Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

[ElectricFetus]

you have to read between the line and the whole picture. it is not a crime to be an asshole but it's clear (if the story is true even on it's face), that he is one and doesn't much respect women.

this compounded with other women he has mishandled out of a lack of respect.

Yeeeaah of course.

 

[Capracus]

you have to read between the line and the whole picture.

You mean the lines concerning common sense and reciprocity? I see nothing to indicate that Franco requested any more from these women that he was not willing to give himself. If Franco is perceived an asshole by these women, they shouldn’t consensually engage him. If his acting students are not willing to follow his example, maybe they should consider another teacher.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You mean the lines concerning common sense and reciprocity? I see nothing to indicate that Franco requested any more from these women that he was not willing to give himself. If Franco is perceived an asshole by these women, they shouldn’t consensually engage him. If his acting students are not willing to follow his example, maybe they should consider another teacher.

No no first of all sex = bad, we must return to puritanical values. Missionary position only, and only with consent asked verbally for every thrust.

 

[Tiassa]

"Temper tantrums"? "Liar" based on Bells's posts in response to me?
You're serious.

You're extraordinarily dishonest, Iceaura. How about based on the information in the post linked?

You're not a woman, remember, despite your unwillingness to quit speaking, full stop.

Iceaura, you've been caught in a documented lie.

So even if you wish to show off your womanly self in a photo, remember that you've already been caught lying, which is why the only reason it matters when you speak is that everyone already knows you're a liar.

Your assessments simply cannot be trusted.

 

[iceaura]

You're extraordinarily dishonest, Iceaura. How about based on the information in the post linked?

Already done, several times, way back when. This technique of repetition of bullshit is one of those touchstones I handle by reflex now - into the Fox bag with you, I don't have to go back over this stupid shit every time you decide to pretend my earlier responses don't exist.

I'm not being dishonest here. You are delusional. And you have been, on this issue, about me, ever since you were forced to jamb my posts into your narrative of anti-Clinton = misogynist. They didn't fit, in the process you made a series of plainly idiotic assertions and convoluted misrepresentations of my posting that didn't work, and now you're cornered.

But it's all nonsense - they're smoke: all you have to do is quit posting them, and they go away. You don't have to repeat them, or even deal with them - nobody else will bother. Really. You can be free.

Iceaura, you've been caught in a documented lie.

No, I haven't. I've been repeatedly accused of being caught in a documented lie, over and over, by a delusional bullshitter trying to cover up a regrettable tantrum. That's not the same thing. These accusations, yours and Bells's, do not create their own reality.

So even if you wish to show off your womanly self in a photo, remember that you've already been caught lying, which is why the only reason it matters when you speak is that everyone already knows you're a liar.

That mental corruption, the Clinton koolaid, is taking you around some very weird corners.

But this confusion of oneself with "everyone", something I've repeatedly remarked upon in Bells's bs, is more normal and thread relevant:

that is a major aspect of the risk, the threat of harm, that the incompetent mishandling of Franken by the DFL/DNC has created.

The faction involved is prone to that delusion, they have significant influence on the DFL, and if their approach to the 2018 elections is based on thinking that some "everyone" (even an "everyone" of the decent and reasonable) is right along with them on the Franken issue then the liberals etc have a borderline emergency on our hands - they could get even Klobuchar beat, thinking like that.

 

[Tiassa]

[#justsayin]​

More productive: Click for something to do.​

No, I haven't. I've been repeatedly accused of being caught in a documented lie, over and over, by a delusional bullshitter trying to cover up a regrettable tantrum.

You should probably be careful about the word "delusional".

Let us start with #200↑; this is the post that contains your lie:

Yeah, whatever you say, Iceaura:

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.

Notice what you said: "Followed by a quote from you", and further specifying, "as you illustrate by quoting not me but yourself".

So, now, let us check in with #194↑; that is to say, the post to which you are responding.

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.

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.

