I don't know how I feel about this call to return money. My problem is in trying to guess just how much one knew of a donor when money was donated. Is it enough that one has a reputation regardless of how true and accurate of the person the reputation is? Or must one know with certainty that the donor is a Weinstein? If the latter, then the question is, why didn't the recipient of the donation call out the donor when the behavior became known and certified in some way?
Are people supposed to vet every donor? Is it possible that what the candidate represents appeals to the wicked as well as the "good"? This is the same thing we've heard about Trump and racists...that because racists supposedly like Trump, therefore he's actively reaching out for their support. How can I reject that unsubstantiated charge and at the same time insist that all who accepted money from the Weinsteins of the world directly solicited from them?
Also, is it enough that an Al Franken donated the donations of Weinstein? Are we to believe that he did not know about Weinstein's behaviors because he made this gesture, or is it just as likely that he is making it to deflect criticisms for not having spoken out against Weinstein years ago? I'm not ready to apply terms like "honorable" at this stage of the game. Not after hearing so much that suggests Weinstein's behavior was a wide-open "secret".
I think that in the case of Weinstein and some of the others I mentioned, it’s becoming clear that his behavior was known, tolerated, and joked about for years.
As with many things, this is as much about the double standard that so many on the left accept without question. One example of that double standard are the calls from the left regarding campaign donations and the effect it has on candidates while raking in money and favors from some truly vile people.
Ok “honorable” was a little sarcastic. Or at least relative compared to Hillary.
Yeah...Hillary said it's all spent, as if digging deeply in the Clinton's own pockets would make a dent in their empire. It would at least enhance the appearance of giving a flying rat's patoot.
4 comments:
Never thought I’d say anything positive about Al Franken, but at least he was honorable enough to donate his Weinstein money to charity.
I don't know how I feel about this call to return money. My problem is in trying to guess just how much one knew of a donor when money was donated. Is it enough that one has a reputation regardless of how true and accurate of the person the reputation is? Or must one know with certainty that the donor is a Weinstein? If the latter, then the question is, why didn't the recipient of the donation call out the donor when the behavior became known and certified in some way?
Are people supposed to vet every donor? Is it possible that what the candidate represents appeals to the wicked as well as the "good"? This is the same thing we've heard about Trump and racists...that because racists supposedly like Trump, therefore he's actively reaching out for their support. How can I reject that unsubstantiated charge and at the same time insist that all who accepted money from the Weinsteins of the world directly solicited from them?
Also, is it enough that an Al Franken donated the donations of Weinstein? Are we to believe that he did not know about Weinstein's behaviors because he made this gesture, or is it just as likely that he is making it to deflect criticisms for not having spoken out against Weinstein years ago? I'm not ready to apply terms like "honorable" at this stage of the game. Not after hearing so much that suggests Weinstein's behavior was a wide-open "secret".
I think that in the case of Weinstein and some of the others I mentioned, it’s becoming clear that his behavior was known, tolerated, and joked about for years.
As with many things, this is as much about the double standard that so many on the left accept without question.
One example of that double standard are the calls from the left regarding campaign donations and the effect it has on candidates while raking in money and favors from some truly vile people.
Ok “honorable” was a little sarcastic. Or at least relative compared to Hillary.
Yeah...Hillary said it's all spent, as if digging deeply in the Clinton's own pockets would make a dent in their empire. It would at least enhance the appearance of giving a flying rat's patoot.
Post a Comment