The Sexual Harrassment/Assault House of Cards

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

alohafri wrote:


Because, like Trump and Bannon, he feeds on the hates and fears of people who think their views aren't being represented. Why do you think Roy Moore got the nomination?

sharpy wrote: Where in the HELL are white people discriminated against, or not being heard???

sharpy wrote:Because, like Trump and Bannon, he feeds on the hates and fears of people who think their views aren't being represented.

I can never understand this "feeling". Aren't whites about 70% of the population? Isn't congress over 80% white? Haven't all but one president, and ALL the vice presidents been white? Aren't 67% of SCOTUS white?  Where in the HELL are white people discriminated against, or not being heard???

alohafri wrote:

sharpy wrote:Because, like Trump and Bannon, he feeds on the hates and fears of people who think their views aren't being represented.

I can never understand this "feeling". Aren't whites about 70% of the population? Isn't congress over 80% white? Haven't all but one president, and ALL the vice presidents been white? Aren't 67% of SCOTUS white?  Where in the HELL are white people discriminated against, or not being heard???

Sean Hannity told them so, so it must be true!

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

frank bonifacic wrote:

alohafri wrote:

sharpy wrote:Doesn't anyone smell hypocrisy, or a double standard in all of this? Is the 'casting couch" something new in Hollywood, or have actresses fucked their way to the top (and actors as well) since Edison invented the movie camera? Didn't Madonna write a whole book about how she fucked her way to stardom?  So Weinstein and all these other movie people took advantage of all these 'innocent pure girls"?  Or, after being offered a blow job by the first 4 actresses up for a part, they hit on the fifth that wouldn't participate and she got mad? OR are they coming out now b/c they didn't get the part and are pissed off?  Where are the BIG stars in all this? Where is Meryl streep? She never got propositioned? How about Carmen Diaz, another one who is rumored to have used her body to advance her career. Is she going to come out with stories, or b/c it "worked" for her, she's keeping her mouth shut?  And how about the women who propositioned these guys and made the advances?  Maybe some women get groped b/c the previous 10 women in contact with that producer or athlete grabbed his dick and offered a service so he just figured they all will?  Is it wrong to do what Weinstein did, or Spacey, or Charlie sheen, or whoever? Yea, it is and they are pigs and no man who respects a woman would ever proceed in that manor. But many past experiences with actresses have lead to the lack of respect? . But its no more wrong than a young Madonna offering to fuck a producer to get her record released.  Or a young actress getting a part b/c she fucked the director, producer and the screenwriter. And why isn't that a big deal? or publicized?  or criticized?   Maybe men are worse than women, and it happens more frequently a man on a woman, but lets not make Virgin Marys out of actresses or athletic groupies either.  There just might be enough irresponsibility and bad behavior to cover both sexes.

Yeah. I think this just says that the rumors and innuendos about the "casting couch" weren't just rumors and innuendos.

They definitely weren't just rumors. Saw an article on the internet the other day regarding Family Guy. Producer there has been clear as to what was happening.
In 2005!!!, had an episode on -don't recall topic of show- showed Stewie running naked through a shopping mall, saying "I've just escaped from Kevin Spacey's basement!"
Another, a takeoff on "Taken" titled "Leggo my Meggo" has Meg kidnaped by white slavers. One of characters in disguise is being auctioned off and one of the bidders is the other goof in the news now (not Weinstein or Spacey,dont recall name) says $75,000 and then announces his name.
Finally, believe at Oscars, McFarland (producer, creator and voice of several of the characters) presented an award and in referring to the candidates (actresses) said " Congratulations, ladies, you no longer have to pretend that you like Harvey Weinstein"
So, obviously  rumors?? very well known. And no one went after Family Guy. How interesting -and the rest of the industry just ignored it.

Yes, Hollywood knew about Spacey and Weinstein and Cosby.   Word gets around, just like every other industry.   If there's a rumbling or two, it can be dismissed as being the rumor mill, but at some point you realize that where there's smoke, there's fire.  Too bad this country doesn't realize the same about the fat orange predator in the White House.

The predators in Washington go beyond the President. He just won't admit it. Of course according to Hannity, that's "fake news." I'm sure there are others in Congress who won't either. 

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

That's exactly true.  In the 24-hour cable news era, these folks come from many different backgrounds.  Used to be that you would have to be a journalist, and one would HOPE that would bring with it some journalistic integrity.  Hannity comes from the radio.  He has and always will be an "entertainer" (and in his case, I use that term loosely).  Rachel Maddow has a degree in public policy and she earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics.  While certainly she has very liberal positions, she very much conducts herself with a high degree of integrity.  I've often heard folks on the right cite her as someone that is respected by both sides.  Recall O'Reilly mentioning her as someone he respected on the left.  Can't imagine anyone on the left or an independent would say such a thing about Hannity.

blondy28 wrote:Where in the world is Matt Lauer?  Apparently in some chick's pants!  OK, someone had to say it.

