Comeuppance--A Trump-Era Phenomenon

[Ghost of LL 15,606]

There's one thing I'm enjoying about the Trump era, and that is the degree to which bad behavior is recognized, exposed, and punished.  Obviously, the latest one is Roseanne.  But that's just the most recent in a long string of long-overdue comeuppances that have marked the Trump era.

I mean, let's just start with the whole #metoo group--it's nice to see Harvey Weinstein get his.  We all knew he was a creep; we probably didn't know the degree.  But now he'll probably go to prison.

Good.

It's satisfying too when it's people who facilitated the rise of Trump who go down (ironically for the sins that can't bring down Trump).  Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly--that was some quality comeuppance.  And really, does anybody think that any of these guys--or Matt Lauer, for that matter--go down if Hillary Clinton is president?  Fuck no; she's the matriarch of the patriarchy.  

And then there's Roy Moore.  If Jeff Sessions doesn't vacate that seat, Roy Moore lives out his days held in quiet high regard in Alabama.  I mean, maybe some olds in Gadsden would know about him.  But his reputation would have been fine.  Now--comeuppance.

And it's so much fun when comeuppance comes to the Southern Baptist Convention.  "Don't leave your abusive husbands" actually sounds like reasonable-enough advise if Hillary Clinton is president.  At least a lot of people would have quickly jumped on "but Hillary."  But in the Trump era--buh-bye, Paige Patterson.

Even corporations aren't immune.  Uber has taken a hit; Starbucks is in damage control; Facebook faces what may be an existential threat.  Cambridge Analytica is gone.  The New York Times is failing even at failing.  Corporate comeuppance!

I don't know if there's a single theme that ties all these together.  Roseanne doesn't have anything to do with #metoo; Roy Moore doesn't have anything to do with Blake Farenthold.  But at the same time, it seems that we're in a new era in which bad behavior is going to be met with serious consequences.  And in a lot of cases, that means that the bad behavior has to be identified.  Roy Moore and Harvey Weinstein went decades without any repercussions for their conduct; why now?

His judgment cometh, and that right soon.

 

[Parliament 14,405]

Yeah watching all these self-righteous a-holes get theirs is fun.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Sounds like somebodies got a case of the schadenfreuds.

[Sbbruin 21,937]

Social media, and new media in general, allows the spotlight on these behaviors to blaze like wildfire.

[Ghost of LL 15,606]

1 minute ago, Sbbruin said:

Social media, and new media in general, allows the spotlight on these behaviors to blaze like wildfire.

That's certainly part of it.  And it exposes the behavior to a wider audience (see, e.g., Roseanne).

But at the same time, social media didn't have anything to do with Matt Lauer or Harvey Weinstein.  That was all about the moment.

[Bullneck 19,323]

You forgot Bill Cosby.

I wonder, though, how you conclude certain events wouldn't have take place had Clinton been elected.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Bullneck

[Ghost of LL 15,606]

I think Cosby would have gone down irrespective of who was elected, because it began while Obama was still president.

But otherwise--I don't think the #metoo thing would've ever happened if Hillary Clinton had been elected, and as evidence in favor of that proposition I cite 1998.  Any talk of workplace behavior would have been instantly derailed by the cry "But Bill."  And as we saw in 1998, the Democrats and the feminist movement will circle the wagons around the Clintons rather than address the actual issue of inappropriate sexual conduct.  Gloria fucking Steinem basically rejected the entire basis of sexual-harassment law to defend Bill Clinton--"the woman deserves to be believed," indeed.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

I think #metoo is a result of the election too.  All of the women marches and what not that came from the grab em by the pussy sentiment that was elected president.  Women felt like they needed to speak out about stuff because they were being sort of told to be in their place. 

[Biff Tannen 45,783]

I'm just enjoying all the Shawshank references today.

[R2D2 91]

Scott Adams has like 5 tweets and retweets in a row about the pernicious effects of Ambien.

Ambien is going down!!!!!!

[R2D2 91]

Dilbert is going down.

