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. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And it's still dishonest.
    Look, Kellyanne - I'm not going to wear down. You lie, I label.
    So either you think in reality pilots and doctors don't harass and grope, or you are trying to "reframe" again.
    You presented the thought, not me. I just pointed at it.
    Yep. Hence the demonstrated point - you had to provide specifics, circumstances, to make the assessment. Circumstances alter cases. That's how it works, in the real world.
    If you have to project your "zero tolerance" nonsense unto me to recognize its absurdity and cartoonish unreality, so be it - but don't forget to bring the lesson home.
    !? Damn, you and Kellyanne Conway need to sit down and trade tips.
    No, that was clearly not an attempt of mine. Not even remotely.
    I have been taking Franken's importance for granted, something that needs no demonstrating, all along - including granted by you. Position of power, sending messages, and all that - you remember posting such things?
    The precipitate, irresponsible, Franken-booters have an interest in changing tack, diminishing Franken's importance and the significance of his Senate role now that he's gone, lest the suddenly visible and incoming consequences of booting him in that careless and ill-considered manner prove unpopular. But to suggest that someone would be "implying", by hidden stratagem of some kind, otherwise unacknowledged and controversial importance to Franken's role and influence and status - that's sophisticated. That's pro, Kellyanne quality, bs.
    ? You are contradicting yourself. Do you even know that?

    Ignoring everything except the "credibility" of the allegations is exactly not "it". Your description demonstrates, again, the obvious - that "it" did not happen with Franken.

    That is, as you just agreed: They ignored the circumstances, and demanded resignation immediately regardless of actual behavior or predictable consequences - neither of which they considered. They acted according to short term political concerns, matters of image and "sending messages" (as in the bulk of your posting) - classic political expediency, if you care - and now they will be dealing with the consequences of their irresponsibility: the actual messages they sent, the actual political results in Congress, the verdicts that will come in over the next few months via sober evaluations of their decision-making that do account for the matters they dismissed from consideration, their motives, and their demonstrated political character.

    Here's the first move: http://www.startribune.com/republican-senator-to-become-minnesota-s-lieutenant-governor/463950133/ I like the try at monkey wrenching the State Reps, and although the wimpy Lt Governor is unlikely to rise to Franken's standards as Senator but may choose to run from their vantage as an incumbent anyway, that election day risk probably cannot be avoided without pranging the Governor's race. Dayton has been a decent Governor, and this may be his best go in a bad spot - grade: so far so good.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    18,523
    So if you have no intention of arguing honestly, why are you replying?

    Anyways here you demonstrate that you yourself can't even define sexual harassment, tisk, tisk I feel afraid for the women around you.

    But yes what you and others here keep doing is not defining sexual harassment, leaving the issue up for anyone personal interpretation, riff for miss use, abuse, and frenzy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,246
    That's rich, coming from you.

    Ah, so now we're back to protecting men from harassment and assault allegations--weren't you just claiming this was about protecting women from such?
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    I answered the question with a neither. I mean, what else do you want? And yeah, again comparing me to a woman who endorsed a paedophile... And why? Why are you losing your proverbial shit like this over two threads now? Because I said that Al Franken's actions were sexual harassment and I agree that he should have resigned because it is not acceptable.

    Astonishing really.

    What else are you going to come out with? What other ridiculous comparisons and examples are you going to throw down to defend a man who groped 8 women?

    I mean, shit, I was disgusted with the Republicans who made all sorts of excuses and defended Moore and Trump, but you're up there for the Democrats side. Kind of pathetic really.

    Of course they do. But your example of how these things are handled is what made it so stupid. As I said, you left reality behind and went right into the 'can the baby be stuffed back into the womb after it's born so it can be aborted' style of argument.

    It was stupid, not based on reality and in no way comparable to what actually happens in the real world and it is in no way comparable with what happened with Franken or with anyone else that is fired for or asked to resign for sexual harassment.

    You haven't actually presented anything aside from bizarre comparisons, downright illogical and stupid examples and you are being abusive because I am not taking you seriously or taking your posts and whining seriously. Had you presented an actual thought, then I would have held it in my two little hands, close to my chest, with great anticipation of what else was to come. But you presented.. Well.. Bleh. Over and over and over again. You cannot defend your position (if you actually had one as you keep veering right and left trying to cover all bases and these frankly ridiculous 'gotcha moment' attempts (which you even seemed to gloat about), that kind of read like a skit on a comedy show. Your examples of the pilot and the neurosurgeon is a prime example of what can only be described as a low-point for you on the 'you should be embarrassed' phase of your posting history here.

    No actually, I did not. When I answered the original example and assumed you meant high school reunion, my answer was the same and you threw a hissy fit because I assumed you meant high school reunion. Yes, he would have been fired. Had he done it at his medical school reunions or other events such as NY parties that were attended by other doctors, he would still have been fired.

    Where he harassed those women does not matter. To the one, no medical practice would allow a doctor accused of groping multiple women, even at private events, to continue to practice in case he does it in the course of his employ or work and they could face a lawsuit, and to the other, no hospital would allow him to continue to practice for the same reason.

    Your example went along the lines of firing him during surgery, etc.. Reality shows that does not happen unless something else was happening. He would be called into the management's office, or his chief of surgery, and he would be dismissed. I mean, you do realise that this is how things work in the real world, yes? That his patients would then be assigned to another surgeon or to his replacement. So your examples made little to no sense and did not apply in the real world. Perhaps in your mind that is what you think happens, but it's not in the real world. You know, reality. So your 'gotcha' moment, your pathetic attempts to show how these assessments are made, was downright stupid because it is not applicable in the real world.

    You are the one who presented the example to begin with. I played with your example, and asked you how you'd feel if that was your wife's or your daughter's gyneacologist and he had been accused of groping multiple women at reunions and whatnot and he was still allowed to do your wife's or your daughter's pap smear exam and whether you would be fine with him being in that room with your wife or your daughter and whether you'd be pitching a fit about how he was still there, or whether you would have been questioning why he was still allowed to practice. Or would you be demanding that he not be fired or asked to resign, because he has patients and whatnot, much as you are arguing about Franken. You didn't answer the question, of course.

    I played with your example, to draw a line in the sand for you. That is why you started having yet another hissy fit, and refused to answer it.

    You know, you're kind of bad at this.

    You have been ranting about the accusations against Franken and how they were treated by the media for what? Weeks now? The women in the Senate who asked him to resign did the responsible thing, for women, the party and your party that is not your party's cause to fight for women. This expectation that those women they purported to believe and defend should expect that they overlook what was done to them, while hoping that he might do something for them at some point in the future is obscene. So his "booters" acted responsibly in demanding he resign and given his speech in the Senate, they had good reason to, because he was never apologetic for his actions and behaviour to begin with, since he placed the onus on the women, but in that speech, he showed just why his female colleagues did the responsible thing in asking him to resign, because he essentially implied those women were lying. It's not about diminishing his importance. On the contrary, it is because he is such an important figure, the supposed purveyor of women's rights, that he had to resign, because no one could possibly take them or him seriously when he would debate about women's rights or try to point out the Republican's failures when it comes to women, knowing that at least 8 women had accused him of groping them from before he was a Senator to while he was a Senator.

    Your examples, attempted to imply how sometimes we do look the other way or treat it differently in certain situations and you did so by using the worst possible unrealistic examples that made little to no sense. Yes, in the past, we were expected to look the other way. Men in power remained in power. A decade ago, Franken would not have been asked to resign, his accusers would have been treated exactly as the Democrats treated Anita Hill when she accused Thomas. Those days are past. Perhaps you pine for those days, but those days are long gone. The expectation now is that if you behave improperly, then the consequences for your actions and behaviour have to matter. Al Franken is a wealthy man, he isn't going home to live in a cardboard box. Your argument that he could have been allowed to stay until the 2018 elections is what the Republicans are saying, because it would benefit them politically and most importantly, it would continue to benefit the man who groped 8 women. The only responsible thing his fellow senators could have done and eventually did was to ask him to resign. And he resigned in the worst way possible and has destroyed his own legacy. He could have apologised for his behaviour, sent the message that sexual harassment was never acceptable. He failed to do that and as a result, he has damaged his own political brand. That resignation statement he read out shows clearly, why the only responsible option was for them to ask him to resign.

    I don't particularly care how you had been taking Franken's importance (although the manner in which you have been carrying on for him, kind of shows he mattered to you and those around you somewhat (something something about removing one's self from this and that in protest applies here when it comes to the retelling of the women around you and their response).

    If the Democrats intend to be the party that stands out against this sort of behaviour, then it would behoove them to remove said behaviour from their ranks.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Zingers are not an argument. If you were arguing with a neo-nazi do you think a zinger like that would disprove him, do you think it would disprove him to any other readers? No you would just make your self and your arguments (if you had any) look petulant.

    I don't see why BOTH can't be protected. Notice when I argue with alt-righter I frame what they care about, alt-righters don't give a fuck about the others races, only white people, likewise you don't give a fuck about men, just women, so just as not crashing our civilization for a race war protects white people. The list I provided protects the women. And just as maintaining civilization also protects everyone else, my list also protects men.

    Again like the others I notice you refuse to argue my points, like the others I can only assume because you have no argument.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't think you are arguing honestly. If you need a list, maybe don't trust your instincts. Ask a woman if what you are thinking of doing is appropriate. Mostly it's just a matter of getting consent and not using the power of your position to get sexual favors from co-workers.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Well that is your misconception, not mine. Here see this guy here, Destiny, he is arguing honestly:



    I'm merely doing the same thing: here is a problem I suggest solutions, and like youtuber Nobullshit all you people can do is spit insults. "you're dumb, you're voice is dumb, your just dumb, bro, your a dumb ass motherfucker!"

    That sort of a catch-22 there. Worse asking one women does not mean another women will think the same thing is appropriate/inappropriate, unless you think women are a hive mind.

    Mostly... What about accidentally bumping into a women? What about talking about the new hotdog stand and she interprets it as lewd comments? What about when they flirt with you, should you flirt back, what if you are mistaken?
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,824
    I would simply remind, sir, that when it comes to narrative dominance and telling people who and what they are, and what they think, women have more practice functionally enduring such malice than most of us can imagine.

    That, and something about irony and the Establishment↑.
     
  12. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    because she is a person and not fucking robot. because i would expect her

    actually you are. that you feel so superior on your high horse to not notice you are doesn't mean you aren't. this here is your exact quote
    [QUOTE}Women who are victims are in this sort of place whereby we have to be accommodating.[/QUOTE] that is you flat out saying that there is no other option. that if a victim comes saying anything in favor of there attacker it must be in appeasment. it doesn't. it could be for any number of reasons


    your full of shit here. you seriously using this as a response when i'm literally accusing you of doing this. you are demanding specific responses.with specific rationales


    first of yes you are and i'm going to explain exactly why you are, but far more importantly you do not get to tell me you aren't when i tell you are. this is why people don't report sexual assualts. this is why people get silenced when trying to report. this is rape culture. your first instinct when dealing with this was to tell me i was wrong about my feelings and my viewpoint. you are literally doing to me right now what your complaining about these men doing to women. don't push me on this i've really had enough about people telling me i'm lying about and to shut up. i had to fight for my voice i will not allow anyone to take it from me.

    this is what i'm refering to when i said you were deligitmizing me as a victim
    words matter. you are literally telling me that me viewpoint as a victim is not up to snuff. i don't expect you to get it, you were believed. i got told to shut and get along with me attacker. not to mention the fact you actually ignored the point being made to paint me as being ok with sexual assualt even though personal beliefs run more strict than your viewpoint. that plays into this. your treating me as if i don't what its like to deal with that fear and recrimination when i know all to well.

    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.


    you have a tendency to casually dismiss male voices that disagree with you on this topic as irrelevent.
    you misinterpert what im talking about to suit your own viewpoints. at no point was i condoning sexual assualt which you seem to believe is the natural state of every male. your entire mindset is one of good these people are gone there fore everything is all good. franken and conyers replacement will take years before they have to the pull to do what fraken and conyers. in frankens case it may also end up costing democrat big in the state legislature. you don't have to like it but pretending this isn't a fact isn't helping. like it or not standing up for these people is going to cost other people we should be protecting. that is the issue i take with you. you don't want to think about consequences its what you want there for no bad can come of it. none of this means them resigning wasn't the correct choice it was but watching you gleefully being all giddy and attacking people who are looking at the next 2 or 3 moves ahead because you don't want to deal with the ramifications of it.

    i get her point and she is right but i don't think she realizes that the talent pool is a lot smaller than you'd think. people like you and I don't run for office because we can't afford to. its a rich mans game. assualts of any nature should be a skeleton we accept in our candidates but if we want to take back the government at the state level we do have to accept some skeletons.


    honestly i don't think they give a shit one way or another.

    not really we have already seen the ground work for the republicans running campaigns against democrat specificlly because conyers and franken resigned. mark my words there will be someone suggest we not vote for democrats because they had people who admitted sexual crimes while we can trust the republicans because no admitted any wrong doing. shit we just watched people defend moore by using the exact argument.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Comparing your rhetorical approaches - because they match. Don't twist it, try to reframe it - look at it:
    Dishonest. Again.
    You can't post without doing that. Any idea why?
    Yes, you did. You were set up to do that, and you did. And you said you did - explicitly. You emphasized the circumstances you added, referred to having to add them, dismissed as "unrealistic"other possible circumstances you found ridiculous, etc.
    You added a bunch of circumstances I deliberately did not present, illustrating my point that you would have to add them. And you did. That was not you "playing", that was you verifying my (rather obvious) contention:

    Circumstances matter. They are not necessarily "excuses", refusals to believe anyone, "political expediency", abrogations of "zero tolerance", and so forth. They are what responsible adults take into consideration.

    And not having taken them into consideration, in Franken's case, exposes the DFL to possibly large and formerly avoidable political damage, with all that implies for those targeted by the madness currently driving the Republican Party.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Are you venturing to explain the common rhetorical approach shared by Kellyanne Conway and Bells ? Thinner ice than I would risk. But hey - go for it.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,824
    No, I'm suggesting you give up on your utterly predictable pattern.

    We get it. The women and what they say need to meet your approval. That's been clear, throughout. That you have been unable to grasp this fact or the problem about it is, well, kind of a problem. Trying to impose your political needs just isn't useful, whether it's for stalkers who need guns, or against the evil women of the Democratic Party establishment, or for the harassers and assailants of women in the Democratic Party establishment. In the end, the clearest aspect of your argument is your priority.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Oh. Not what you posted, then. Ok. And that pattern is - - :
    ? This stupid shit again? Not even thread relevant this time.

    Since you can do nothing in address of my posting, apparently, but bray, why not take your own liberally broadcast suggestion: "The women" (your term) are speaking. So shut up. Full stop.

    Alternatively, a few more pages spent trying to sort out EF's psychosexual knots would at least spare me the burden of reply.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    You would expect her to what?

    Fit into this little box for how she should have behaved? That because she did not suggest he resign, that somehow this lessens what he did? The fact these women spoke out and as always happens, once one comes out, the others follow, because there is that support network there, they know they are not alone. One of his victims said she spoke out because he still wasn't resigning and because she was disgusted that he was willing to drag them all through a public hearing and all that entails which is frankly abhorrent. Is Ms Dupuy acting in a way that you do not expect her to?

    What is it with people and their expectation that women behave a certain way after things like this happens?

    Firstly, you aren't really making that much sense.

    Secondly, these victims, like Moore's victims, follow a fairly traditional pattern when it comes to accusing famous or wealthy or powerful men of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Franken's first accuser is a well known Republican with some fairly abhorrent views towards Democrats. How do you think it would have looked if she demanded he stood down or resigned? I'm asking you that seriously now, how would the progressive media have treated her if she had come out and said that? She would have been torn to shreds. Why do you think Moore's accusers were so quick to identify themselves as Republican Trump voters? It is a manner of self preservation in the face of what they know will be overwhelming anger because of what they are accusing these men of doing. At least one woman, a Democrat, whom Franken groped, did ask him to resign and in fact, made a point of stating that she was speaking out about what he did to her, in the hope that he would resign.

    Thirdly, how you cannot see the dynamics at play, the expectation that these women somehow say or behave a certain way, is designed to cast even more doubts about their allegations against these men. It is insidious.

    Firstly, you clearly have a reading and comprehension problem.

    Secondly, I said that victims will respond as they see fit for themselves, just as it should be.

    *Raise eyebrows*

    I said that it was not surprising that these women were not asking him to stand down or resign, and stated why. You are the one demanding, I frankly don't even know what you are so angry about... You are accusing me of somehow expecting these women to behave a certain way, when I clearly said that victims will respond in a manner or way that benefits them and will protect themselves. That is what often happens with victims of sexual violence or sexual harassment. Especially when the onus is placed on them to determine the fate of the accused.

    And you are the one who at the start of this latest response came out with:

    Because you would expect her to demand he resign? That's not how it works. It's not about you and your feelings or even your opinion. It is about her and what is right and best for her.

    That expectation, is telling because it is often cited by defenders of men who commit these crimes as a means of watering it down. You'd expect her to demand he resign, so the fact that she did not? You decided to make special mention of it:

    You tried to imply that it was not that serious. 'I mean look, she didn't even ask him to resign' because that is what 'you would expect her'...

    So you not only misinterpreted what I actually said, you also don't seem to understand your own argument in this thread..
    Actually, one of the main reasons women do not report sexual assault or sexual harassment is because of this expectation of how she should have responded.
    For example:
    Because people who have such expectations attempt to set her narrative, and demand that she adheres to theirs.

    I said that women will often act in a way that does not fit that sort of narrative and with good reason, because of self preservation against those who then start slut shaming, abusing, threatening, etc, victims of sexual violence, particularly when it comes to politicians and popular ones at that.

    You had to fight for your voice, so why do you "expect her" to voice her voice a certain way and why are you using her voice to water down what he did? I think the expectation that was placed on you, is horrific and you should have and have had your voice and your perpetrator arrested and jailed. But we should not expect victims to behave a certain way or fit into a certain little box to fit our own personal ideals of how victims should react.
    I said that making excuses for perpetrators is not acceptable anymore. Why are you demanding that it be acceptable, particularly as a victim, because of politics? Franken's victim was not saying what you said. She spoke out against him and outed him. She wasn't trying to water it down..
    I see. Whatever gave you that idea?

    I mean, it's interesting that you just make these assumptions and I can sort of see why you are doing so, perhaps to score a point and you know what? That's fine. If that made you feel better, that's fine. But I would suggest you stop now.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    And that is absolutely horrific and I would like to help you in any way that I can, because no one should ever have do go through what you did.
    I said those excuses for men like Franken is not good enough. How do you figure that is painting you as being okay with sexual harassment or sexual assault? We have gone through generations being expected to make those excuses, pjdude. And it's not good enough anymore.

    And I see where your confusion seems to be stemming from:
    I did not say that.

    Those were your words, pjdude. Not mine:

    Post #28.

    Beg yours? You were the one who decided to bring your penis into it, for reasons only known to yourself. Did you want me to take your penis more seriously in the context of this conversation and discussion about sexual harassment, pjdude?

    Why did you feel you had to mention your penis to me in this thread to begin with?
    You disagree with two less sexual harassers in congress being a good thing? Yes, I think it is good that they were made to resign. I have never hidden that fact and I think people who sexually harass and sexually assault should be made to face the proper consequences for their actions. Do you have a problem with that?
    Do you think sexual harassment and sexual assault should be overlooked for political expediency?

    Does politics matter more?

    I'll address the rest later. Going out to dinner.
     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    pjdude1219,

    You are male, very few people care about your feelings or being victimized, least of all people like Bells. Accept this fact and go your own way.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2017
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,824
    #priorities | #rapeculture

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click because it's a better idea than this discussion.

    You don't get to complain like that.

    Why don't you call some more people out↗ and make up some more shit about people?

    Seriously, there isn't much to address; it's all about how the important thing about sexual violence is your politics. So, yeah, bawl all you want about "again", but that's kind of the point.

    #23↑ — Politics.

    #27↑ — Politics; disqualifying a woman because the guy who supports stalkers who need guns and sexual molesters as long as they're Democrats wants to tell a woman about women.

    #31↑ — Politics.

    #35↑ — Politics and accusation.

    #57↑ — Politics and condescension.

    #63↑ — Politics and accusation and condescension.

    #72↑ — Politics and accusation and, yeah, pretty much more of the same.

    #88↑ — It generally goes without saying, since you haven't changed your tack since the last thread, but, yeah, really, really disingenuous. Not your party? You won't answer for it? Yeah: Pfft! I mean, really, keep crying: "Waaah! Waaah! You can do nothing in address of my posting! Waaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!" So, yeah, something about you and the Party, or, at the least, something about irony↑ goes here. No, seriously, you're screeching to subordinate questions of sexual violence to the needs of the Democratic Party. So, check it: I'd rather have a liberal or leftist party, too, but we've got the Democrats, so I vote in the primaries and support what I can. And, yes, that means some days I answer for them. So let's get one thing clear, then: If it's not your Party and you don't answer for them then shut the holy fuck up about how they need to keep a special place for sexual harassers because politics, because what the Democratic Party needs is to be better than the party with the slightly lesser reporting totals; they need to be better than the Party that either rapes slightly less or whose women know how to keep their damn mouths shut a little better. Nothing like aiming low.

    #91↑ — Politics and pride and spite and accusation and whatever.

    #95↑ — Accusation and politics.

    #101↑ — No, seriously, the seething, accusing, manly petulance just reeks. By the way, treating Franken and Conyers differently while leaving them in place is still leaving them in place. Y'know. Just ... duh.

    #107↑ — You ought to be thanking women for the work they've been putting in, lately. Barely underdisorganized comparative appearance of competence when white men are in charge; the Democratic Party's increased obligation, for instance, to black voters in the context of having elected a white man to the U.S. Senate is going to be a fascinating dynamic, but that's probably better reserved for a time when you're on about something less useless than unloading your frustrations by trying to tell a woman about the politics of sexual harassment.

    #112↑ — At some point you need to learn that it isn't a matter of more or less unacceptable, but, rather, that the rape culture paradigm needs to break. This shitshow you've put on for the sake of reserving or mitigating because you're going to tell women what's important is, well, yeah it's a shitshow. Do you understand that you can bumble around the politicking all you want but, yeah, you know, does it matter this or that? Women being sexually assaulted will be doing the best they can manage in that moment; lack of consideration and common sense being apparent makes what difference? That it's politically damaging, and when it comes to sexual violence, the important question is the political? You know how I keep saying things like politics and accusation, and all that? Yeah. Nothing in address of your posting? How about you find something to say that isn't worse than useless?

    #130↑ — Politics.

    #132↑ — The politics of a woman not discussing it how men want her to↗.

    #134↑ — Spite and politics.

    #140↑ — Why don't you try a little harder to tell women about sexual harassment?

    #144↑ — Sometimes it seems like you're posting just for an opportunity to pretend you're smart and talk down to a woman; maybe it wouldn't seem so much that way if you had anything either useful or comprehensible to say between those episodes.

    #161↑ — At this point, you've fucking lost it, and are essentially posting for the thrill of being insulting.

    #170↑ — Petulant, worthless make-believe.

    #171↑ — I'm aware that decency is just too much to ask of you, these days, but fuck-all, you're lazy. It should not be too much to ask, for all the posts you've written in these threads about how politics are the priority and screeching at Bells, that maybe, at some point, you might have at least bothered to put some effort into it.​

    Just think about it for a moment:

    Even setting aside the bit about stalkers and guns ...

    (1) Oppose Democratic Party "establishment" when women are visibly in chargee.

    (2) Support Democratic Party "establishment" sexual harassers of women.

    (3) It's not your party and you won't answer for it.​

    ... that's pretty sick; and also pretty predictable.​

    Nothing in address of your posting? Make sure I'm around when you finally have something to say.
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Tina Smith is our new replacement senator.

    Something tells me no one is going to accuse her of sexual harassment. Still now we are going to have a special election in 10 months, fingers cross she or another democrats wins (still unsure if she plans to run).
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I'm accusing and disparaging and insulting, not "complaining".
    You need company in your sewer? Cause I haven't "made up" anything.
    iirc: There's nothing in my posts concerning what matter is most important in sexual violence. I doubt politics is that matter, but haven't posted on the topic.
    But I do post about politics, and when I do politics is the most important matter in the post.
    That seems unremarkable to me, although I admit some people seem to have trouble even reading, let alone writing, such posts.

    The stalkers and guns were and are you being worthless and confused and silly, in other threads. The way to set them aside would be for you to apologize for being an idiot and a jerk, and never mention them again. I'm not holding my breath.
    1 and 2 are falsehoods.
    3 is simply a statement of fact, of no implication except that Bells was once again projecting a cartoon unto my wall when claiming otherwise.
    {And this is the kind of response I'm getting from the people who claim I'm pitching fits, throwing tantrums, etc. Then they invoke irony}
    No, I'm not. I have been explicitly and repeatedly and insistently not subordinating questions of sexual violence to anything, nor am I allowing my posts to be reframed dishonestly in that way, despite repeated attempts by twisted jackoffs like you and Bells.
    All that is ranting nonsense, exclamation points and juvenile vocabulary and general confusion and the rest. On a science forum.
    Apparently, by what can be sieved out and fumigated from those posts, like Sean Hannity and Kellyanne Conway and Bells you presume DFL partisanship wherever opposition to Republican power gain or a stance associated with the D Party is found - the standard Fox schizo. Also, apparently you can't keep track of thread topics, and find meaning in people's posting on them instead of what you want to talk about. So that's all silly and we'll pretend we didn't waste our time on it.

    * So when I think about it, what am I supposed to think? I think the main problem is you drank the koolaid on Clinton, and you haven't recovered.
    You simply can't get it through your fucked up head that Hillary Clinton's lifetime wake of defects and downsides and screw-ups and lame performances and "triangulations" and absolutely lousy, morally and ethically bankrupt, inexcusably wrongheaded, political judgments,

    was not the invention of misogyny, but rather the record of her political career. And the Democratic Party "establishment's", since Reagan.

    Nevertheless: the only currently available political organization capable of preventing what's coming with the Republicans is that same screwed up Democratic Party. So - - - -
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,245
    And how do you think protecting people who commit acts against the people you are supposedly protecting, going to help the people you are saying you are meant to be protecting?

    Gleefully getting all giddy? I think you are mistaking disgust with glee.

    And I am looking 2 to 5 steps ahead, because in this current climate, where women are coming out and outing their abusers and harassers, how can anyone possibly argue that protecting or leaving harassers and abusers in place is better for women overall?

    To the one, it is hypocritical, because you would lose the very leg you have to stand on when confronting Trump and his accusers. You do understand why, don't you?

    And this vague promise that leaving someone who gropes women in place is better for women in the long run tells women that the party has zero talent or zero abilities to field candidates who are not abusers and harassers. Do you understand how and why that is bad in the long term?

    As for your issue with me, considering you are attributing your own words to me to try to have a go at me for something you said.....

    So the alternative is to spread the message about being the party to protect women, but just ignore the guys in the party who are groping and sexually harassing women? How did that work out for Moore? Seeing that Republican voters basically stayed home rather than vote for the popular guy who smashed the primary, because of the allegations against him..

    Ms Dupuy knows the talent pool and clearly there are talented people who can run for his seat, but she also knows that leaving a powerful man in his position after 8 women have come out and accused him of that, including herself, is not a good or winning strategy. He would have hung around the necks of Democrats for the time he remained in the Senate and given how he only just won his seat, how do you think that would have gone in the next election?

    So you accept those skeletons for Trump and Moore then?

    Do you think Moore's voters should have turned out for him instead of staying home?

    I mean, that is what you are applying to the Democrats, then that also applies to the Republicans. We balk and rightfully so, at Republicans who were willing to look the other way for Trump and the likes of Moore. And they demanded that their voters accept it because it is all about winning. And frankly, if your party is willing to overlook sex offenses or "skeletons" of this nature and worse, accept it, just to win, then you do not deserve to win. Protect offenders of this nature.. I mean wow. That's bad and to argue that people should accept that rich powerful men who have these skeletons and that women and victims should just accept it because it's all about winning... At what cost?

    Instead of praising movements like the #MeToo movement, you are essentially arguing that these victims should remain quiet, because some of these rich men will have these "skeletons" and that they should just accept it because it is more important to take back the government and win. That is frankly appalling.

    Uh huh.

    And the counter to that is that the Democrats purge their perverts, the Republicans endorse and elect them.

    I mean, if you think protecting the likes of Franken for political expediency is more important, then that's on you. But you don't get to complain about them for who and what they protect when you are willing to do the same when the accused is a Democrat.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page