Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Dec 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Are you now arguing I did not say "neither"?

    Because really, this is silly. And boring.

    I answered your question. I said "neither". Demanding I keep answering something I already answered..
    Because that is what you are doing?

    You actually haven't said anything of note about the subject of this thread in yonks. You are essentially trying to throw your weight around and getting shitty when I mock your pathetic examples that have no bearing at all with the subject of this thread and which exists in some bizarre fantasy land in your mind, so much so that you berate me for getting something you never actually defined, wrong.

    Why did you cut out the rest of what I said in that statement? Why did you ignore and disregard my saying that regardless of where it happened, he'd still be fired? And you accuse others of dishonesty? Riiggghhttt...

    How much lower are you willing to go to defend a serial groper of women because he's a Democrat?

    And as I have repeatedly said, even if your frankly stupid example was taken at face value, they'd still be fired. And I explained why.

    Circumstances do matter. And groping women without their consent is a big arsed circumstance that does matter. Are you going to attempt to argue that there are certain circumstances around Al Franken groping women on their backsides, boob, trying to force his tongue down the throat of one victim, trying to kiss at least one other without their consent that would or should somehow make what he did somehow acceptable? If Franken did not want to damage the party he represents, he should not have groped women and sexually harassed them. Yes, it's on him and entirely him. Attempting to pass the blame onto others, such as the media, for outing him and damaging the party and demanding that circumstances matter.. No, really, how ridiculously pathetic can you get? Arguing that 'oohh there are circumstances' and how they should be taken into consideration in Franken's case, so as to not cause damage to the party.. Really, you are demanding a different set of rules of actual decency because it's a Democrat and Franken.

    You don't get to complain about the Republicans applying those standards to their candidates who sexually assault and sexually harass anymore. Because you are adopting the exact same standard as they do for the 'party that is not your party'.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    No, I'm pretty sure I at least have stated that those are serious charges that require at least a senate ethics investigation and charges in a court of law. Image if you can that claims of sexual assault were made against you, would you not want a fair trial? Would you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you not want random citizens to come for you demanding your punishment and apology for crimes you did not commit simply because they are sure of it?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    piss up a rope. i'd rather be raped again than be supported by a misogynist like you
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    thank you for showing how fucking dishonest and just straight up delusional you are with these posts. you've here delibritely lied about what i said here and have removed language from my posts to to alter the meaning and demanded i asnswer questions i have literally already answered. your sick get help. your literally ignoring everything i fucking said and nah uh thats you. grow the fuck up i'm done with you this is also a response to your other quite frankly slanderous response back to me. it clear you are incapable of understanding other people don't have to think like you

    seriously what the fuck is your problem that every response to me is lying about what i said? you tried to say the exact opposite of what i said is what i said every time.

    so far you biggest point is off a fucking typo you more interested in trolling than having a conversation. and take your offer of help and shove it. why would i want the help of someone who thinks my voice doesn't matter
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Those are all fine. Except don't flirt with someone if you are their boss.
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    It kind of drills home the point that on one side, we have the "groping without consent is a big deal" crowd (which, from what I can see, nobody is saying it isn't, nor is anybody arguing it shouldn't be punished) screaming "you're wrong" at the other side...

    On the other side of the line, we have the "what good is it to "clean house" if it means putting more people who boast about sexually harassing others in power" group, that makes a damn good point that the first side is trying very hard to ignore.

    Simply put - even if the Democrats were squeaky clean and ousted anyone who had even a whiff of supposed scandal about them... it would simply benefit Republicans. As Trump said - he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters."

    What good is having the moral high ground if you have no ability or power to keep the opposition, that has no morals, from taking a shit all over everything?

    No, seriously. I'd much rather the party I stand behind be squeaky clean; in a perfect world, it would be. Perhaps, in time, we could get there. A good step along that path would be getting the party that doesn't care about playing in their own fucking feces out of the White House, fixing the rampant gerrymandering that allows a candidate to win with less than 30% of the vote (and thus prevent representatives from having to listen to their constituents, since they know their job is safe), and removing the legalized bribery that is going on.