[Newy25 7,813]

6 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think #metoo is a result of the election too.  All of the women marches and what not that came from the grab em by the pussy sentiment that was elected president.  Women felt like they needed to speak out about stuff because they were being sort of told to be in their place. 

Not just the #metoo but the Starbucks saga probably does not get attention if the country was not a little bit on edge racially, either. 

[phdhorn 6,224]

44 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Social media, and new media in general, allows the spotlight on these behaviors to blaze like wildfire.

I think this is actually most of it.  One could make a good argument that the current "age" started before Trump's election, even before the 2016 campaign.  (I personally think it started some time during the late Bush Administration, which of course coincides with the - wait for it - growth of the first social network giants (MySpace, a baby Facebook on colleges mostly, and of course Twitter).

The whole thing really takes wing when people have been too stupid to realize shit they said or did 10 years ago is retrievable.  And that someone, might in fact, dig it up.  There's no doubt that for me the growth of tech-backed "pasts" of people liable for discovery and rapid distribution is THE thing.  I think the political climate is a second, but a distant one.

On one hand, something about it is of course satisfying, to see the bastiges get theirs.

On the other hand, there's something kind of concerning about the absolute loss of privacy, or more than that, the inability to "make a mistake" and never be able to atone for it.  That certainly is not what the zeitgeist of early America was.. it was a place where you COULD fail or make a mistake and climb back on the horse.  Not so much today... the sheer volume of the avalanche on social media pretty much wipes out any talk of "mistake."

To a degree, this enormous ability to whip up reactive frenzys is exactly what Madison was cautioning against in his Federalist papers on factions, or the "tyranny of the majority".  Justice and punishment should be driven by the impartial judgment of the act, not by mob rule.  The social media stuff, for as good as it is on one side of the coin, has a more sinister, dangerous darker side.  While I'm absolutely delighted that the Weinsteins etc. can no longer overpower the status quo thanks to social media, I'm also wary of its ability to create monsters.  The warnings and cautious lessons of Face In The Crowd, although it was made way back in 1957, rings never more true than it does today.

[Mole 4,336]

Everything phdhorn said. As satisfying as it feels to watch people go down for bad behavior, there's something terrifying about the angry, righteous mob.

[GRHorn 105]

Great post.  There is something to this.  If you think about it, Trump was the initiation of it. Putting what you think of him to the side, what better symbol of the spoiled establishment in this country than Hillary?  And she got put in her corner, aspirations shattered.  

The big question to me now is, is this limited to social media inspired swipes at corps and high profile individuals, or are people getting emboldened and are larger institutions such as govt ones at risk in the medium term future?  In a Fourth Turning reshuffling of the deck kind of way?  Or does it just simmer or fizzle out?

[TwiceHorn 31,703]

We need some Wall Street/TBTF comeuppance.  Big time.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,783]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

We need some Wall Street/TBTF comeuppance.  Big time.

 

We need another depression or two, since we obviously didn't learn from the most recent one, what with trying to roll back the laws put in place to control the big banks.

[R2D2 91]

43 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Great post.  There is something to this.  If you think about it, Trump was the initiation of it. Putting what you think of him to the side, what better symbol of the spoiled establishment in this country than Hillary?  And she got put in her corner, aspirations shattered.  

The big question to me now is, is this limited to social media inspired swipes at corps and high profile individuals, or are people getting emboldened and are larger institutions such as govt ones at risk in the medium term future?  In a Fourth Turning reshuffling of the deck kind of way?  Or does it just simmer or fizzle out?

Trump is going down for Treason and so are you.

Yeah, Hillary was so spoiled. She came from millionaires and never worked an honest day in her life OH WAIT THAT'S VERY OBVIOUSLY TRUMP I WAS PRETENDING IT WAS HILLARY FOR A SECOND BUT I REALLY MEANT TRUMP BECAUSE HE'S A RAPIST ELITIST LYING CROOK and you love that kind of person apparently.

[GRHorn 105]

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We need some Wall Street/TBTF comeuppance.  Big time.

