I suspect they're willing to take the risk to try and warn others. This is sort of a middle ground approach. They're banking on Trump not being able to retaliate in time before they leave the country, he's moving fast, but he's not at the imprison political opponents stage yet. He will be soon, but they've got some time.
In the meantime, it serves as a warning to us and others to get out if you can.
So... You're sure you want to go with option number 2? You don't want to trade that for what's behind door number 3?
Disappointing how incredibly predictable you've been. It's like you're not even trying here.
Good luck with what all you've got going on in your life then. For you, I doubt it's going to get much better.
You have proof of it not being a conspiracy theory? Go ahead and link it. I'll check my account for replies. If the next reply to this isn't a link with irrefutable proof of the things you've said that people have (repeatedly) asked for proof (and in fact those that "googled" found evidence refuting your claims); we're done here.
Stop playing with rhetoric and link whatever it is you claim to have that 100% makes your case for you.
If you cannot, and if your reply to this never happens or doesn't contain the articles and evidence to support your claim, then you're a conspiracy theorist. That is exactly how that works. That's how conspiracies work. You just started one, and/or perpetuating one.
You don't even seem to grasp the difference between facts, and a conspiracy theory, so I suspect the kind of response I'll be receiving is:
So which one is it, #1, or #2 here? You could always try for the #3 option and post evidence to your claims, but you've had hours, and dozens of interactions to do that with people and you haven't yet. It would have taken you a fraction of the time to gather the data yourself and post, than whatever song and dance routine you think you've been doing to throw people off.
Something tells me you're not going to take door #3.
Do I really need to? It takes 5 minutes of Google and so me level of critical thinking to only review sites that aren’t trash.
Jesus.
This again?
There is no world that anyone lives in where the burden of proof is on the person asking for proof. That isn't how this works. That isn't how any of this works.
We did not get into space, to the moon, and back, by entertaining that thought terminating cliche of "Just Google it" in answer to people asking for proof of a claim.
You made the claim. You. Not me. Not the guy above you. You.
Several people in this thread have done the "googling", didn't find what you said, in fact found articles that paint a very different picture; and yet here you are, back to defending the worst fucking logical fallacy known to mankind. And you're also adding the Ad Homenim attacks to boot.
From what you've displayed today, I believe you to be a passionate but misguided individual and you will continue to struggle to get anyone to view the world from your perspective that you are unable to browbeat into believing you. This will be a significant bottleneck in whatever path in life you've chosen, if it hasn't become one already.
There is nothing you can show or teach me in life with an attitude and disregard for research and debate like you've exhibited in this thread and I will learn nothing by continuing the conversation.
Good luck out there mate, you're going to need it.
20/100 in this case
On this same thread this guy is attacking me for pointing out the similar.
I just think he's a bit unhinged. Heart's in the right place (I assume, if he really believes Affleck is as bad of a guy as he's claiming), but I haven't found any concrete evidence supporting a single one of the claims sartalon has made here. Mostly it's speculation and a lot of conspiracy theory level nonsense.
It may be true, but nothing they've said or shown so far has changed my opinion here. It just sounds like they're latching onto a conspiracy theory around Weinstein and Affleck that doesn't really exist. They did not like each other. Nobody really liked Weinstein, and every interview I've seen with Affleck is that he's a deeply troubled individual who doesn't know how to deal with the stress and issues his fame has created in his life, but I haven't seen any indication that he's a sleezy rapist, other than some wild rumors.
We can only make choices with the data available to us. I'm not defending Affleck at all here. If he did those things, then he deserves to burn. But sartalon would like to send him to El Salvador without trial based on their misunderstanding of an interview it seems.
Now, if only we had an administration that also wanted to end due process, then sartalon and they might get along, despite their protestations that they're nothing like each other.
Officially this was the case, but nobody really paid that. Capital gains were still around 20%, around where they're at today, and that's how most of them got wealthy.
Did you provide links? Did you provide irrefutable proof of your assertions? If so where are they?
Without those, I'm free to believe your words as much as any other random person on the internet.
You could be telling the truth, you might not. I don't really care because I don't care about Affleck as much as you it seems.
Not sure if you've keep up with the news, but we've got heavier shit happening in the world that's not related to whether or not an actor was worried about being on a list somewhere that sexual abused people.
To be clear, I don't think anyone here is a celebrity suck up. They're just empathetic humans seeing other humans struggle and wanting them to be OK or see how we can help. It's the human condition, we shouldn't discourage that.
Separately Ben Affleck may or may not be a shitty human being if what you said was true, but in the moment he still showed he was a depressed human, and other humans want to help. Not because they're sycophants, but because they're good people who want to help.
Surely not. It's not like anyone could be compared to Hitler or Mussolini right now on the world stage. It's not like anyone who could is a deeply disturbed individual who's using their powers to enrich themselves materially, and to get revenge on all the "bullies" that said mean things to them.
It's a good thing there's not someone like that on the world stage right now, because it'd mean we've learned fuck-all from history.
People are downvoting you, and as much as I would like it to not be true, you are right. There's too many male dems I've talked to that didn't vote for Kamala because she was a woman. It was shocking, and disappointing to say the least.
So I can't, in good conscience, downvote you, because you're not wrong, as much as I don't like it.
Edit: I also should have expected people also downvoting me just because they don't like the message. I don't like it either, but downvoting me does not make it less true. I voted for Hillary and Kamala and campaigned for them both, so don't downvote me just because I'm the messenger of observations about shitty behaviors I've encountered among my fellow dems.
Agreed.
Unrelated, but it's narcing. Narc is short for narcotics officer.