The quote from you in that is #179↑, and the offset paragraphs, as linked, are from #3204234/32↗, which post you attributed to me ("Followed by a quote from you ... Your posts really are, as you illustrate by quoting not me but yourself, pretty much as worst described.")

So, yes, let us check up on that post:

Oh bullshit. If you want an example of the kind of innuendo that gives gun regulators a bad image, frame that bit of nasty and consider what it reflects on its source.

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.

That would be Iceaura, #3204234/32 ("Misogyny, Guns, Rape, and Culture")↗, 1 July 2014 (PDT).

You know, the post you suggest I wrote when you said:

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.

So, yeah, I admit, it's kind of hard to discuss anything with you when you're just making shit up.

I can easily stand on my post at #168↑, and simply remind 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. And #172↑: 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.

We both know there is a lot of frameworking in frontline political argumentation, but these recent weeks have seen you bring nothing else, and as you raise scarecrow totems to abuse, much similar to a phrase I used last month↑, about the immature "manly" thrill of shitmouthing a woman. As I said↑ more recently, your assessment is unreliable, and your judgment seriously questionable.

Like your bit in #358↑: "'Temper tantrums'? 'Liar' based on Bells's posts in response to me?" Really? Okay, but, you know, something about "based on the information in the post linked"↑ , which, of course, leads us here, but your retort—

Already done, several times, way back when. This technique of repetition of bullshit is one of those touchstones I handle by reflex now - into the Fox bag with you, I don't have to go back over this stupid shit every time you decide to pretend my earlier responses don't exist.

—actually fails to follow the discussion. See, the thing is that I shouldn't need to remind you about the information in the post linked. Your question, "based on Bells's posts in response", is itself either dishonest, or, okay, very well, if you are willing to absolutely and explicitly insist, I will accept that your reading comprehension really is so poor, in which case I will naturally be obliged to reconsider the proposition of your dishonesty in light of the possibility that the real problem is just plain, stupid incompetence.

Honestly, stop wasting people's time↑.

 

[iceaura]

So, yes, let us check up on that post:

Wherein I reference just how nasty the posting I am talking about - your posting - was. And you (pretend to?) misread, and have ever since. Why? Who knows. My guess: Because the accusation -

this: "The people advocating gun regulation are foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda - is that really the point you want to make?" -

was spot on. You were in fact presenting advocacy of gun regulation - something I've engaged in, btw - as the province of foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda. And whether you want to do that or not is still an open question.

So, yeah, I admit, it's kind of hard to discuss anything with you when you're just making shit up.

There's no value in your posting like this. Quit any time.

See, the thing is that I shouldn't need to remind you about the information in the post linked.

Nor should you be posting about it, still, after being called on it.

I can easily stand on my post at #168↑, and simply remind 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. And #172↑: 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.

None of that has anything to do with my posts. You're just completely full of shit.

We both know there is a lot of frameworking in frontline political argumentation, but these recent weeks have seen you bring nothing else,

Well I've been trying, anyway. In this thread and a couple related ones. Explicitly.

Specifically, the large and immediate risk posed by the DNC/Bells faction that incompetently mishandled Franken now attempting to frame every objection to their actions and their rhetoric as misogyny, excuse-mongering, Partisan special pleading, dismissal of women's accounts, etc, all based in character flaws and personal defects of anyone who thinks the DNC has fucked up here. Considering that is most people, that most people think the DFL/DNC has behaved incompetently and foolishly in this matter, including most of the feminist, liberal, LGBT, progressive, etc etc folks in Minnesota, and including the core DFL vote in the State, that's a bad frame, and imho it's going to do significant damage if it isn't moved aside somehow.

That's where the inability of Bells - or you, for that matter - to deal honestly and in good faith with my posting here, comes into focus as an actual topic, a relevant feature of the discussion. That framing - your bs, Bells inveterate slandering, the namecalling and fundamental dishonesty - is not just an obstacle and nuisance here, but a damn menace to the liberal and leftlib causes in the upcoming elections in my State.