 

Yeah that’s the big one. I didn’t include that in my thoughts because they aren’t going down unless the whole government is, IMO.  Too much money, corruption, and control intertwined to let them go down unless we’re all Fubar’d or there’s some great unforeseen awakening of the masses.

As a libertarian/Austrian aside for the little guy who wants to take any small part in Tbtf comeuppance, put a little bit of your money in Bitcoin every month. It’s a long term investment that will take some of your money out of the legacy financial system where it can’t be used/abused. 

19 minutes ago, R2D2 said:

Trump is going down for Treason and so are you.

Yeah, Hillary was so spoiled. She came from millionaires and never worked an honest day in her life OH WAIT THAT'S VERY OBVIOUSLY TRUMP I WAS PRETENDING IT WAS HILLARY FOR A SECOND BUT I REALLY MEANT TRUMP BECAUSE HE'S A RAPIST ELITIST LYING CROOK and you love that kind of person apparently.

Grow up. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.  

[Trey3216 15,381]

3 hours ago, Newy25 said:

Not just the #metoo but the Starbucks saga probably does not get attention if the country was not a little bit on edge racially, either. 

The country’s been on edge racially, in a very serious manner, for the last 5 years...nay, perpetually 

[tchookem 3,942]

What makes you think the whole country isn't due for a little comeuppance?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Biff Tannen 45,783]

[achooloco 1,086]

i don't disagree per se, and have enjoyed all the comeuppance examples you mentioned. but there have been some misfires (IMO), like anziz anzari. i guess i find it a bit disingenuous that while the pound me too movement is/was very much needed and overdue, prior bad actors like chris brown or bob costas get a free pass only bc their shit was not any worse but only at a different time. fuck that. bad is bad. but that makes me wonder, how should we treat bad actors exposed in the past? bob costas was a biting sexual deviant that wandered the borderlands for years before he was allowed back on regular tv (shit, isn't he calling the finals or has been the last few years?) except it was known and expected back then: you fuck up or your shit gets exposed, take a sabbatical/get fired, make your apologies, lay low, maybe in a few years you might get another shot. might being the key word but there was hope even if limited. do we as a society still leave that option open for the shitfuck devil ass crack pieces of shit like cosby and weinstein? does anziz deserve redemption? or is it case by case? 

i'm all for comeuppance but i think it rings rather hollow if there isn't a real roadmap for redemption. on the one hand, fuck'em, they have money and if they never work again oh well, they shouldn't have been shitty human beings. on the other, why banish them but venerate michael jackson, chris brown, costas only bc they were lucky enough to be exposed in a different era? hell, there are probably tons of other examples i can't think but i don't do hypocrisy, so either fuck them all or give even the worst actors a chance, albeit it mini-fucking-scule, for redemption.

 

edit: just read phd's post. agree with that too.

Edited May 31, 2018 by achooloco

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

By Bob Costas, do you mean Marv Albert?

[Mole 4,336]

23 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

By Bob Costas, do you mean Marv Albert?

 

[Brian Fantana 6,721]

4 hours ago, R2D2 said:

Trump is going down for Treason and so are you.

Yeah, Hillary was so spoiled. She came from millionaires and never worked an honest day in her life OH WAIT THAT'S VERY OBVIOUSLY TRUMP I WAS PRETENDING IT WAS HILLARY FOR A SECOND BUT I REALLY MEANT TRUMP BECAUSE HE'S A RAPIST ELITIST LYING CROOK and you love that kind of person apparently.

Fuuuuuuuck off sugar sock retard

Edit: Or smokey or whoever you are. You're not amusing or adding anything to the discussion. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[R2D2 91]

5 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Yeah that’s the big one. I didn’t include that in my thoughts because they aren’t going down unless the whole government is, IMO.  Too much money, corruption, and control intertwined to let them go down unless we’re all Fubar’d or there’s some great unforeseen awakening of the masses.

As a libertarian/Austrian aside for the little guy who wants to take any small part in Tbtf comeuppance, put a little bit of your money in Bitcoin every month. It’s a long term investment that will take some of your money out of the legacy financial system where it can’t be used/abused. 

