|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2018 18:55:12 GMT -5
You can call Wynn non-partisan if you want (using your unthinking partisanship), but he just resigned from his RNC fundraising position. Another member of the GOPPPP. No, I used opensecrets.org which tracks political donations and shows Wynn has donated almost as much to Democrats. That’s open secrets.org, not my unthinking partisanship. Baio’s case is reminuscent of Aziz Ansari’s. It’s a single accuser, the claims didn’t surface until 15 years later, and he claims they had a consensual relationship in the 1990s when Eggert was in her 20s.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 28, 2018 20:43:23 GMT -5
You might want to check her story, RJ. She says it started when she was 14. Scott Baio -- card carrying member of the GOPPPP.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2018 20:45:18 GMT -5
You might want to check her story, RJ. She says it started when she was 14. Scott Baio -- card carrying member of the GOPPPP. And he says nothing happened until she was 18. It’s inconcievable to you that maybe Eggert is lying, isn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 28, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
As unconcievable as it is to you that Baio is lying, isn't it? That's your continued unthinking partisanship -- anyone with an R behind the name can do no wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -5
As unconcievable as it is to you that Baio is lying, isn't it? That's your continued unthinking partisanship -- anyone with an R behind the name can do no wrong. I have no idea who is lying, but it is on Eggert to prove this happened, not Baio (or anyone else) to prove a negative. They apparently did have some sort of relationship years after the alleged abuse, which isn’t really consistent with the abuse claim.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Jan 28, 2018 21:22:28 GMT -5
What happened to Steve Wynn, RJ? Forget him? Or just trying to forget him? GOPPPP. Steve Wynn, like most wealthy people, donates to both parties: www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Steve+wynnIncluding $20,000 to the DCCC. His largest single donation. I did think about listing him as another left-wing predator, but given his non-partisan donation history that seemed a bit unfair. Same reason I didn’t list Larry Nassar, in spite of his likely being a hard core leftist working at a state university and all. I just didn’t have the proof. Making this a partisan issue will lead to false claims. The headline: "The candidate denies having sex with puppies," is sufficient to put the thought in voters' minds. Remember, there is no penalty for making a false accusation on Twitter. Public figures have extremely limited protection against libel and slander. ( Hustler magazine proved that.) Donating to a political party is not evidence of support. Many donations are made in the interest of self-defense. I'd take Wynn's official work for the Republicans as valid proof of his party affiliation. We need to keep the discussion on abuse of power. We need to define what a "reasonable person" considers appropriate courting behavior-- and what a "reasonable person" defines as predation. That's going to be difficult enough, without inserting politics into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 28, 2018 21:55:27 GMT -5
Steve Wynn, like most wealthy people, donates to both parties: www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Steve+wynnIncluding $20,000 to the DCCC. His largest single donation. I did think about listing him as another left-wing predator, but given his non-partisan donation history that seemed a bit unfair. Same reason I didn’t list Larry Nassar, in spite of his likely being a hard core leftist working at a state university and all. I just didn’t have the proof. Making this a partisan issue will lead to false claims. The headline: "The candidate denies having sex with puppies," is sufficient to put the thought in voters' minds. Remember, there is no penalty for making a false accusation on Twitter. Public figures have extremely limited protection against libel and slander. ( Hustler magazine proved that.) Donating to a political party is not evidence of support. Many donations are made in the interest of self-defense. I'd take Wynn's official work for the Republicans as valid proof of his party affiliation. We need to keep the discussion on abuse of power. We need to define what a "reasonable person" considers appropriate courting behavior-- and what a "reasonable person" defines as predation. That's going to be difficult enough, without inserting politics into the mix. Your case would be a lot stronger if Wynn’s donation to the DCCC hadn’t been $20,000. He has provided significant support to BOTH parties, he’s not a partisan.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 28, 2018 22:12:55 GMT -5
You can call Wynn non-partisan if you want (using your unthinking partisanship), but he just resigned from his RNC fundraising position. Another member of the GOPPPP. And don't forget Scott Baio. Another card-carrying member of the GOPPPP. He also denies the charges. I say, follow the money. How much is the DNC paying these women to make their charges? Or Gloria Allred's daughter?
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Jan 28, 2018 22:48:25 GMT -5
RJ, he had an official position with the Pubs. And 20 grand is chump change when you're in a highly regulated business at that level. Remember, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." That goes, not double, but something close to infinity when it comes to the power to regulate.
That said, men of wealth and power considering access to female flesh as just another perk, like riding in limousines, getting good tables at restaurants, et al, is a serious social issue that will have to be solved OUTSIDE of the political sphere. Remember, politicians do not create change. They see what people are already doing, then pass laws so they can thump their chests and holler: "I DID THIS FOR YOU!"
