Harvey Weinstein

People seem surprised that the reaction to a movie producer is not as vociferous as the reaction to a leading Presidential candidate. You might as well gauge how people are reacting to Nelly.

 

You can't really compare the reactions to a presidential candidate and a producer who few have heard of.

With that said, some of us have been saying it forever ... Stay away from billionaire mega donors. Stay away from celebrities. Stay away from exclusive fundraisers.

This is just another way that it can backfire on you. Why would you want to own some famous person's baggage?

Run from the grassroots. Run on passion. Run on individual donations under the $2,700 federal limit. No super pacs. No dark money. People are tired of it. This is why both parties are hemorrhaging members. From the Democratic POV, the "at least we're not Trump" angle has been proven to be a failure. Stop leaning on that crutch.

 

Do we know who Trump has paid off?

At least the Weinstein buggery is finally seeing the light although there were tons of Hollywood people (and elsewhere) complicit cause he was a "genius" See also Michael Jackson & Bill Cosby.

 

You're equating shady, but legal, campaign financing (I'm guessing the Kochs & Waltons have donated a zillion times more than Weinstein) with allowing a braindead baby to take over the Republican Party. That's quite stunning bothsidesdoit-ism.

 

Call me when Weinstein wins the DNC nomination for POTUS. Until then...it's not an interesting comparison. It's a ********ing stupid comparison.

 

Quite the opposite of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the comparison is a crutch. In my first post I specifically said that the comparison is stupid. Be responsible for yourself first and foremost. You can't control what Trump does, but you can control what you do.

Weinstein is just one rich douchebag. Don't assume he's the only parasite inside these Democratic Party exclusive fundraisers. Rape or no rape, just on principle, let's start having dinners with regular working people instead of these wannabe kings who feel like they're above everyone else.

 

Looks like Rose McGowan was able to shame Ben Affleck into denouncing Weinstein, finally. Silence = violence. (I really don't like Ben Affleck. My opinion of Matt Damon has diminished exceedingly as well.)

Audio leaked of a secretly recorded conversation between Weinstein and model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez. Really weird. I couldn't interpret the context, and if he was just trying to get her to out of public or trying to get her isolated to have the chance to make more unwanted sexual advances. His tone is pretty disgusting.

 

People should publicly condemn others based on rumors?

 

Yes, jolly good. In a perfect world and if this was still 1820 that could work. Today both parties have citizen input and they're called focus groups & polling. If you want ads in the NYC market, like the non-stop anti Phil Murphy for NJ governor ones I've been seeing this election season, you need something like the Republican Governor's Assn PAC.

 

Seems to me, stanger, that the "better" comparison would be Roger Ailes. Two powerful men at the head of their companies who partly viewed the position as a way of preying on the women below them. Both men have talent, vision and a long track record of success, so there's a lot in their bios to lead others to say, "Yeah, but...."

The reaction to say, Bill Cosby's crimes were initially mute as well, IIRC. Revisit this topic in a couple of months and I'm pretty sure you won't find anyone not condemning Weinstein.

He's already been fired from his company.

 

After the Revolution once those fortunes have been stripped away, worker-owned cooperatives will be able to afford the tv ads.

 

I believe it was a sting operation by the NYPD to get him to admit his groping her. Prosecutors considered charges but never brought them.

 

Ok, but there are plenty of "regular working people" who are also rapists. You want the Democratic party to vet every single individual sub-$2,700 donation and reject all the dirty rapist money? Or is it only dirty rich rapist money that's bad?

I totally get where you're coming from that having this shadowy hidden meetings of wealthy, powerful people, isolated from the majority of the population, both looks bad and provides a fertile place for corruption to grow. Changes in the process are needed for that alone. But trying to entangle that with rape is gross to me. The majority of women who are victims of rape are not victims of rich men. They're victims of the men around them - regular, working class guys who still have that sense of entitlement to women's bodies that you identify in Weinstein and other well-known rich rapists. It does those women a disservice to imply that if only we focused on working class people and their money and their voices, suddenly the Democratic party and its fundraising process would be sparkly clean and no longer rapey.

 

So which studio will be out first with the Harvey Weinstein - Behind The Robe biopic? Jeff Garlin from The Goldbergs could play him.

 

I don't think the Democratic Party is at fault for taking money from a sexual abuser who was not known to be such. It would definitely be at fault if that were known and it supported him as a candidate.

That said, some Democratic politicians have been too slow in reacting. Abuse is abuse, no matter what the party affiliation. But of course, it's not as if many Republicans weren't slow (or silent) to comment on Roger Ailes.

 

https://medium.com/@annevictoriacla...-be-accused-of-sexual-harassment-73c45e0b49af

It’s an article full of advice on how not to be rapey with women in your workplace. The key insight is, when a pretty girl at work asks to meet with you because she has some questions about your project, imagine her as The Rock. Treat her as you would treat The Rock.

 

That might not work for a rapey male homosexual Hollywood Exec that got Terry Crews.

 

While this is a Harvey Weinstein thread, my post was in the context of this being a political forum. I apologize for not making that clear. By focusing on the political ramifications, I by no means meant to suggest that those are more important than the personal ramifications of the people affected.

As for the sub $2,700 donors, nobody would expect absolute purity. It's just one drop in a big bucket. The influence of one person is so diluted that it's virtually irrelevant.

 

All this Weinstein talk brought this memory back:

1998: 'Shakespeare In Love' Over 'Saving Private Ryan'


Saving Private Ryan had all the ingredients to win a best picture Oscar: Steven Spielberg directing Tom Hanks in a World War II epic at the height of the "greatest generation" nostalgia. But it lost out to a romantic comedy from awards season supercampaigner Harvey Weinstein's studio.

"After Shakespeare won, people really started paying attention to the Weinstein Oscar campaigning machine, which is still widely credited for the upset," says Vognar. "I remember this one well because I was in the Oscar press room when we all had tear up our Saving Private Ryan leads when it didn't win."

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/22/17272...t-picture-oscar-upsets-statistically-speaking

 

I don't mean to hijack this thread and turn it into a campaign finance issue. But it is somewhat relevant because that is part of the political fallout. A lot of headlines are running with pictures of HRC and the "Democratic donor".

My position is that a party needs to raise money. It should be within the traditional federal limits. Since this means that Dems will compete with less money, you create a 3 tier system. Very little money going to the national presidential race, where it has been proven to be a complete waste ... reference 2016 election for proof. Some money going to statewide races like senator and governor. And a larger share going to House races and state legislator races where name recognition is more vital.

A presidential candidate should not need ads out there to boost name recognition. There's already an abundance of free media attention.