Grow up. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.  

You voted for and are a supporter of the most juvenile politician in world history. And you did it because you're a misogynist.

[achooloco 1,086]

5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

By Bob Costas, do you mean Marv Albert?

Damn it, brain fart. You’re right, thanks. 

[Bookman 4,729]

I certainly think Trump had something to do with #metoo. I mean, the country had just elected as president a person who bragged about sexually assaulting women and then dismissed it as "locker room talk." There's more on the way, too. Having the most despicable, immoral, corrupt, moronic, person imaginable as president will cause the good people of this country to rise up.

[Aqua Buddha 14,667]

12 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think Cosby would have gone down irrespective of who was elected, because it began while Obama was still president.

But otherwise--I don't think the #metoo thing would've ever happened if Hillary Clinton had been elected, and as evidence in favor of that proposition I cite 1998.  Any talk of workplace behavior would have been instantly derailed by the cry "But Bill."  And as we saw in 1998, the Democrats and the feminist movement will circle the wagons around the Clintons rather than address the actual issue of inappropriate sexual conduct.  Gloria fucking Steinem basically rejected the entire basis of sexual-harassment law to defend Bill Clinton--"the woman deserves to be believed," indeed.

Agreed with the OP too but the bolded part especially.  Trump is the poster child for the MeToo movement and him getting elected pissed off a lot of people that would have been somewhat docile otherwise.

As for your original post, I've thought it's ironic that literally everyone up to and including the Trump family would have been better off had he lost.

[thrillhammer 684]

11 hours ago, GRHorn said:

.

As a libertarian/Austrian aside for the little guy who wants to take any small part in Tbtf comeuppance, put a little bit of your money in Bitcoin every month. It’s a long term investment that will take some of your money out of the legacy financial system where it can’t be used/abused. 

Goddammit, if I hear one more republican claim they are a libertarian, all the while voting for republican candidates, I'm going to blow a gasket.   You're a fucking republican you moron.

 

[Ghost of LL 15,606]

13 hours ago, phdhorn said:

On the other hand, there's something kind of concerning about the absolute loss of privacy, or more than that, the inability to "make a mistake" and never be able to atone for it.  That certainly is not what the zeitgeist of early America was.. it was a place where you COULD fail or make a mistake and climb back on the horse.  Not so much today... the sheer volume of the avalanche on social media pretty much wipes out any talk of "mistake."

To a degree, this enormous ability to whip up reactive frenzys is exactly what Madison was cautioning against in his Federalist papers on factions, or the "tyranny of the majority".  Justice and punishment should be driven by the impartial judgment of the act, not by mob rule.  The social media stuff, for as good as it is on one side of the coin, has a more sinister, dangerous darker side.  While I'm absolutely delighted that the Weinsteins etc. can no longer overpower the status quo thanks to social media, I'm also wary of its ability to create monsters.  The warnings and cautious lessons of Face In The Crowd, although it was made way back in 1957, rings never more true than it does today.

Of the examples I offered, which constituted "private behavior"?  I don't think privacy is implicated in the least.  Roseanne said something remarkably racist in a public forum.  Roy Moore ran for public office.  These are public figures whose behavior is the subject of discourse because of their publicity.

And to the extent you're claiming that Harvey Weinstein or Roy Moore is due some "privacy" because his malfeasance was "private," I think that's precisely the point of the #metoo movement.  When it involves other people, the behavior is by definition not private.  Criminal and tortious conduct affects the whole of the body politic--that's why we litigate cases regarding such conduct in open court, and not in some secret Star Chamber.

I think what you're really addressing is the evaporation of anonymity--not the loss of privacy.  But why should we take that as a bad thing?  As a kid born in the 70's and who grew up in the 80's in urban areas, I'm used to anonymity.  And there was something comforting about it.  And the fact that everybody has a camera phone now to record and publicize my dumbassery is concerning.  It makes me glad that I'm too old for much dumbassery anymore.

But isn't the result of that to constrain dumbassery?  And isn't that a good thing?