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

That's exactly true.  In the 24-hour cable news era, these folks come from many different backgrounds.  Used to be that you would have to be a journalist, and one would HOPE that would bring with it some journalistic integrity.  Hannity comes from the radio.  He has and always will be an "entertainer" (and in his case, I use that term loosely).  Rachel Maddow has a degree in public policy and she earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics.  While certainly she has very liberal positions, she very much conducts herself with a high degree of integrity.  I've often heard folks on the right cite her as someone that is respected by both sides.  Recall O'Reilly mentioning her as someone he respected on the left.  Can't imagine anyone on the left or an independent would say such a thing about Hannity.

There are people right of center like yours truly who have nothing positive to say about Hannity.

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

That's exactly true.  In the 24-hour cable news era, these folks come from many different backgrounds.  Used to be that you would have to be a journalist, and one would HOPE that would bring with it some journalistic integrity.  Hannity comes from the radio.  He has and always will be an "entertainer" (and in his case, I use that term loosely).  Rachel Maddow has a degree in public policy and she earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics.  While certainly she has very liberal positions, she very much conducts herself with a high degree of integrity.  I've often heard folks on the right cite her as someone that is respected by both sides.  Recall O'Reilly mentioning her as someone he respected on the left.  Can't imagine anyone on the left or an independent would say such a thing about Hannity.

There are people right of center like yours truly who have nothing positive to say about Hannity.

So I was shocked to read that with all of these firings now the top three paid TV anchors are Sean Hannity at $36 milllion/year, Robin Robertson at $18 million/year and Megyn Kelly, $16 million to $20 million.  HOW THE HELL is Hannity making twice the next highest paid anchor?  Does he make that much money for Fox?  

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/matt-lauer-firing-two-three-213031434.html

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

That's exactly true.  In the 24-hour cable news era, these folks come from many different backgrounds.  Used to be that you would have to be a journalist, and one would HOPE that would bring with it some journalistic integrity.  Hannity comes from the radio.  He has and always will be an "entertainer" (and in his case, I use that term loosely).  Rachel Maddow has a degree in public policy and she earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics.  While certainly she has very liberal positions, she very much conducts herself with a high degree of integrity.  I've often heard folks on the right cite her as someone that is respected by both sides.  Recall O'Reilly mentioning her as someone he respected on the left.  Can't imagine anyone on the left or an independent would say such a thing about Hannity.

There are people right of center like yours truly who have nothing positive to say about Hannity.

So I was shocked to read that with all of these firings now the top three paid TV anchors are Sean Hannity at $36 milllion/year, Robin Robertson at $18 million/year and Megyn Kelly, $16 million to $20 million.  HOW THE HELL is Hannity making twice the next highest paid anchor?  Does he make that much money for Fox?  

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/matt-lauer-firing-two-three-213031434.html

He knows where the bodies are buried. Not to mention, he uses the two most popular words on Fox more than any other personality.

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

That's exactly true.  In the 24-hour cable news era, these folks come from many different backgrounds.  Used to be that you would have to be a journalist, and one would HOPE that would bring with it some journalistic integrity.  Hannity comes from the radio.  He has and always will be an "entertainer" (and in his case, I use that term loosely).  Rachel Maddow has a degree in public policy and she earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics.  While certainly she has very liberal positions, she very much conducts herself with a high degree of integrity.  I've often heard folks on the right cite her as someone that is respected by both sides.  Recall O'Reilly mentioning her as someone he respected on the left.  Can't imagine anyone on the left or an independent would say such a thing about Hannity.

There are people right of center like yours truly who have nothing positive to say about Hannity.

So I was shocked to read that with all of these firings now the top three paid TV anchors are Sean Hannity at $36 milllion/year, Robin Robertson at $18 million/year and Megyn Kelly, $16 million to $20 million.  HOW THE HELL is Hannity making twice the next highest paid anchor?  Does he make that much money for Fox?  

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/matt-lauer-firing-two-three-213031434.html

He knows where the bodies are buried. Not to mention, he uses the two most popular words on Fox more than any other personality.

Lock her up is three words.  Hillary Clinton?

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I understand the "they are entertainers" argument, but I'm not sure it applies to all of them.  I'm relatively certain that Rachel Maddow wouldn't become a conservative for a million bucks a show.  Can't really speak for Hannity because I haven't spent too much time watching him out of an inability to cope for more than just a few mins.  There are some very reasonable shows on Fox with some thoughtful hosts.  Same goes for CNN and MSNBC.  I just can't understand the Hannity thing.

