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. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Stop pretending to be so stupid. Credible accounts from independent victims should be enough to get you fired from your job. There is never likely to be any other evidence. And no, I don't give a shit if Democrats are the only ones doing anything about it, we are morally superior to the opposition.

    We do not agree. You are playing the fool and taking things to an absurd conclusion, like the way to prevent auto accidents is to ride a horse.

    And think about this; if we believed the women, we wouldn't have Clarence Thomas.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    #mgtow | #wellduh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Click because Circle Jerks are time better spent than this discussion.

    Yet here you are still wasting your time chattering at me.

    Try it this way: Your pitch↑ has precisely nothing under the sun to do with me.

    So, sure, heterosexual men can watch you try to convince a queer that treating women as if they were men is somehow a good idea. But, y'know, really? You're not smart enough to figure this part by yourself?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    The problem is, if only Democrats are held accountable to this, then we are, effectively, handing the reigns of the government over to a party that is, through their inaction, giving tacit approval to this behavior.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Only if the Deocratic party is full of creeps, in which case they deserve to lose.
    Bells likes this.
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    I think we are waaaaaayyyy beyond that now, try to keep pace. I have provided now a list of ways to reduce sexual harrasment, your still complaining about step 1 in context to your self, while presenting no solutions what so ever.

    Define "credible".

    Why not? We have the technology to put cameras everywhere, to record everything!

    So how did that moral superiority do for Von Hindenburg supports in 1930's Germany?

    First of all, I just told you I agree, you can't tell me I don't agree with you now! My conclusions are not absurd and have been made by thousands/millions of men world wide, and finally the way to prevent auto accidents is to have cars drive themselves. Self driving cars is the most near term and viable way to radically reduce the rate of car accidents. Horses would cost more and be slower and likely increase fatalities through kicks and stumps. Likewise dating apps, porn, sex toys and a minimizing to the point of abstention of sexual propositioning of women is the most near term and viable way to radically reduce sexual harassment. Traditional dating and proposition of women needs to go, it is archaic, outmoded and prone to harassment.

    Only if the republicans believed the women, which they don't, as long as women are accusing a republican (they have no problem hounding an accused democrat)

    Or the republicans start paying off women to make accusations, at which point the "believe the women" modus operandi would hand total power to the conservatives and Trump.
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Same as vetting any kind of journalism.
    These things generally happen in private, because, you know, people don't want to get caught.
    If democracy is over, we have already lost. Make no mistake, the National Socialists won by violating every moral principle in the book, is that your model of politics? Are you going to complain about the Democratic Party's lack of a private militia?
    Nope, 11 Democrats approved, resulting in a tie that was broken by Dan Quayle.
    O'Keefe already tried this, as I said. He proved this wouldn't work.
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Journalism? This is a crime not gossip!

    Yeah and murders generally happen in private, what is your point? We don't just allow social media to decide who the murder is do we?

    Go back to the last moral panic of the 1980's, there was tons of journalism of satanic child fucking was there not? tons of accusations? and that shit happens in private too, at a preschool no less where parents could not see there children getting raped by satanists... at least that shit went to trial!

    How is demanding due process equal to the Nazis violating every moral principle in the book?

    Go back to what Tina Liebling said.

    Oh some specific case decades ago when morality was very different, back then a women could not simply destroy a man, there was no warlock hunt or social media to provide immediate and immense attention and adoration for coming out.

    One case where a known incompetent was trying to trick the Washington post. What happens when other republicans find more credible women against even more popular targets. Next you will be telling me hordes of paid trolls can't be used either.
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    You are the one suggesting we use the Nazi Party as a winning example. I wonder what the point of that was.
    You no longer need to be taken seriously.
    No it isn't. Firing someone for bringing disrespect to an organization does not rise to the level of a criminal trial.
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Winning example of what happens when you let the immoral use you, yes. Your the one that want to enable them by throwing out due process.

    That from a article title I quoted previously:

    You don't need to take me seriously, you can just stop replying to me then. Others though are saying what I'm saying and are being taken seriously.

    Firing someone for accusations is not the same thing as forcing politicians out for accusations, although it does operate under the same principle, in the long run there will be a whole lot of law suits and counter lawsuits over the next years over this, meanwhile: total republican domination. Imagine republicans hire trolls to swamp accusations against any democrat, former co-workers and interns and staffer can come out and claim what ever and get instant adoration, while the republicans will remain untouchable because their side will scream "fake news".
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    "We" did believe the woman.
    Even many of "them" believed the woman.
    We got Thomas anyway.
    He proved nothing except the possibility of getting caught sometimes - and the fact that there would be no penalty for getting caught.
    He's been caught before. He's willing to take that risk. That's how he earns his money - currently 300k per year salary, plus major side benefits.

    Consider: one of the main Republican lines, schticks, memes, etc, in all of this, is the claim that "the Democrats" are bribing women and otherwise arranging for false accusation. It's a major line in Alabama right now, influencing the vote. And this has been a common line of theirs for a while now. That, to me, is strong evidence the Republicans are actually doing that - the possibility has gone from speculative to more likely than not. It's the common pattern, right?
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Did you want me to write an essay in response?

    Well you aren't actually discussing what Franken did that led to his being asked to resign by Democratic women in the Senate. You are complaining that I agree with them. You are complaining that he is being "lumped in" with the Moore's and Trump's of the GOP and Weinstein's of this world. You are complaining that a special category of serial sexual harasser is not being created for Franken, so he can get a pass, because a) he's a Democrat and b) you think he is a good Democrat.
    Ya, you did.
    Yes you did. And again, you don't get to whine about slander and I did not slander you.

    I disagree. I think leaving serial sexual harassers in positions of power is bad, and is exactly why the #MeToo hashtag exists, and failing to actually adhere to a doctrine of decency when it comes to women and victims of sexual harassment is bad political strategy and leaving him there past the 2018 elections would see you lose that seat and possibly more, because it would look like the Democrats were trying to create a special category or change the definition of sexual harassment and what happens to men who sexually harass multiple women in the course of their employ, because this time it was one of their own..

    A man who groped 8 women does not deserve to remain in a position of power and does not deserve protection to do so. The only way to handle it to save the party and to send the message that it is not acceptable, is for him to be made to resign.

    And as we saw, he was not sorry that he did it, he cast doubt on his accusers, he failed to apologise and his statement took back his earlier statements. Had he remained in his position, it is now clear that his earlier statements were for politics and optics only. He did not mean them. And this is the man you think the party could have handled it differently for?
    Ya, because Al Franken was flying a plane with hundreds of people on board when he was made to resign. Or he was in the middle of surgery, when he was made to resign.

    I'll posit your example this way. That doctor who groped women at school reunions.. He's giving your wife or daughter a pap smear test. You'd rather we let him continue knowing he groped women at school reunions and New Years parties (while ignoring that for the majority of Franken's sexual harassment, he did it while in the course of his employ as a senator and appearing at Democratic events as a senator and valued guest)? Say those allegations come out and you realise your teenage daughter was internally examined by him? You'd opine that not pulling him out of that room and allowing him to stick his fingers up your daughter's vagina during the examination he was doing for medical reasons, was the best course of action to ensure your daughter's welfare? Or how about the pilot? He gropes wait staff at the airport restaurant and your young daughter is a flight attendant on his flight and he corners her in the kitchen area and cops a feel of her body without her consent. You'd be fine with letting him remain in that position and fly back and forth, because heaven forbid there's a delay while they get another pilot to replace him...? You'd be fine with that, yes?

    I do not know a single person who would suggest that that doctor not be pulled out of that room. And I do not know a single person who would suggest that it's better to let the sexual abuser fly the plane back lest they cause a delay for passengers.

    I mean, these are equally stupid and frankly dumbass examples that you posited.

    But hey, being a pilot and a doctor is an important job! We should look the other way and handle it differently, because you know, people's welfare and time schedule and whatnot.

    So stop pretending, stop with the downright idiotic examples and stop trying to excuse the behaviour by suggesting that his job was too important to lose despite what he did to women.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And that is dishonest.
    (As I noted: You posted dishonestly, by pretending the question was another, different one. Extending and elaborating on your dishonesty would not have changed that, of course, and so your question there is deceptive, a pretense that my objection to your pretending was to something else.)
    You cannot post honestly in this thread. Literally: can not do it.
    You can't post honestly. You simply can't.
    So you have to rewrite and alter my example, to include lots more specifics, to assess things. So you agree that circumstances matter.
    Gynecologist vs neurosurgeon, cornering and groping underlings trapped on a plane in flight vs patting restaurant wait staff on the ass as they walk by, you have to "posit" more specifics to assess the situation. You can't just go with my illustrative setups - they don't tell you enough.
    I rest my case.
    And that's a problem - you don't acknowledge other people, what they are thinking, or why.
    That's where you miss the impression of incompetence, weakness, flightiness, unreliability, and general fecklessness, the DFL has once again created for itself in Minnesota.
    Right now, the progressive hope is that Dayton can pull a rabbit out of this hat with the interim appointment.
    No, you posted those examples. I specifically did not, central to my point.
    No, I didn't.
    And yes, you did (and do, and will, as the bulk of your responses to me - including "whine", for example, and similar vocabulary usage of yours.)
    I'm not. That's not honest.
    "Excuse"? "Pretend"? my "examples"? You cannot post honestly in this thread.
    You'll have a chance to reality check, over the next ten months, what the Democrats "look like" in all of this - if you can.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2017
  16. Bells Staff Member

    I am actually not. I am recognising that for many victims, they won't speak out against their abuser if he is in a position of power. How do you think these men get away with it for so long or are able to remain in positions of power for so long? I am not taking away her agency by suggesting that she will seek to protect herself from further harm by acting in her own best interest when confronted with men in positions of power and with a public that would see fit to destroy her (take a quick look at some of the pro-Franken blogs and sites out there and you would see just how low they went when discussing his accusers). One of Franken's victims did not come out at first, because she thought he would have resigned and not dragged his victims through a public hearing for the sake of political expediency. She eventually came out because it was clear at that point that he was not going to do so.

    I would posit that demanding these women respond differently, or placing the onus on them to respond in a certain way (such as demanding he resign, for example) is taking away their agency. They handled it as best they could given the circumstances surrounding Franken's identity and position.


    I am not. I responded to your argument that his victims did not come out and demand he resign (except one). I clearly stated that it is not surprising that they would not make that demand given the circumstances and his identity and that this was not an indication that he did not do anything wrong.

    Here is what you said:

    personally I feel anyone with any sort of accusations of sexual or physical assault as well as any sort of corruption accusation against them should be automatically disqualified from office, however you seem to think that we can just clean house while the others play in the pig shit and not have it have consequences. Sadly that is not the case. I understand that having more lines we won't cross is part and parcel to being the good guys but the simple truth remains when going up against people who have no morality at all, unless you have an overwhelming power advantage which we do not, you have make compromises on your morality. Sometimes you have to stain yourself so those of the future don't have to.

    Now, your having a penis aside (no, really, what the hell was that statement even about?), you are arguing that the Democrats, or the "good guys" get down in the mud and play with the pigs like the other side do for political gain, is the reality of the situation. What I have consistently argued is that this is no longer an acceptable excuse when it comes to things like sexual harassment and sexual assault. You will have less standing to complain about their wallowing in pig shit, when you are also knee deep in it. When you excuse sexual harassment on your end, for political expediency, it is not good for women, it is not good for your party and it is not good for women. It is only good for harassers and abusers.

    And frankly, if you are willing to turn a blind eye to sex offenders on your side for political expediency, you are no longer the "good guys", and frankly, you will no longer deserve to win and in all honesty, should not be trusted to have an "overwhelming power advantage" and virtually declaring that you need to do this because the other side is worse, is not an excuse and should not be used as an excuse.

    As for the whole "sometimes you have to stain yourself so those of the future don't have to".. Here is what one of Franken's victims had to say about this excuse:

    Really? If Democrats demonstrate our party’s solidarity with harassed and abused women something bad will happen to women’s rights? Are you kidding me? Is that why there is a slush fund on Capitol Hill to settle sexual-harassment claims with taxpayer dollars—because of feminism?

    I heard this argument in private, too. It’s about protecting power and asking the victims to understand the larger goal of (maybe) protecting them sometime soon. This calculation was more reasonable in the 1980s. Now it seems like a Faustian bargain that’s doomed women’s ascension to real power: Boys will be boys and girls will be quiet.

    I have a radical idea: Maybe Democrats can replace politicians who harass and abuse women with anyone other than an abuser. There are good men in the world. I married one. I’ve worked with many more. Do we really believe our talent pool will dry up and our caucus will be nonexistent once we kick out all the creepers? I don’t. What if protecting men who harass and abuse women isn’t actually good for women?

    Maybe, just maybe, it’s only good for the men.

    If Franken and Conyers had not been asked to resign, they would have done so. Why do you think the Republicans have been arguing that Franken should not have resigned? Because they liked him? Because he was such a good senator? Or because they wanted to have something in place to counter the Democrat's pointing out that they elected a sex offender to the White House and endorsed a paedophile for the Senate?

    The Democrats purging their perverts is the worst thing for the GOP and they know it.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    ? Seriously? C'mon - you can't be that dim.
    No purging by Dems is unwelcome, purging of someone in the Franken crowd least of all. The more open seats in the Dem gallery, while the Reps have the suppression, gerrymander, and Statehouse advantage, the better for the Reps.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    I answered "neither". That was my answer to your question.

    I am. And that's your problem. Your example was downright idiotic and completely out of context. Alluding to Franken's important job in that fashion, is obscene.

    To begin with, your example was dumb. It was moronic and made little to no sense and attempted to excuse sexual harassment in certain instances.

    I'll give you a hint, it's not excusable, which is why I played on your dumbarse examples.

    You want the neurosurgeon example? Okay. He has been accused of groping women at reunions and NYE parties. If we are going to compare him to Franken, he has also been groping women at conferences and hospital gatherings, including some female staff.. Your wife or daughter is his patient. You'd tell them that it's no problem at all, because he's a good doctor and you'd argue that he is simply too good or too important to be made to resign?

    I mean, what other circumstances are you going to suggest it's vital or important to leave a serial sexual harasser of women in place, protected, allowed to continue to make money, to use his position to place him in further protected contact with women?

    He's another example for you.. You'd be fine with Franken if he was a teacher and was a terrific science teacher who fought for teaching science in a GOP controlled Christian bible thumping 'earth is 5,000 years old' hell hole, and you found out that he was groping women..? You'd complain if he was asked to resign as a result of those allegations, because well, he's doing good work, he said he didn't remember those incidents as his accusers did, and said sorry that the victims were offended, instead of apologising for what he actually did and the accusations or demands that he resign is because of politics, blah blah blah?

    Oh, I'm sorry for not taking into consideration those who wish to protect sex offenders for political expediency.

    You want me to consider their feelings? Want me to consider yours?

    Firstly, a pilot would be fired when he landed and a neurosurgeon would be fired the moment he stepped out of surgery and another neurosurgeon would take over his patients.

    Secondly, that is why your example completely fails to hold in comparison to Franken. Alluding to Franken being allowed to remain in place because he would be good for women, while demanding everyone ignore what he did to women is obscene and it also suggests, as Ms Dupuy notes, that the Democrats are willing to scrape the bottom of the barrel and do not have talent within their ranks to fill in his position.

    Nope, I played on the stupid examples you provided.

    I mean, have you no shame to have posted those two examples to begin with? What else are you willing to do to throw down to protect a man who groped 8 women (that we know of)?

    Your examples cited those that were outside of their employ, private events. Franken groped women at Democratic events and events where he was attending in his capacity as a US Senator.

    Yep. And the party that is not your party is now down two sex offenders in the Senate. Hopefully one day you'll realise that reality check.
  19. Bells Staff Member

    And the more sex offenders you have in the party that is not your party, the more chances the GOP has in pointing out your hypocrisy in light of the sex offenders they have amongst their ranks. But hey, let's leave Franken in place for political expediency. Let's have the party that is "pro women" continue to wallow in pig shit with the GOP while claiming moral supremacy. It's all about winning and screw simply doing the right thing.
  20. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Your seeming inability to comprehend plain English got old ages ago. Spidergoat said, "I find it ridiculously easy not to sexually harass anyone." Full stop. You said, "It is ridiculously easy not to sexual harass anyone. The steps I laid out are very easy to follow. I'm glade we agree! " (Emphasis mine.)

    The "steps" to which you refer are as follows:

    Now--try to keep up here, Mike Pence-- Spidergoat made NO such qualifications.

    Surely you see the difference, no?
  21. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Do you honestly believe that any of this nonsense you post bears any resemblance to science? Your analysis here is about as scientific as the "bitches be shoppin" bs you frequently post is, ahem, "evolutionary biology." Sheesh, you struggle with basic reading comprehension and vocabulary (and spelling, for that matter, i.e., they sure as hell aren't typos when you insist upon using terms like "classicism" for "classism" repeatedly). When you haven't even grasped the concept of satire--typically introduced by grade 9, IIRC--you might wanna think twice before attempting a statistical analysis, and inflicting such upon a public audience.
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Do you honestly think I can be insulted or shamed?

    Anyways do you have any counter argument to evolutionary biology, or do you just have insults?

    Nope you lost me. How do the qualifications change the argument?
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If something bad happens to women's rights because reliably-voting Franken's 2018 replacement is a Republican or pushover Dem, will that register in anyone's awareness?
    No, it wasn't. It was you pretending my question was something quite different. That was dishonest.
    Who's the second?
    The Dems are down one reliably progressive vote in the Senate.
    You still think you can manage the GOP's messaging like this? Slow learner. This isn't a junior high school debate team event.
    That's not true.
    No, you aren't.
    That would not excuse your response - or change its implications.
    You keep on elaborating and "positing" and providing the necessary circumstances, as I observed you would have to (and would lard with dishonesty, also visible), and I'll sit back and watch you demonstrate "zero tolerance" in real life. It looks a lot like the fecklessness demonstration around Franken - but maybe the Minnesota voters won't hold it against the actual, individual candidates in ten months, Dayton will pull a miracle Progressive out of the grab bag without costing the DFL the governorship, Klobuchar won't take too big a hit, the national political effects will be nil, and the only cost long term will have been of Franken's presence during the budget and near term Trump/Russia debacles.

    Feelings? You try to reframe my posting as something about feelings? Damn. Kellyanne Conway's got nothing on you, for sheer brass.
    You can't post honestly. You simply can't do it.
    You cannot post honestly. Try - you can't.
    You changed them, in ways central to my contention and deliberately omitted from my posting for that explicit reason.
    Which verified my contention, btw.
    That's not true - the pilot was at an airport restaurant, easily presumed to haver been on the job, the doc quite possibly networking at medical school reunions and attending hospital organized or otherwise professionally associated New Year's Parties. These circumstances would of course matter - bear on your assessment and response - as we see from your bringing them up.
    Resting my case.
    Regardless of what they actually did, or the effects on their patients and passengers etc? Seems unlikely. But maybe you are recommending, not describing.
    Either way, since we have established the principle of some tolerance rather than zero tolerance, the question arises: what would the analogy be, between stepping out of surgery or landing the plane and Franken's tasks at hand?
    Whether the Democrats can exonerate themselves of fatuous self-immolation by finding, recognizing, and selecting from within their ranks an instant Senator of Franken's abilities and reliability, one also capable of winning election in ten months and again in two years, is not known, but it does not depend on whether or not such people exist.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page