And beyond that, the anonymity for which you more the loss is a recent innovation.  A century ago, if you did some dumbass shit on the streets of Dallas or Austin or Houston, people would see it and you'd have been the topic of gossip for weeks.  If it were sufficiently serious, you'd have lost your job.  Your boss would know about it, because those towns were small enough that everyone knew everyone else.  Maybe New York was big enough to grant some anonymity, but not many places were.  And even New York wasn't that big 150 years ago.

Roseanne went out into the 21st Century equivalent of the town square.  I don't care whether it's that or the physical town square of the 19th Century--when you do that, there are going to be consequences.  And that's probably, on the whole, a good thing.  We should consider the fact that the anonymity created in the late-20th Century is the historical outlier.  And consider further that such anonymity, while comforting to most, had some distinctly negative side effects.

[GRHorn 105]

31 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

 

I didn’t label myself.  I said from that perspective.  I have some libertarian leanings, I have some straightforward conservative leanings.  For example for the most part I agree with the Austrian economic view, but I think open borders for everybody now is fucking retarded.  Not everyone needs to fit in each little box.  If you label yourself you find yourself defending positions that are indefensible just to defend your team. 

[wildcat09 29,453]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

We need some Wall Street/TBTF comeuppance.  Big time.

 

I would sacrifice a baby deer to Satan to see this happen.

[bernorange 8,377]

15 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Sounds like somebodies got a case of the schadenfreuds.

Well, you know how he became a ghost, right?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Well, you know how he became a ghost, right?

I remember his old avatar (which was uber cool with the flyin' spook), but never knew the story behind it.

[bernorange 8,377]

He overdosed on Aggy misery.

[Dick Tremayne 103]

12 hours ago, GRHorn said:

 put a little bit of your money in Bitcoin every month

Grow up. The adults are trying to have a conversation here.  

LOL!!!

[triplehorn 2,664]

Not comeuppance yet, but not a better thread:

Criminal cartel charges laid against ANZ, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank

"ANZ, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank have been charged with criminal cartel conduct over a multi-billion-dollar capital raising following a consumer watchdog investigation

Six senior executives at the firms have also been charged: John McLean, Itay Tuchman and Stephen Roberts of Citigroup; Michael Ormaechea and Michael Richardson formerly of Deutsche Bank; and Rick Moscati of ANZ."

 

[atomheartbevo 90,132]

On 5/30/2018 at 6:43 PM, Sbbruin said:

Social media, and new media in general, allows the spotlight on these behaviors to blaze like wildfire.

Watching social media take down white supremacists after Charlottesville, and seeing them lose their jobs or being kicked out of school has been amusing.  In this day and age, you have to be aggyesque to think parading around with torches while people take your photo won’t lead to you being identified  

Hell,  with Daniel Six Figs, you didn’t even have to wear khakis and carry a torch. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Watching social media take down white supremacists after Charlottesville, and seeing them lose their jobs or being kicked out of school has been amusing.  In this day and age, you have to be aggyesque to think parading around with torches while people take your photo won’t lead to you being identified  

Hell,  with Daniel Six Figs, you didn’t even have to wear khakis and carry a torch. 

The media should broadcast that video every night till each and every one of those fucks has lost their jobs.  Focus on a different character each night.

[Ghost of LL 15,606]

I'm also enjoying the comeuppance of Bill Clinton.  And to those paying attention, there's the comeuppance of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan and the rest of that crowd who betrayed everything they ever said about workplace equality in order to support the precious (D) behind Clinton's name.

Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office.  Even prominent Democrats now concede that to be the case.  And since his wife's career is over, nobody feels the need to bend the knee and have him come speak or endorse their cause.  He's now in political Siberia--a sad relic of a time long past (and which most Democrats would just prefer to forget).  