    Want to see how crazy the Gerrymandering is?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yeah, despite having the overall majority, Jones would have lost if this was done on a District based level. Crazy shit - they packed Democrats into CD7 quite well, and split the lines enough to ensure they couldn't stand a chance in the other districts; even the insane turnout this one had wasn't enough to overcome it.

    The sad thing is... doing that would probably require 70+% of the current sitting Congress experiencing a sudden, spontaneous loss of life.

    Meanwhile, we just sit around tearing into one another like goddamn mindless beasts, accomplishing fuck all and looking like hysterical lunatics in the process, all while the people that this entire argument is about continue to go unabated and unhindered by our hot air, finding new victims every day.

    It's insanity. Lets fight among ourselves while the true culprits continue to enjoy their lavish, taxpayer-funded lifestyles... cause that will accomplish so much.
    ElectricFetus likes this.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    If your employee groped 8 women, but he's a really good employee, you'd keep him on regardless? You'd look at a good telling off, and an apology to his victims as the other option?

    I did not say there were no other options, pjdude. I said the better option for all concerned is that he resign and not continue in a position of power for a variety of reasons which have been covered repeatedly and I have absolutely no intention of doing so again with you.

    Do you feel better now?

    Well, you haven't exactly answered any questions. You attributed your own words to me and then tried to have a go at me for what you said.

    You have basically spent your time in this thread saying 'yeah, sexual harassment is really bad, but... [insert political justification for excusing it here]'.. And I mean that literally. You have reminded me you have a penis and then became offended when I would not it seriously.

    You seem to be confused as to who said what and now you are accusing me of "removing language from your posts", when I did no such thing, nor did I alter anything in your posts.. Given your utter failure at formatting and just how you have utilised the quote function and the hatchet job you have done, you really aren't in any position to complain about any such things, particularly when it is of your own invention.

    I could ask you to show me exactly what I removed from your post, or what language I removed, but to be honest, I don't have 10 years while I wait for you to figure out how to use the quote function or post links. I can link my post and yours and people can see for themselves if I "removed language", whatever the hell that even means in this discussion considering I did not remove anything from your post...

    Considering how you are responding to me, and the language you have used, you really want to rethink those kinds of accusations. It just makes you are only here because you feel the need to get angry and you don't exactly know what that should be.

    Secondly, I haven't slandered you. I am discussing your words with you and your argument and stance with you because you inserted yourself into this discussion to demand I take your words seriously as a victim of sexual harassment. I don't agree with your assessment in regards to Franken. I don't agree with your assessment that politics and winning matters the most here and that "assaults of any nature" being a skeleton that should be accepted in your candidates if that is what it takes to win, which is literally what you have argued:

    And look pjdude, if that is what you want to stand for, that is fine. That is entirely up to you. But if you are willing to accept "assaults of any nature" in your candidates, then you do not get to complain when the Republicans accept that in their candidates.
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, yeah I think I know that already. Now you might think those are fine, but it is up to a women's own perception if those are wrong or not.

    How the saying go, "I hate what your saying but would die defending your right to say it"?

    It always baffles me this name calling that I somehow hate women. I have repeatedly stated I want equal rights for women, and want women to be free and given all the same rights as any man, "full stop". No man has the right to destroy another man's reputation and livelihood on mere accusation of serious crimes, due process must apply, but somehow suggesting this equality be applied to women is "misogyny"? Often I get asked "why would you think women would lie?" my stump reply is "because women are people and people lie" the reaction on their faces, priceless. It is clear to me that some people seem to think women deserve special rights and privileges, to counter past or present sexism against women or simply as a reward for having a vagina, this is of course antithetical to the concept of equality, and most people don't even think far enough to have cognitive disobedience over it. I believe all this stems from an instinct to cuddle and protect women as if women were children, while this may have made sense in prehistoric times from an optimize reproduction sense, today women are and should be treated as adults and equals of men in society.

    Fixed that for you, now it seems totally silly right? I would say the boss/company would need to weigh the cost of losing the employee verses the cost of law suits. Ideally the company would suspend the employee until a court of law determines guilt or not, but this process is public and opens up for media fiasco.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Then you have the President you deserve.

    I mean, most people would aim and strive for perfection, morals, principals, values, respect and dignity. You are essentially arguing against that for "politics". You aren't even pushing for a D or a passing grade. You're pushing for a straight F, because "politics" and because you think the cool kids who also fail basic spelling, are winning, so you're aiming for a failing grade, because you want a taste of some of that "winning!!"..
    So be a moral hack in the meantime and maybe, you might get there.....?

    Yeah, that's some winning strategy there.

    It's like promising women that your party stands for them, while endorsing sex offenders, and telling the women that 'yeah, stand with us, can't promise you anything now, but "perhaps in time, we could get there".. Seriously, you fail at politics. Please don't ever run for office.

    Because you just know that if you do, they will manage to track down some of your posts and there would be a year's worth of political ads running against you just from this thread alone.

    Oh hey, look. You're trying to change the subject, yet again.

    How strange and unusual.

    Wait, so now you are complaining about Franken?

    You're aiming for an F to win, even if it means not having a "clean house" and attributing those abject failures and lack of morals as a winning strategy because the other side does it... You don't count in my "ourselves". I rather have my morals intact and lose and keep my head held high, than aim for the worst, just to win, regardless of the cost. If you are willing to sell yourself and what matters just to win, then you do not deserve to win.
  13. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    From former governor Arne Carlson:

    "Recent events have brought to mind some terrifying days I experienced growing up in the Bronx. As a 6th grader, I was painfully shy with a pronounced stammer.

    One day, two uniformed policemen came into the classroom, looked around, and pointed to me while declaring, “We want that boy.”

    I was escorted to the principal’s office, planted in a chair, and asked if I knew why I was there. I stammered “no” and was told to stare at the wall clock until my memory improved.

    When it became clear that clock watching was not going to produce a confession, I was grilled on my whereabouts for a series of Saturdays. Fortunately, my father had formed a boys club at our church and he would take us to various points of interest in New York City. My Saturdays were covered.

    This only produced frustration from the officers so I was directed back to clock watching.

    That evening, I shared the horror with my parents who were Swedish immigrants and certainly not acquainted with the finer points of law. So my father wrote down the places and times of the boys club Saturday trips. Certainly, that would clear me they reasoned.

    However, the next day I was back again facing the clock. My father’s list meant nothing because the police officers had been informed by a reliable witness that two boys crawled over the school fence, broke into the school, and caused minor damage. One was identified as an Italian and the other had blond hair.

    Since there were few blonds in our Italian, Jewish and Irish community then it was clear that it had to be me. Of this the police were certain.

    On the afternoon of the second day, Mrs. McCauley, my 6th grade teacher who bore a striking resemblance to Aunt Bee of Mayberry fame, burst into the principal’s office, grabbed me by the hand and boldly declared, “I want my boy back.”

    Some time later, the mystery was solved and yes there was more than one blond in the Bronx.

    However, the pain of that memory still makes me well up. My presumption of innocence was trampled by the authorities who had certainty of their side and by a principal who was all too willing to vacate her office and her responsibility to protect her students. My parents were poor and all too trusting in authority.

    It was my teacher, Mrs. McCauley, who saved me from entering the juvenile system. To her courage, I owe my life.

    Being a victim can be painful but the answer to an injustice cannot be to create another injustice.

    I am deeply troubled by the resignation of Al Franken and the complete absence of anything resembling due process.

    Now reports are surfacing that Leeann Tweeden, Franken’s prime accuser, may have been coached by Roger Stone, a major Trump operator. Since there was no vetting, we only heard her story. But there has been no explanation as to why she attended a USO event in 2009 honoring Franken and was captured on tape joking around with him. This is three years after she claimed to be traumatized by Franken."

    She continued in 2011 with a tweet containing a photo of her and Franken together.

    This is all very troubling. A rush to judgment is, unfortunately, all too human. But a rush to punishment is totally unacceptable.

    Perhaps this is a time for reconsideration. We now know that the right wing attempted to plant a false accusation with the Washington Post. On the other side, we also know that an accuser against Roy Moore of Alabama fudged the truth in her allegations.

    Further, we know that Senate Democrats who asked for Franken’s resignation may have been motivated more by the politics of the Alabama Senate race than the seriousness of the allegations.

    And now we have the supreme insult of New York Senator Schumer “advising” Governor Dayton on how to pick a successor. That is a certainty for GOP advertising in 2018.

    It is time for all of us to sober up. Our nation is in peril with Donald Trump in the White House and Republicans yielding to his demands. We are increasingly moving towards authoritarianism and continued GOP subservience could possibly lead to the dissolution of the Mueller investigation.

    While I am not always in agreement with Senator Al Franken, I firmly believe in due process which is a cornerstone of our democratic way of living. Whenever in history we abandoned it, we severely damaged ourselves. Just think about the lynching of Blacks in the South, the internment of people of Japanese descent in World War II, or the era of McCarthyism when lives were destroyed based solely on allegations.

    The simple fact is that Al Franken has been the Senate’s most effective challenge to Trump and his subordinates. The possibility of any rigging by Roger Stone and his associates should cause all of us to call for a rescinding of the Franken resignation and a prompt and thorough review of all allegations by the Senate Ethics Committee.

    He was elected by we, the people, and he should continue to serve until a legal determination has been made.
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Scary stuff... unfortunately for those who would prefer logic and reason to prevail, it seems facts and logic no longer matter to far too many people.
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    The kid wasn't arrested and Franken didn't have to resign. So, your claims of extra-judicial persecution are bullshit.
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    And I'm sure many of the people whose lives were ruined by McCarthy received no judicial persecution either, that is the whole point: social media now has the power to hound people out of jobs and even out of political office as high as senator based on nothing but accusations, unless of course they are republican. That sounds like extra-judicial persecution to me, particularly a form of it that republicans are already trying to use if they they have not already in the case of Franken's accuser and Roger Stone.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    To be accurate, you're whining.

    Yeah, whatever you say, Iceaura:

    The people advocating gun regulation are foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda - is that really the point you want to make? Well, you wouldn't be alone - it's been made, inadvertently to be sure, over and over, on TV and in the newspaper and right here, as we hear them tell us about the nature of those who do not agree that guns are useless and therefore should be removed from private hands by whatever means necessary and on whatever justification is available.

    One reason the eminently sensible laws mentioned are opposed by so many, not just the NRA, is that they don't trust the source. Amy Klobuchar is not a terrible Senator, but if not watched she will make bicycle helmets mandatory, canoeing without actually wearing a lifejacket illegal, fireworks available only to licensed professionals, that kind of thing. The term "Nanny State" might have been coined for her utopia. And that poisons the well.

    (Iceaura, #3204234/32↗)

    Yeah, foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda of keeping guns out of the hands of some of the documentably most dangerous criminals in our society.

    And that's the thing; if you could argue beyond talking points and platitudes, maybe the signs wouldn't stand out so much. But, really:

    Yeah, actually, you freaked out about the establishment when it was Hillary Clinton. And you just argued that people, Democrats, and especially women, need to take some sexual harassment for the team, and protect our sexual harassers because they aren't as bad as what we would normally hope is some manner of statistical outlier, because, y'know, politics.

    And the part you're skipping out on—

    —with your glib focus on targeting a woman is the contrast: It's not your Party? Okay, ye who argues to reserve special regard for sex offenders if that's what your personal politics need, shut your filthy advocacy and silence your rape culture. If you separate yourself from stakeholders, then don't be telling anyone what the organization needs to do. There is an actual human rights complaint before us, and liberals, being liberal, are supposed to already have their shit straight on this question, but, quite clearly, we don't. Why is this the one human rights issue we cannot as liberals seem to get a handle on? The answer is actually kind of obvious, and watching you run through conservative stations in defense of rape culture as living necessity only reminds how easy it is to fall into such patterns.

    For instance, if we're on a Kellyanne bit, here, I'll even be magnanimous enough to give you your choice: Would you rather be Spicey Spice or Hucka Spice? Yeah, go try some more, why don't ya, to reidentify a woman in order to get off calling her a liar a few more times? Because it's so obviously useful. So, yeah, you rather be Sean Spicer, or does it make no difference to you if the name happens to be attached to a woman; of course, in that case, we could just call you after her daddy, a preacher who knows how to pitch that kind of bullshit. And I must admit, the daughter is extraordinarily talented; there's a great line in FLCL about how the ability to try hard is a talent, too, and Ms. Huckabee Sanders has a powerful talent for smashing her head into brick walls as performance art; her father probably ought to be proud, "That's my little swindler!"

    Oh, right.

    I know how to follow a discussion, Iceaura: She failed to answer how a man wanted her to, therefore she didn't answer; so sayeth a man, thus it must be.

    It's like when the right wing tries to tell women to think of Saudi Arabia, or reminds queers about Iran: Okay, and? These are the United States of America, the fact of a violation at hand not being as bad as another violation somewhere out there does not mean the violation at hand is not a violation. There are occasions when such comparative considerations are useful, but the public discourse generally avoids useful address. Like the curious argument about Rousseau being right despite getting his ass kicked by Wollstonecraft, because what he was arguing still represented a comparative improvement in women's quality of life. To the other, it's two hundred twenty-five years later, and western society has yet to dismiss customary objectification as existential purpose. Yeah, probably best to keep that one in the journals and journal letters.

    And, yes, when we sort through the data in order to understand the behavioral continuum of sexual violence in society, there will be important differences to note. However, when the question is sexually predatory behavior in the workplace, groping her at the office or during a photo op in the field is still predatory behavior, and the fact that he isn't trying to rape her in his car when she is fourteen means precisely nothing as a comparison.


    Part of the difficulty is that you brook no dissent; much of your political analysis is probably apt when it comes to identifying historical trends, but you might as well be arguing preferred succession versus customary, ritual, or legal succession, when the question is monarchy itself. Among the great conservative permissions in human history is recognition that the problem takes place postured as an excuse for not addressing the problem. And this is where you find yourself; the question is sexual harassment itself, or rape culture itself. The thread itself is established for the purpose of subordinating discussion of sexual harassment to political need, and while that's on the topic poster, your contribution—

    —pretty much gives the lie to your petulant bullshit about how you "have been explicitly and repeatedly and insistently not subordinating questions of sexual violence to anything". You made yourself clear in the other thread, too; see "Roy Moore accusations", #17↑ - 24↑? "That is: whose standards ...?" Quite obviously, yours. And, meanwhile, hey: Try to discuss a point with you↑, you just dust people off↑. Ando when someone point to an example↑, you just attack↑ for apparent lack of anything better to do. You "have been explicitly and repeatedly and insistently not subordinating questions of sexual violence to anything"?

    • "Both the women initially speaking about Franken voted for Trump, apparently. Is that part of their message?"

    • "Does Kellyanne Conway count as a women speaking on this issue, before whose gender-specific insights we men must remain silent?"


    So we might as well ask directly whether the problem is really that the women are speaking, or that our job involves actually paying attention and learning↗? I mean, you did quote the former, but the thing about the latter is that it's part of what you're responding to, and your performance since pretty much makes the point that the latter is annoying because of the former.

    I've seen this before, and even recently, when woman is the boundary of a man's liberalism. And it really is a challenge, when landing on the conservative side of a political argument, to avoid the easy refuge of traditional conservative stations. Sexually predatory behavior is inherently dangerous.

    And, yes, Kellyanne Conway counts; if you can't figure that out, well, it's not quite a moral hit, but neither am I surprised. She's also a politician paid to dissemble and who has a track record of betraying herself, which, yes, also counts. As a human question, it is a human question. She's doing her job, which means what it means each to the beholder. One's priority in assessing that question is itself suggestive, if not telling. Kellyanne Conway is a survivor, surviving.
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Accusers, plural. One person may lie, but several people lying implies a pattern of behavior. These women also tend to be politically aligned to the guy they accuse, so it's not political.
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Yes it does suggest a pattern of behavior: that social media can create a frenzy in which anyone that worked with franken is now going to think back about to any awkward of even innocent moment, post about it in the worse light possible then receive thousands of up votes and praise for daring to come out as a survivor of sexual harassment. Followed by what ever anonymous accusations news media can dreg up to get clicks.

    Lets look at Frankens other accusers:

    First came Leeann Tweeden, a conservative media personality, who claimed franken forcibly french kisser. She was also the women franken had his hands hovering over her Kevlar vest covered chest while appearing to be sleeping, a crass joke about how improbable it would be to grope someone through a Kevlar vest.

    Lindsay Menz who accused Franken of touching her clothed buttocks while they posed for a photo at the Minnesota State Fair in 2010. Franken takes thousands of pictures with people, I have had two with him.

    Huffington Post reported that two additional women who insisted upon anonymity said that Franken had subjected them to very similar misconduct during political events in 2007 and 2008. Who? For all we now these claims a completely made up!

    Jezebel reported that another anonymous woman said that after she was a guest on Franken's radio show in 2006, Franken leaned in toward her face during a handshake and gave her "a wet, open-mouthed kiss" on the cheek when she turned away.
    Another completely unsubstantiated claim from a even less reputable news site.

    Army veteran named Stephanie Kemplin told CNN that Franken held the side of her breast for 5 to 10 seconds "and never moved his hand" while posing for a photo with her during a 2003 USO tour in Iraq. Ok so where is the photo?

    Politico reported that an anonymous former Democratic congressional staffer said, and Franken denied, that Franken had tried to kiss her (but failed to do so) as she exited the studio after an interview on his radio show in 2006. Again who? A conservative plant for all we know.

    Tina Dupuy, wrote a piece in The Atlantic alleging that Franken squeezed her waist while posing for a photo at a presidential inauguration party in early 2009. Hey for any man that has even touched a co-worker in what they thought was completely norm proffesional way, she might had felt otherwise and at least years latter, reconsider and come out publicly about it during a sex panic: you are totally fucked. This is why I lived by a man-on-man rule: I don't touch other male co-workers and students, so why would I touch female co-workers and student? Right there as #1 on my list of ways to reduce sexual harassment, only tiassa replied against that one, because tiassa would fuck his male co-workers apparently.

    So that is it according to wikipeidia: One known conservative radio host started it, with Roger Stones apparently knowing about it ahead of time, 3 named women with unsubstantiated claims or claims that could be innocent events (squeezed her waist while posing for a photo), and 3-4 completely anonymous claims of no evidence what so ever.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Then he could fight it if he's so innocent. But he knows he's not.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You did not answer my question. You answered your (invented) question. Saying you answered my question is dishonest.
    And that is off topic, but it's a three syllable word.
    Because the slander attempts merely and entirely follow from the initial dishonesties. Like this one. (You doubt? The link points directly. Read for yourself)
    I could actually just quote the first word, append "dishonest, slander" and handle entire postings while denying you the repetition your approach depends on. Cut the noise factor a lot, too. But a little more specificity seems warranted.
    Not as low as that kind of post. I have some integrity.
    What is wrong with you people, that you can't see what you're doing? You can see other people doing it, sometimes. It's not like you're that stupid.
    That, right there, is you attempting to reframe my posting - avoiding, not taking at "face value" or any other way, but attempting to pretend it said what it did not, and addressed what it did not, instead of what it did. After multiple corrections.
    Synopsis: dishonest.
    And back to dishonesty, Kellyanne mode.

    And none of that was directly on topic, because it was response to off topic posting by Bells.

    But in the middle there:
    Not even close, or of kind.
    And a central, key confusion.

    And that is on topic. Because confusing "rules of decency" with "considerations in the handling indecent behavior", like all failures of reason, favors power and money (and thus the indecent, in general). When people confuse reason and consideration and sober assessment in the handling of indecent behavior with excusing and abetting and justifying indecent behavior, when they label reason itself as partisan defense of the indecent, they hand over control to amplification. Power and money will win the battle of amplification.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Yes, I did.

    Here is your question:

    And I said "from my perspective, neither".

    That was my answer to your question. Neither party can claim to be "the real women's party".

    Of course. Lest you address what Franken actually did. Instead, you're too busy arguing for politics.

    I answered you with the answer that you deserved. You have been whining about it for pages and pages now. I mean, if you want "dishonesty", read your question to begin with.

    And now you have taken to deliberately misrepresenting everything I have said, to suit your narrative. Because as you just admitted, it wasn't accidental, but a deliberate omission of what I literally said. You cut it out. You chopped it. And that is how you have attempted to argue in this thread, repeatedly.

    You do?
    I could ask what is wrong with you, that you are willing to argue for the protection of sexual harassers for the sake of politics.
    Reframe it? No. I said they would be fired in either example. What part of that did you miss? Even taking your frankly ridiculous and not based on reality example seriously, they would be dismissed.

    But no, please bore the shit out of me some more with the same stupid complaint. Because that's so much fun.

    Answer the question.

    What level of sexual harassment and sexual assault is acceptable to you that you are willing to leave them in place for the rest of their term, for the sake of politics?

    After what has been exhibited here and in the other thread, you don't get to complain about their sexual harassment. The moment you are willing to go that low for the sake of political expediency, then you don't get to complain. If anything, you are the one arguing like a right wing enabler. Not me.

    Yep. We'll forget your whine about how he was asked to resign and your snide and pithy little comments that mentioned the women in all but name, who demanded he resign. All you have spent your time doing here is posturing like an aggrieved men's rights activists. The assessment of Franken's actions were "sober". It took 8 women to come forward before the party would act. 8. Which is astonishing really. But they finally did it and you pitched a fit because they did it.

    These were your words, remember. You attempted to diminish what Franken did, ignored the fact he didn't actually apologise for his behaviour, then pitched a whine about the women who advocated for his resigning..

    Yeah, tell me how you still have "some integrity" some more. Because that is so believable.


    Yo, troll..

    What is scary is that you once supported the sexual harassment of another member because of your issues with said member, pitched a fit when we tried to handle it and you are now doing the exact same thing but only this time, it's not a member but a senator and you are arguing it for the sake of politics. There is no absolving your behaviour or your lack of integrity at this point.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Followed by a quote from you. That from the lecturer on irony?
    Your posts really are, as you illustrate by quoting not me but yourself, pretty much as worst described.

    My memory actually softened them a bit, made them less obviously what they are. So thanks for the reminder - you've been posting like that a long time now, lots of stuff like that, and so I don't have to worry about somehow failing to grant due consideration for whatever validity you have buried in them. Dig it out yourself.
    On the Bell's train? Never, ever, posting without a lie, twist, or slander? Ok: Dishonest.
    By that I mean: posting falsehoods, with the intention of slandering as one's primary rhetorical approach.

    See, what I'm dealing with is a guy who looks directly at
    1) criticisms of the Dem establishment (most of them men) for screwing up and fecklessly endangering the entire country by the irresponsible political expediency of nominating Clinton in the face of incoming fascism,
    2) criticism of the DFL establishment (most of them men) for screwing up and fecklessly endangering the entire country by the irresponsible political expediency of dumping Franken too quickly in the face of incoming fascism,
    3) criticism - even, when possible, analysis and discussion (a rare thrill) - of those who defend these feckless endangerments of the citizenry in various bad and destructive ways, and thereby open the door to further inroads of incoming fascism,

    and sees - wait for it - a "pattern". Not exactly news, one would think. Not rocket science. Until one reads the description of the "pattern" seen. And then - wtf?
    So is the question patriarchy itself? Some larger context in which incoming fascism is a subsidiary concern one should set aside on demand, not even mention in certain situations?
    Is that why reason and consideration are moral failings in deciding what to do about Franken?
    Could be. Maybe there is a non-patriarchal mode of fascistic governance, an advance against patriarchy and reduction of the systematic abuse of women one can make independently of losing one's country to fascist governance, and this is the time for it.

    But my take is that getting Donald Trump elected to the Presidency provides us with a partial answer to that question, something along the lines of "roasting a live mammoth would sure feed a lot of people, but maybe next time not so close to the house".
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page