As I posted earlier, my current hope is that something more and worse about Franken comes out, retroactively covering ass and justifying the precipitate call for immediate resignation regardless of consequences. But the chances of that seem slim by now - there is no "open secret" aspect to Franken, apparently (or Keillor, etc).

And if that doesn't happen (it's overdue), the frame cannot be moved, and the 2018 election rides on whether or not the DFL is a competent and reliable Party whose candidates can be relied upon via their DFL association to do things that make sense (as most elections do in Minnesota), the DFL goes into November 2018 facing a risk of disaster mostly of its own making.

 

[Bells]

Specifically, the large and immediate risk posed by the DNC/Bells faction

Again with the faction?

that incompetently mishandled Franken now attempting to frame every objection to their actions as misogyny, excuse-mongering, Partisan special pleading, dismissal of women's accounts, etc, all based in character flaws and personal defects of anyone who thinks the DNC has fucked up here.

I have to agree with you there about mishandling Franken.

He should have been asked to resign before his second victim came forward. To let it get to 8 women... That's just rank.

Considering that most people think the DFL/DNC has behaved incompetently and foolishly in this matter, including most of the feminist, liberal, LGBT, progressive, etc etc folks in Minnesota, and including the core DFL vote in the State, that's a bad frame, and imho it's going to do significant damage if it isn't moved aside somehow.

Really? Because everything I read, from feminists and progressives, to LGBTQ to liberal, by the time it got to 8 victims, that it was time for him to go. As I noted above, the biggest bungle was letting it get to that point to begin with.

That's where the inability of Bells - or you, for that matter - to deal honestly and in good faith with my posting here, comes into focus as an actual topic, a relevant feature of the discussion. That framing - your bs, Bells inveterate slandering, the namecalling and fundamental dishonesty - is not just an obstacle and nuisance here, but a damn menace to the liberal and leftlib causes in the upcoming elections in my State.

Let's see, you compared me to a woman who endorsed a paedophile, you called me stupid, dumb, told me I was "running my mouth", and a few other choice terms here and there, you accused me of lying repeatedly without actually pointing out how or even where (I mean, you accused me of lying for simply quoting your own words). You don't really get to complain about "slandering" or "namecalling".

As I posted earlier, my current hope is that something more and worse about Franken comes out, retroactively covering ass and justifying the precipitate call for immediate resignation regardless of consequences. But the chances of that seem slim by now - there is no "open secret" aspect to Franken, apparently (or Keillor, etc).

So you are hoping that he has done something much worse to another person, perhaps a woman, (seeing the fact that he was sidelined for sexual harassment and sexual assault) to justify 'politics'?

Really?

What the hell kind of sicko are you, iceaura?

Who the fuck comes out and hopes that a man who was flagged for sexual harassment and sexual violence against women, has done "something more and worse", (and given what this is about, do you mean sexually?) for the sake of politics? What? Are you sitting there hoping he's raped someone, so that the Democrats can say that asking him to resign was a good idea after all? Or is rape not far enough for you, Mr "depends on the politics"?

And if that doesn't happen (it's overdue), the frame cannot be moved, and the 2018 election rides on whether or not the DFL is a competent and reliable Party whose candidates can be relied upon via their DFL association to do things that make sense (as most elections do in Minnesota), the DFL goes into November 2018 facing a risk of disaster mostly of its own making.

Don't fret. You can always move to Colorado. There's more work for you to be done to defend Democrats against "the faction"..

Republican lawmakers in Colorado are embracing a Democratic colleague who quit his caucus this week after nearly a dozen women, including a female Democratic state representative, accused him of sexual harassment.

Eleven women ― including a former legislative aide, several lobbyists and fellow state Rep. Faith Winter (D) ― accused state Rep. Steve Lebsock (D) of sexual harassment in November. Winter, a married 37-year-old lawmaker, says Lebsock aggressively came on to her at a bar in 2016.

“I said ‘no’ five times to leaving the bar to go have sex with him,” Winter told HuffPost. “He wouldn’t take no for an answer.”

