And it's still dishonest.
Look, Kellyanne - I'm not going to wear down. You lie, I label.
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.
So either you think in reality pilots and doctors don't harass and grope, or you are trying to "reframe" again.
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 presented the thought, not me. I just pointed at it.
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.
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.
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.
If you have to project your nonsense unto me to recognize its absurdity and cartoonish unreality, so be it - but don't forget to bring the lesson home.
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.
!? 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 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.
