General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."
In previous national elections, the accusation of sexual abuse would have been sufficient to eliminate any candidate. I am still trying to rationalize how, even with a very clear admission of sexually abusing women, Trump was given a pass. The same is true for racism, bigotry, white supremacy, etc.
Jerry, #45's election to the presidency and his continued support by the base illustrate the Right's spiriling descent into a viper pit of hypocrisy and cynicism. The Right was once the supposed "Christian Values Party," but it will never be associated with either "Christianity" nor "Values," since they traded both for power by supporting the most degenerate and incompetent president we've ever had defile the Oval Office.
And yes, I know what Bill Clinton did was shameful and disgusting, but #45 surpasses Clinton's disgrace by 10 fold. Clinton was competent and knew policy and the Constitution, unlike #45, who is, by Tillerson's estimation, an "effing moron!"
Conserrvatives call HOllywood a place of hypocrisy? What do they call themselves for voting for a sexual predator just like Weinstein? Christian value voters?
The Christian Right never liked HollyWeird and perverts like Weinstein. But they love the pervert they put in the WH. See, it depends on WHOSE pervert is being exposed. If it's their pervert, they're all in for him.
For years we stated the mantra that an employee can never, never consent to sex with a superior and it not be harassment. The employer it was said, was always in a position of power towards the employee. In effect, the left posited the idea that there was no such thing as a consensual relationship when it involved an employee/employer relationship.
Until that is President Bill Clinton, ironically in the ultimate power position, engaged in his relationship with Monica.
Why, the right correctly asked, was the left not out front charging sexual harassment? Why had the left suddenly decided to jettison it's views, long held, that any relationship of this type was harassment?
And all we heard from the left was... crickets. Silence. It was horrible.
And why the silence from people who just a few weeks earlier had seemed rock solid in their views on this type of behavior? Because the President was a progressive, a leftist, a Dem.
We did not cause Harvey to be a lout. Trump is a man as deviant as he seems. Yet for the left to hammer these men, and dismiss Pres Clinton, who irreparably harmed the left with his actions, is just as hypocritical as the GOP and right are.
And every time HRC opens her mouth on this subject, it just gets worse for the Dems.
Dave, not all the left gave Clinton a pass. I was somewhat active in Democratic politics in Florida at that time, and I remember the revulsion and anger we all felt, as well as the betrayal. What he did was indefensible.
Americans, however, often give a pass to presidents once they're out of office, see Nixon and GWBush. After a while, the American people forgave their misdeeds in office. Despite Clinton's rotten behavior while in office, he had high approval ratings with the American people.
That may be because although in his personal life he was a sexual predator, but as a president, he was a wonk when it came to policy. Clinton was very smart. Maybe that's why Americans continued to support him.
There's hypocrisy on both sides here. The Democrats who did not condemn Clinton and who condemn Weinstein and Trump. The Republicans who condemned Clinton, but elected a known sexual predator and adulterer who bragged about his sexual conquests of married women while he was married.
It's pretty depressing all around. I can guarantee you this: No woman in American politics could EVER get away with what Clinton or Trump did, but Americans don't see this as a problem when men behave like alley cats. And THAT'S the problem. Behavior Americans would never accept from a woman is accepted in men. Why?
This week's Nation has an excellent column on a major culprit in this debacle, Hugh Hefner.
He passed without much fanfare just recently and little was said of his rol in objectifying women and turning them into objects for the likes of Ailes and Weinstein.
Maybe this is the time when the Hollywood culture takes strides forward and stops tolerating these vultures.
Ducky, If you're an Amazon Prime member, you can catch their series on Hefner. It's not only a history lesson on American culture from the '50s through to present day, but it illustrates that it's what I would say is in a majority of men's DNA and that is to objectify women's bodies and then justify it. Hefner was a progressive who supported the Civil Rights movement, women's right to birth control and abortion, but at the same time he constantly justified making women objects while claiming he respected them.
Would a female stud magazine mogul, who also owned restaurant/clubs, be believed if she dressed men waiters in tom cat costumes, emphasizing their junk, -- would everyone believe she "respected" men?
As for the conservatives who say "it's just the way it is," well, they and Hefner are of the same mentality.
It is hard for me to make a distinction between Weinstein and tRump, who a minority of Americans continue to adore. This speaks volumes about the right wing values voter.
Ray Cranston: Conserrvatives call HOllywood a place of hypocrisy? What do they call themselves for voting for a sexual predator just like Weinstein?
There's a saying about that kind of thing -- something about motes and beams and eyes. I think it's in that book they wave around when they scream at people they disapprove of.
12 comments:
In previous national elections, the accusation of sexual abuse would have been sufficient to eliminate any candidate. I am still trying to rationalize how, even with a very clear admission of sexually abusing women, Trump was given a pass. The same is true for racism, bigotry, white supremacy, etc.