And as for Steinem, she says she'd still write that NYT op-ed.  I bet she would.  And that reveals the cravenness of her outlook; it's why so many younger women weren't at all enthusiastic about Hillary.  She won't live to see a woman elected president, and it's in part due to her actions in 1998.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm also enjoying the comeuppance of Bill Clinton.  And to those paying attention, there's the comeuppance of Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan and the rest of that crowd who betrayed everything they ever said about workplace equality in order to support the precious (D) behind Clinton's name.

Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office.  Even prominent Democrats now concede that to be the case.  And since his wife's career is over, nobody feels the need to bend the knee and have him come speak or endorse their cause.  He's now in political Siberia--a sad relic of a time long past (and which most Democrats would just prefer to forget).  

And as for Steinem, she says she'd still write that NYT op-ed.  I bet she would.  And that reveals the cravenness of her outlook; it's why so many younger women weren't at all enthusiastic about Hillary.  She won't live to see a woman elected president, and it's in part due to her actions in 1998.

I say many of the divisive issues we have as a country today can be traced back to his presidency. He and his wife split the country in a bad way, and those who loved him forgave everything  and those who didn't didn't give him any credit for anything he did.  His infidelity/sexual assault allegations drove a wedge into many peoples opinions of him, and the democratic party trying to say it was just sex fueled the fire of dividing us further. The republican party was all to happy to fan those flames though, so they're too blame as well.

I don't believe the Siberian analogy holds though. He's still the king of the democrats IMO.  I believe  he'd get elected today if he could run.  Hell he might have learned a lesson or two since then about how to be presidential and would knock it out of the park.  If Hillary had just listened to his advice about getting out among the people more during her campaign she'd be in the Oval Office now I believe.  

As for the feminists who lock step defended him, I say they showed their true colors, and are all snake oil salesmen.  I'd love to see a woman elected however. Had Hillary been even moderately above board she could have been that woman. She busted some balls as Sec. state and I gave her high marks for it.

[Ghost of LL 15,606]

Dude--you fucked up too/to twice in one sentence.

To your points, though--I agree completely with your critique of the Clinton presidency.  And I think that assessment has become fairly commonplace.  For that reason, I don't think Bill Clinton could be elected to shit. 

Just watch at how few candidates are going to want him to campaign for them this year.  He's radioactive.  It's not just the #metoo stuff; black people don't care for him much, either.  He took their votes for granted and blew every dog-whistle imaginable to court the white working class vote.  "Super predators," indeed.  If he were to show up at a Democratic rally, half the crowd would boo him.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Liawatha tops my list.  Will it happen?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Dude--you fucked up too/to twice in one sentence.

To your points, though--I agree completely with your critique of the Clinton presidency.  And I think that assessment has become fairly commonplace.  For that reason, I don't think Bill Clinton could be elected to shit. 

Just watch at how few candidates are going to want him to campaign for them this year.  He's radioactive.  It's not just the #metoo stuff; black people don't care for him much, either.  He took their votes for granted and blew every dog-whistle imaginable to court the white working class vote.  "Super predators," indeed.  If he were to show up at a Democratic rally, half the crowd would boo him.

Yeah, me not English major, and I'm lazy with my grammatical checks. 

With the#metoo movement going on now yeah I agree with your point, and with Hillary losing that doesn't help either.   His recent comments (pretty laze' faire/ fuck you  IMO) about the Lewinsky affair aren't gong to help his reputation IMO.

The man has true charisma, and that can get you thru some shit at times. His time has pretty much passed, and candidates have voters who don't really even know who he was, so his value is down even at that level.

[27-25 2,060]

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah, me not English major, and I'm lazy with my grammatical checks. 

With the#metoo movement going on now yeah I agree with your point, and with Hillary losing that doesn't help either.   His recent comments (pretty laze' faire/ fuck you  IMO) about the Lewinsky affair aren't gong to help his reputation IMO.

Laissez-faire

Sorry, really sorry.  I could not resist.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

Laissez-faire

Sorry, really sorry.  I could not resist.

Gott in Himmel I hate the French...... 

[Ghost of LL 15,606]

36 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

Laissez-faire

Sorry, really sorry.  I could not resist.

And I love you for it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Redacted. Not the right thread

Edited June 6, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz