It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

its Kinda sad the Silence and Deflection from the Left about Weinstein

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

So now you want to move the goalposts? Your previous gambit didn't work out for you?

Let's face it; you and several more here are desperate to have this disgustingly sad and appalling story turn out bad for Democrats. Trump's a confessed sexual predator ... and yet, you're not calling for anyone to return his donations.

Why is that?


No goalpost moving at all on my part. Please explain why you said/think that I did.

If you will notice I never once mentioned a single party or single group. This holds true regardless or party. And, again, this topic is not about president Trump, but Weinstein and his connectionto the United States political party to which he donated.

Have a wonderful day.




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

i can see why you don’t want to apply your logic to Trump.

Everyone can see why you only want to apply it to Weinstein.

You seem to be very proud of what you think of as your wit ... good for you!



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

i can see why you don’t want to apply your logic to Trump.

Everyone can see why you only want to apply it to Weinstein.

You seem to be very proud of what you think of as your wit ... good for you!


Only because the topic is not about president Trump. It is about the latest revelations on Weinstein, is it not? Any attempts to conflate the discussion with mentions of others would seem to be a form of deflection. That, I do not wish to do, but to keep the focus on the primary target of discussion.

Again I ask you to please explain why you have accused me of moving the goalposts.

I await your answer.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Am I missing a reference here? Is OP reposting under another name or something?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

it’s not deflection at all. i have roundly condemned Weinstein and all sexual predators.

YOU wanted to attempt to draw a line between Weinstein and his donations. The same logic applies to others.

When shown that your advice to follow the money wasn’t unique you tried desperately to redefine your terms ...

I’ve pointed this out twice now.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

it’s not deflection at all. i have roundly condemned Weinstein and all sexual predators.

YOU wanted to attempt to draw a line between Weinstein and his donations. The same logic applies to others.

When shown that your advice to follow the money wasn’t unique you tried desperately to redefine your terms ...

I’ve pointed this out twice now.




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That’s apparently one of your favorite dodges.

Unimpressive.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

That’s apparently one of your favorite dodges.

Unimpressive.




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1 Yes you are sir/ma'am. But I will not tell.




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

isn’t it sad when something you think is so witty backfires on you?

When you finish playing perhaps you can explain why one sexual predators money is worse than another’s.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

isn’t it sad when something you think is so witty backfires on you?

When you finish playing perhaps you can explain why one sexual predators money is worse than another’s.



I never once said it is, have I? Please show me where I said that.

But, by bringing in other names into a discussion of Weinstein only deflects the conversation, wouldn't you agree? I mean I never mentioned comparisons with former president Clinton or Anthony Weiner, have I. I only mention them now since you have at least 3 times now tried to drag the conversation from Weinstein to president Trump.

Why is that?


edit on 10/11/2017 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

super easy and obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Hollywood is liberal central. Hollywood is behind productions....shows....events...the Oscars, etc. Havent you noticed the lefty actors have all used these events as venues to air their grievances against "racist, ist ist ist" America and their new President? You see, thats how you know Hollywood is Left. They dont espouse any classically conservative values....zero....none...


so if you cant see it, its because you dont want to or you cant because youre brainwashed....its literally that simple.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa This is getting good. While I lean left I will have to agree that the other is deflecting. Now you guys wait like two min whilst I get popcorn.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   
"Follow the money." Pretty clear it will lead to many people, both Democrats and Republicans.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien Oh an update from my poo splash physics thing. I got nothin....




posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
"Follow the money." Pretty clear it will lead to many people, both Democrats and Republicans.


Yes, I agree. But, the question was related to how is connects to the United States political party to which Weinstein donated.

Isn't that the topic at hand here?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
"Follow the money." Pretty clear it will lead to many people, both Democrats and Republicans.


Yes, I agree. But, the question was related to how is connects to the United States political party to which Weinstein donated.

Isn't that the topic at hand here?


The question is why is it a topic? If a Republican have donated a lot to Republican politicans and he turns out to be a sex pervert, does it matter who he donated to? Does his political affiliation matter?



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
"Follow the money." Pretty clear it will lead to many people, both Democrats and Republicans.


Yes, I agree. But, the question was related to how is connects to the United States political party to which Weinstein donated.

Isn't that the topic at hand here?


The question is why is it a topic? If a Republican have donated a lot to Republican politicans and he turns out to be a sex pervert, does it matter who he donated to? Does his political affiliation matter?


Well, we could ask that question about any thread here at ATS couldn't we? So, regardless of that generic query, here in this thread, in this topic, the question still remains that is the topic of the thread.

Following the money provides actual connections that were doubted earlier. Whether the connections are relevant or not is immaterial to answer the question.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Again what is the point of making the connection? You said it was doubted earlier. I didn't see anyone doubting that here. We all know he donated a lot to the Democratic Party. So what? How is that relevant? Is it because they should give it back? What? Not getting the point.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Krakatoa

Again what is the point of making the connection? You said it was doubted earlier. I didn't see anyone doubting that here. We all know he donated a lot to the Democratic Party. So what? How is that relevant? Is it because they should give it back? What? Not getting the point.


In the case of Weinstein, he used his position in Hollywood to make obscene sums of money. That provided him a lot of power. He abused that power to sexually abuse and assault women to control their careers. That, to me, taints that money as much as if it was made as part of a drug deal.

Therefore, accepting money made in such a fashion to fund a political party has the effect of tarnishing that political party. Ignoring that connection is a form of cognitive dissonance at best, and outright acceptance of that behavior at worse.

That, IMO is the crux of the thread and OP here. Where do people stand on the acceptance of money accepted in donations from Weinstein? If it is just lip service and virtue signaling, then it is faux condemnation. Is it not?




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join