I’m flabbergasted!
Jerry, #45's election to the presidency and his continued support by the base illustrate the Right's spiriling descent into a viper pit of hypocrisy and cynicism. The Right was once the supposed "Christian Values Party," but it will never be associated with either "Christianity" nor "Values," since they traded both for power by supporting the most degenerate and incompetent president we've ever had defile the Oval Office.
And yes, I know what Bill Clinton did was shameful and disgusting, but #45 surpasses Clinton's disgrace by 10 fold. Clinton was competent and knew policy and the Constitution, unlike #45, who is, by Tillerson's estimation, an "effing moron!"
The would be Emporer Has No Clothes.
Yet 30 something percent are blind. Willfully so.
Conserrvatives call HOllywood a place of hypocrisy? What do they call themselves for voting for a sexual predator just like Weinstein? Christian value voters?
The Christian Right never liked HollyWeird and perverts like Weinstein. But they love the pervert they put in the WH. See, it depends on WHOSE pervert is being exposed. If it's their pervert, they're all in for him.
Sadly, the left is not without our own hypocrisy.
For years we stated the mantra that an employee can never, never consent to sex with a superior and it not be harassment. The employer it was said, was always in a position of power towards the employee. In effect, the left posited the idea that there was no such thing as a consensual relationship when it involved an employee/employer relationship.
Until that is President Bill Clinton, ironically in the ultimate power position, engaged in his relationship with Monica.
Why, the right correctly asked, was the left not out front charging sexual harassment? Why had the left suddenly decided to jettison it's views, long held, that any relationship of this type was harassment?
And all we heard from the left was... crickets. Silence. It was horrible.
And why the silence from people who just a few weeks earlier had seemed rock solid in their views on this type of behavior? Because the President was a progressive, a leftist, a Dem.
We did not cause Harvey to be a lout. Trump is a man as deviant as he seems. Yet for the left to hammer these men, and dismiss Pres Clinton, who irreparably harmed the left with his actions, is just as hypocritical as the GOP and right are.
And every time HRC opens her mouth on this subject, it just gets worse for the Dems.
What a freakin' mess...
Dave, not all the left gave Clinton a pass. I was somewhat active in Democratic politics in Florida at that time, and I remember the revulsion and anger we all felt, as well as the betrayal. What he did was indefensible.
Americans, however, often give a pass to presidents once they're out of office, see Nixon and GWBush. After a while, the American people forgave their misdeeds in office. Despite Clinton's rotten behavior while in office, he had high approval ratings with the American people.
That may be because although in his personal life he was a sexual predator, but as a president, he was a wonk when it came to policy. Clinton was very smart. Maybe that's why Americans continued to support him.
There's hypocrisy on both sides here. The Democrats who did not condemn Clinton and who condemn Weinstein and Trump. The Republicans who condemned Clinton, but elected a known sexual predator and adulterer who bragged about his sexual conquests of married women while he was married.
It's pretty depressing all around. I can guarantee you this: No woman in American politics could EVER get away with what Clinton or Trump did, but Americans don't see this as a problem when men behave like alley cats. And THAT'S the problem. Behavior Americans would never accept from a woman is accepted in men. Why?
This week's Nation has an excellent column on a major culprit in this debacle, Hugh Hefner.
He passed without much fanfare just recently and little was said of his rol in objectifying women and turning them into objects for the likes of Ailes and Weinstein.
Maybe this is the time when the Hollywood culture takes strides forward and stops tolerating these vultures.
Checking in at the mothership, today's post reminds us that we should just ignore l'affaire Weinstein.
It's just the way things are.
Ducky, If you're an Amazon Prime member, you can catch their series on Hefner. It's not only a history lesson on American culture from the '50s through to present day, but it illustrates that it's what I would say is in a majority of men's DNA and that is to objectify women's bodies and then justify it. Hefner was a progressive who supported the Civil Rights movement, women's right to birth control and abortion, but at the same time he constantly justified making women objects while claiming he respected them.
Would a female stud magazine mogul, who also owned restaurant/clubs, be believed if she dressed men waiters in tom cat costumes, emphasizing their junk, -- would everyone believe she "respected" men?
As for the conservatives who say "it's just the way it is," well, they and Hefner are of the same mentality.
It is hard for me to make a distinction between Weinstein and tRump, who a minority of Americans continue to adore. This speaks volumes about the right wing values voter.
Ray Cranston: Conserrvatives call HOllywood a place of hypocrisy? What do they call themselves for voting for a sexual predator just like Weinstein?
There's a saying about that kind of thing -- something about motes and beams and eyes. I think it's in that book they wave around when they scream at people they disapprove of.
Post a Comment