That's exactly true.  In the 24-hour cable news era, these folks come from many different backgrounds.  Used to be that you would have to be a journalist, and one would HOPE that would bring with it some journalistic integrity.  Hannity comes from the radio.  He has and always will be an "entertainer" (and in his case, I use that term loosely).  Rachel Maddow has a degree in public policy and she earned a Doctor of Philosophy in politics.  While certainly she has very liberal positions, she very much conducts herself with a high degree of integrity.  I've often heard folks on the right cite her as someone that is respected by both sides.  Recall O'Reilly mentioning her as someone he respected on the left.  Can't imagine anyone on the left or an independent would say such a thing about Hannity.

There are people right of center like yours truly who have nothing positive to say about Hannity.

So I was shocked to read that with all of these firings now the top three paid TV anchors are Sean Hannity at $36 milllion/year, Robin Robertson at $18 million/year and Megyn Kelly, $16 million to $20 million.  HOW THE HELL is Hannity making twice the next highest paid anchor?  Does he make that much money for Fox?  

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/matt-lauer-firing-two-three-213031434.html

He knows where the bodies are buried. Not to mention, he uses the two most popular words on Fox more than any other personality.

Lock her up is three words.  Hillary Clinton?

alohafri wrote:

Ding ding ding! Give the woman a prize! 

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

Ding ding ding! Give the woman a prize! 

It's so fucking stupid.  I don't say that because I think we all need to LOVE Hillary, but the unchained hate and bile toward her is so damned stupid, especially when one considered the nuttiness we have instead.  I get it to not like Hillary, or GWB, or even to hate Obama's policies, but they're all reasonable people that don't particularly deserve jail time or to be locked up...although I have a brother in law that's a former Marine and he sure wants to see GWB locked up for "lying us into the Iraq War."  Fox appears to me to be a network that's surviving on purveying hate for Hillary and Obama and lib'ruls.  Yes, MSNBC is left wing'ish, but with each passing day they add another conservative to that network.  Now you have three shows hosted primarily or entirely by conservatives there.  Morning Joe Scarborough is a conservative (who thinks Trump and the GOP have gone over the cliff).  Nicole Wallace is a conservative with her own show, who also thinks Trump's an idiot and her party has gone over a cliff.  And now they have Hugh Hewitt, who appears to think Trump and the GOP are just peachy.  All of their shows are peppered with conservative guests who are NOT there to be ridiculed, and who are a regular part of their panels.  

I'm just saying I'll never understand the hate and wasted energy, but I guess there's money to be made in selling that hate, so it should come as no surprise.

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

Ding ding ding! Give the woman a prize! 

It's so fucking stupid.  I don't say that because I think we all need to LOVE Hillary, but the unchained hate and bile toward her is so damned stupid, especially when one considered the nuttiness we have instead.  I get it to not like Hillary, or GWB, or even to hate Obama's policies, but they're all reasonable people that don't particularly deserve jail time or to be locked up...although I have a brother in law that's a former Marine and he sure wants to see GWB locked up for "lying us into the Iraq War."  Fox appears to me to be a network that's surviving on purveying hate for Hillary and Obama and lib'ruls.  Yes, MSNBC is left wing'ish, but with each passing day they add another conservative to that network.  Now you have three shows hosted primarily or entirely by conservatives there.  Morning Joe Scarborough is a conservative (who thinks Trump and the GOP have gone over the cliff).  Nicole Wallace is a conservative with her own show, who also thinks Trump's an idiot and her party has gone over a cliff.  And now they have Hugh Hewitt, who appears to think Trump and the GOP are just peachy.  All of their shows are peppered with conservative guests who are NOT there to be ridiculed, and who are a regular part of their panels.  

I'm just saying I'll never understand the hate and wasted energy, but I guess there's money to be made in selling that hate, so it should come as no surprise.

It's something that could be on the back burner of even the most conservative "news" casts, not the lead story. I was more concerned with Hillary when she was a candidate. Now? Not so much. If she won, would I like to see the kind of investigation we are seeing with the Trump administration now? Sure, if there was that much chance that something illegal was done. I think she's as dirty as Trump. This whole thing reminds me of the scene from Godfather II where Tom Hagen asks, "You've won. Do you have to wipe everyone out?" Michael responded, "I don't feel I have to wipe everyone out Tom. Just my enemies." It's crazy!

blondy28 wrote:


Hillary is nowhere near Trump.  She's your basic ruthless politician...as much as her enemies tried to elevate her to something more.  She's more on par with George "we found weapons of mass destruction", "cover up the friendly fire of death of Pat Tillman","we'll just torture on the sly and hope nobody finds out", "out a CIA agent because her husband is against the war" Bush, or (fill in the blank) H.W. or Reagan.  She's been investigated more than any single politician in the last two decades, and, equating it to regular citizen crime, she's been nothing more than a petty thief.  And she worked her ass off and did some great work.  Trump is a traitor.  Treason.   The worst possible crime against your country.   I mean, as deplorable as the Bush administration was, one could **at least** make the argument that they were motivated by protecting the United States.  Not so with Trump.  And he raped at least one child that we know about.  And the likelihood that it was one is remote.   He is a racist who deliberately incites violence.  It's astounding that the same people who claimed Obama was divisive and incited racial hatred because he said that Trayvon Martin is what his son might have looked like don't believe that Trump is being divisive or inciting racial hatred.  Trump is in a league of his own.  Hillary is a saint compared to him.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


Hillary is nowhere near Trump.  She's your basic ruthless politician...as much as her enemies tried to elevate her to something more.  She's more on par with George "we found weapons of mass destruction", "cover up the friendly fire of death of Pat Tillman","we'll just torture on the sly and hope nobody finds out", "out a CIA agent because her husband is against the war" Bush, or (fill in the blank) H.W. or Reagan.  She's been investigated more than any single politician in the last two decades, and, equating it to regular citizen crime, she's been nothing more than a petty thief.  And she worked her ass off and did some great work.  Trump is a traitor.  Treason.   The worst possible crime against your country.   I mean, as deplorable as the Bush administration was, one could **at least** make the argument that they were motivated by protecting the United States.  Not so with Trump.  And he raped at least one child that we know about.  And the likelihood that it was one is remote.   He is a racist who deliberately incites violence.  It's astounding that the same people who claimed Obama was divisive and incited racial hatred because he said that Trayvon Martin is what his son might have looked like don't believe that Trump is being divisive or inciting racial hatred.  Trump is in a league of his own.  Hillary is a saint compared to him.

I've been a bit surprised by Trump's open and obvious racism.  That's a word I don't particularly like to throw around, as it's always seemed to me that people jump to it too quickly.  I may be confusing what's in his heart with what he shows himself to be, i.e. he comes across like he's terribly racist, but maybe that's to set a tone with the 1/3 of the public that support him.  Maybe it's a marketing ploy to gain some pull with his admirers.  

I'm still hesitant to call him a rapist, since I don't know if he really did rape someone.  Wouldn't surprise me to find out he did, but without proof it's a tough leap for me.

All that said, Trump, as you say, is by far in a league of his own.  Hillary and many other politicians seem shady, and probably have to do some crazy, sometimes illegal shit, but I mostly think of that as being for the better good of the country.  For as closely as Hillary has been watched and hounded for the last 30 yrs, if she were conducting criminal/illegal behavior, she'd have been nailed for it by now.  They haven't even come close.  Trying to draw an equivalence between Trump and her is laughable.  If someone wants to equate Hillary with GWB or Bill Clinton or even maybe Nixon, I might be inclined to give them that argument.

blondy28 wrote:


What kind of rape proof do you need?  Certainly there are many folks whose behavior you have formed an opinion about based on the information that we know.  Cosby, for example.  I suspect that you had an opinion on his guilt even before the sealed transcript of an earlier case was released (and although he admitted to giving women ludes, he still did claim that it was consensual in the deposition).   What other reason would the woman who ARRANGED for Trump and Epstein to assault underage girls admit her own guilt under oath?  Certainly not for her 15 minutes of fame...she remained anonymous.  What would compel her to implicate herself in those events?  And you are well aware of Ivana's accusations, and you have heard the man admit to assaulting women.  What more do you need?

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


What kind of rape proof do you need?  Certainly there are many folks whose behavior you have formed an opinion about based on the information that we know.  Cosby, for example.  I suspect that you had an opinion on his guilt even before the sealed transcript of an earlier case was released (and although he admitted to giving women ludes, he still did claim that it was consensual in the deposition).   What other reason would the woman who ARRANGED for Trump and Epstein to assault underage girls admit her own guilt under oath?  Certainly not for her 15 minutes of fame...she remained anonymous.  What would compel her to implicate herself in those events?  And you are well aware of Ivana's accusations, and you have heard the man admit to assaulting women.  What more do you need?

What do I need?  Hmmm.  Tough call.  I don't disbelieve that Donald is capable of rape, and don't necessarily disbelieve that he's raped someone, but assertively calling someone a rapist is a pretty high bar for me.  In Cosby's case, it seems like the same claim has been made by a couple a dozen women.  In Trump's case, it's two women, and one seems to still remain anonymous.  In Ivana's case, I believe her, but that doesn't mean she isn't lying or wasn't exaggerating the situation.  It's really just a matter of whether I'm willing to make an assertive statement that someone's a rapist or predator or something of the sort, versus being willing to believe that they are one of those things.  For me, at least, there's a difference.  All that said, I believe Donald is capable of just about any kind of crime if it would fit his needs at the moment.