(Examples: removing restrictions on married couples using birth control, seat belt laws, prosecuting drunk drivers, enforcing water-pollution laws that had been on the books since the 19th century, smoke-free offices... the list is long. Even getting rid of Jim Crow laws was the work of the PEOPLE, not the politicians.)
This is NOT an American left/right issue... except in the way the left has been insisting there's no difference between males and females, and supporting feminism. They get the hypocrite badge when it comes to exploiting female underlings, but the right's "family values" folks are all about abstinence or "holy" monogamy, so they can't get a pass, either.
We are in uncharted territory, here. Never before in history have women been able to run their own lives without biological determinism. (Thank you, men, for inventing birth control methods that are nearly perfect. Thank you, men, for inventing the washing machine, the vacuum cleaner, the dishwasher--the hot water heater!--that turned housework into a part-time job.) This isn't something that can be solved by pulling a lever in a voting booth. And, frankly, like all social change, it's too important to leave in the hands of ANY political party.
Besides, I'm pretty sure a "reasonable man" (left or right) can see the difference between courting/seduction and "Suck my cock, baby, or you'll lose your job." They will, however, need to discuss that first thing with "reasonable women". (Hopefully, while all parties are sober. ;D )
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Jan 28, 2018 23:11:13 GMT -5
You can call Wynn non-partisan if you want (using your unthinking partisanship), but he just resigned from his RNC fundraising position. Another member of the GOPPPP. And don't forget Scott Baio. Another card-carrying member of the GOPPPP. He also denies the charges. I say, follow the money. How much is the DNC paying these women to make their charges? Or Gloria Allred's daughter? Geeze, redleg. It doesn't take the DNC to show people how to get their names into the headlines. How about we have a discussion, instead, about why over-the-hill actors still get leading man roles, whilst the Baywatch girls... not so much? How about how so many television shows now feature lesbian sex-- to the point it's starting to look obligatory? Me, I think it's because guys still enjoy a little girl-on-girl porn. (Disclaimer: I am female. I find the "girl-on-girl" stuff icky. The "boy-on-boy" stuff not so much-- it's definitely watchable, certainly not icky... well, until you get to Maplethorpe's photo of a guy urinating into another guy's mouth. I don't understand why anyone, gay or straight, male or female, would find that erotic. Maybe that's just me. I watched Fifty Shades of Grayand thought, "Man, if he was a plumber earning fifty grand a year, she wouldn't be putting up with any of that.") NB: I do think the Fifty Shades reference is pertinent to this whole discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 29, 2018 9:41:53 GMT -5
RJ, he had an official position with the Pubs. And 20 grand is chump change when you're in a highly regulated business at that level. Remember, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." That goes, not double, but something close to infinity when it comes to the power to regulate. That said, men of wealth and power considering access to female flesh as just another perk, like riding in limousines, getting good tables at restaurants, et al, is a serious social issue that will have to be solved OUTSIDE of the political sphere. Remember, politicians do not create change. They see what people are already doing, then pass laws so they can thump their chests and holler: "I DID THIS FOR YOU!" (Examples: removing restrictions on married couples using birth control, seat belt laws, prosecuting drunk drivers, enforcing water-pollution laws that had been on the books since the 19th century, smoke-free offices... the list is long. Even getting rid of Jim Crow laws was the work of the PEOPLE, not the politicians.) This is NOT an American left/right issue... except in the way the left has been insisting there's no difference between males and females, and supporting feminism. They get the hypocrite badge when it comes to exploiting female underlings, but the right's "family values" folks are all about abstinence or "holy" monogamy, so they can't get a pass, either. We are in uncharted territory, here. Never before in history have women been able to run their own lives without biological determinism. (Thank you, men, for inventing birth control methods that are nearly perfect. Thank you, men, for inventing the washing machine, the vacuum cleaner, the dishwasher-- the hot water heater!--that turned housework into a part-time job.) This isn't something that can be solved by pulling a lever in a voting booth. And, frankly, like all social change, it's too important to leave in the hands of ANY political party. Besides, I'm pretty sure a "reasonable man" (left or right) can see the difference between courting/seduction and "Suck my cock, baby, or you'll lose your job." They will, however, need to discuss that first thing with "reasonable women". (Hopefully, while all parties are sober. ;D ) Kemmer, Wynn’s $20,000 to the DCCC was the largest single political donation he has ever made. He also dontated $1,000 to the Dem’s National Leadership PAC. His financial support to the GOP, across several candidates was mostly in the $2-3,000 range. If you want to know what a man really believes, don’t look at what he says or does, look at where he spends his money. While he somewhat favors the GOP, his politics are clearly more ambiguous. To some extent we have this with Trump as well. Up until 2 years ago, he spent his money all over the political spectrum, including the Clintons, Harry Reid, Torricelli, and Bob Menendez. Yes, he’s currently the Republican in the White House. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, the time frame most of the accusations against him originate, he was giving multiple $10,000 donations to the DSCC. Neither of these two fit neatly into a specific spot on the political spectrum. Again, this is the same reason I declined to put Larry Nassar up. Nassar was employed by Michigan State University, a typical leftist-dominated state university. Nasser’s personal politics are unknown, but in order to get away with his atrocities, the University had to turn a blind eye to all of his reported abuse. Nassar is probably a liberal, the people who covered for him certainly were. But it’s not reasonable to paint him as a leftist, until his politics are actually known. So... I’ll make PAM an offer: I’ll take Wynn as a Republican, despite his politically ambiguous history, if he’s willing to claim Nassar, despite his unknowns. I’m also willing to take Baio if he’ll take Ansari. But let it be noted I wasn’t interested in trying to pigeon-hole Ansari or Baio due to the questionable nature of the accusations against them. Nor Wynn nor Nassar due to the ambiguity of their political beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 29, 2018 10:27:58 GMT -5
RJ, he had an official position with the Pubs. And 20 grand is chump change when you're in a highly regulated business at that level. Remember, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." That goes, not double, but something close to infinity when it comes to the power to regulate. That said, men of wealth and power considering access to female flesh as just another perk, like riding in limousines, getting good tables at restaurants, et al, is a serious social issue that will have to be solved OUTSIDE of the political sphere. Remember, politicians do not create change. They see what people are already doing, then pass laws so they can thump their chests and holler: "I DID THIS FOR YOU!" (Examples: removing restrictions on married couples using birth control, seat belt laws, prosecuting drunk drivers, enforcing water-pollution laws that had been on the books since the 19th century, smoke-free offices... the list is long. Even getting rid of Jim Crow laws was the work of the PEOPLE, not the politicians.) This is NOT an American left/right issue... except in the way the left has been insisting there's no difference between males and females, and supporting feminism. They get the hypocrite badge when it comes to exploiting female underlings, but the right's "family values" folks are all about abstinence or "holy" monogamy, so they can't get a pass, either. We are in uncharted territory, here. Never before in history have women been able to run their own lives without biological determinism. (Thank you, men, for inventing birth control methods that are nearly perfect. Thank you, men, for inventing the washing machine, the vacuum cleaner, the dishwasher-- the hot water heater!--that turned housework into a part-time job.) This isn't something that can be solved by pulling a lever in a voting booth. And, frankly, like all social change, it's too important to leave in the hands of ANY political party. Besides, I'm pretty sure a "reasonable man" (left or right) can see the difference between courting/seduction and "Suck my cock, baby, or you'll lose your job." They will, however, need to discuss that first thing with "reasonable women". (Hopefully, while all parties are sober. ;D ) I don't mean to claim he's innocent, pure as the wind driven snow. My objection to much of this hysteria is that people are having their lives ruined over mere accusations. Wynn is a mult billionaire, and anyone can make an accusation. Where is the proof? Where is the objective view of the whole issue? If he is guilty as charged, of course he should be fired, at the very least. However, mere accusations are a political weapon. Remember Herman Cain? The accusations, from women probably paid to make them by the DNC, ended his political career. No proof, not even any evidence, and where are any of those women today? It's become today's version of the scarlet letter. No proof needed, simply make an accusation, and ruin a career, even a life.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 29, 2018 10:31:08 GMT -5
He also denies the charges. I say, follow the money. How much is the DNC paying these women to make their charges? Or Gloria Allred's daughter? Geeze, redleg. It doesn't take the DNC to show people how to get their names into the headlines. How about we have a discussion, instead, about why over-the-hill actors still get leading man roles, whilst the Baywatch girls... not so much? How about how so many television shows now feature lesbian sex-- to the point it's starting to look obligatory? Me, I think it's because guys still enjoy a little girl-on-girl porn. (Disclaimer: I am female. I find the "girl-on-girl" stuff icky. The "boy-on-boy" stuff not so much-- it's definitely watchable, certainly not icky... well, until you get to Maplethorpe's photo of a guy urinating into another guy's mouth. I don't understand why anyone, gay or straight, male or female, would find that erotic. Maybe that's just me. I watched Fifty Shades of Grayand thought, "Man, if he was a plumber earning fifty grand a year, she wouldn't be putting up with any of that.") NB: I do think the Fifty Shades reference is pertinent to this whole discussion. Kemmer, the DNC has already been outed for paying women to "come forward" to accuse Trump. They have used similar tactics against Pub pols multiple times in the past. The fact that, after the damage is done, none of the women are ever heard from again is also telling. Where are the lawsuits? Where are the public screeds on TV or in print? They all simply disappear the second the target drops out of a race, resigns, or is fired from his job.
|
|