of similar things?
I did not mention those two at all, not to my recollection. As noted, I don't generally talk in my blog that much about non-presidential characters and their problems, and especially not TV/media flunkees.
In fairness I’m starting to hear about liberal politicians returning contributions from Weinstein.
Yes, you are correct.
From a couple of sources, it seems that Weinstein's behavior was widely known, to the point I'd say of being a given and taken for granted...indeed, even while accepting money. Both entertainers and politicians alike considered their careers while pretending what they knew to be very likely, if not absolutely true. I'd like to believe were I in similar situations, I would have the spine to take the risk that a jerk like him would ruin my chances at success.
But now, all these people returning money believe doing so is fooling anyone about what they knew or strongly suspected. Well, the lefties will pretend to buy it.
So yes you were this silent. It’s interesting that you seem to be choosing to minimize to power inherent in these media figures, I’m not suggesting it’s healthy for these guys to have so much influence but they do.
To minimize Weinstein and Ailes as being TV/flunkies is just being ridiculous. I will say that I’m impressed that you are consistent in this one area.
Yes, I am. It took quite a while, but it’s gotten so bad that there’s not much choice.
Not only silence from the “He’s a wonderful human being” camp, but they actually exposed their daughter to working for this degenerate.
I know you had to be snarky, but the reality is that from the time I wrote the post until now, the situation has changed. I acknowledged that fact. It’s called being fair and responsible.
It’s interesting that you seem to be choosing to minimize to power inherent in these media figures, I’m not suggesting it’s healthy for these guys to have so much influence but they do.
You misunderstand. That I don't rail about every abuse of power and wealth in every case is not an indication that I'm minimizing anything. Rather, it's an indication that I can't possibly write about all the abuses of power and wealth.
Which is why I think the Truths in Jesus' teachings about the dangers inherent in wealth are important. They point to a real concern with wealth - whoever holds it - that we ought to be wary of. After all, is it not the rich who abuse you? Who take you to court?
Of course, many conservatives don't like it when I quote that verse or others like it. However, as I said, I can't possibly write about every case of abuse of wealth and power. Thus, the usefulness for dealing with the root of all sorts of evil.
Your continued use of the term “flunkies” as if to minimize the power and influence (moral, societal, and political) these people wield is what I’m talking about.
The fact that your railings against wealth never get specific to those you agree with politically is just one more double standard.
Dan,
Conservatives don't like how you abuse those verses. If you didn't do that, it wouldn't be an issue.
What conservatives don’t like about your harping on those statements.
1. Your inability to acknowledge or deal with conservative individuals as individuals rather than lazily lumping us together as some sort of monolithic group.
2. Your insistence in taking individual verses out of context and forming a theology based on wooden, literal, biased, proof texting.
3. You treating these proof texts as if they are de facto commandments, while denying the existence of commandments.
So, you’d be wrong about that.
Post a Comment