Lebsock denies the allegations, which are being formally investigated by House leadership. On Tuesday, the day before Colorado’s 2018 legislative session began, he sent his colleagues a bizarre 28-page manifesto defending himself and detailing the sexual history of one of his accusers. He offered an alibi for one of the incidents, in which he allegedly tried to unbutton a woman’s blouse at a bar, claiming that he was playing a “Ms. Pac-Man” arcade game that night and recorded a very high score.

The document did not win Lebsock any sympathy from his caucus. Several Democratic lawmakers, including Colorado House Speaker Crisanta Duran, wore black on the first day of the legislative session in protest and called for Lebsock to resign. Duran received a standing ovation when she told colleagues in her opening speech that “we must confront these issues head-on and successfully reform the culture of the Capitol.” State Rep. Matt Gray (D) said he would introduce a resolution to expel Lebsock from his seat.

Lebsock refuses to resign, but he was so frustrated by the rebukes from his Democratic colleagues that he abruptly quit the caucus on Wednesday. He thanked Republicans for literally embracing him. ​

Hey look, your type of politician! Post photos when you get there. I hear it's beautiful at this time of year.

 

[iceaura]

So you are hoping that he has done something much worse to another person, perhaps a woman, (seeing the fact that he was sidelined for sexual harassment and sexual assault) to justify 'politics'?
Really?
What the hell kind of sicko are you, iceaura?

So the question becomes: how do we keep this kind of bizarre mental glitch out of the political discussion in Minnesota? Because this level of crazy is a real hazard, if it becomes associated with the DFL candidates. And it's not fringe.

- - - He should have been asked to resign before his second victim came forward. - - -- .

He was. And that is not something people forget.
(btw: that loud and organized chorus calling for Trump's resignation hasn't showed up yet.)

Really? Because everything I read, from feminists and progressives, to LGBTQ to liberal, by the time it got to 8 victims, that it was time for him to go.

And the illusion of "everyone" takes root. The bubble closes.

you accused me of lying repeatedly without actually pointing out how or even where (I mean, you accused me of lying for simply quoting your own words).

Nonsense. I repeatedly and frequently quoted your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations, and pointed to exactly where you went foul - the specific word that was false, the specific term that was dishonest and slanderous, the specific presumption unwarranted and false. I did that for many of your posts. Then I got tired of the typing, and now simply deal with your repetition technique by repeating the label you earned the first time.
Or, as here: dishonest.

Let's see, you compared me to a woman who endorsed a paedophile, you called me stupid, dumb, told me I was "running my mouth", and a few other choice terms here and there,

No, I didn't. (Dishonest).
Except for the part about you running your mouth, which you illustrate the accuracy of again.
The Fox media reflex - everything aimed at the person, coming or going, recast if necessary - is of course a major feature of your rhetoric you share with Kellyanne Conway. (As is the repetition technique). And it's a juvenile and stupid way to "discuss" anything, if that were your goal. But that isn't your goal (or Fox's, or Kellyanne's), obviously.

Who the fuck comes out and hopes that a man who was flagged for sexual harassment and sexual violence against women, has done "something more and worse", (and given what this is about, do you mean sexually?) for the sake of politics? What? Are you sitting there hoping he's raped someone, so that the Democrats can say that asking him to resign was a good idea after all? Or is rape not far enough for you, Mr "depends on the politics"?

Nothing - absolutely nothing - honest or in good faith, in response to my posts here. You simply can't do it.

This is the kind of bizarre crap that can take out Klobuchar, if she can't stay clear of it without alienating her support - and she has a name. Tina Smith has no defense, yet. They say she's very capable, very bright, very tough - but she's essentially untested as a campaigner. Cross your fingers.

 

[Bells]

So the question becomes: how do we keep this kind of bizarre mental glitch out of the political discussion in Minnesota? Because this level of crazy is a real hazard, if it becomes associated with the DFL candidates. And it's not fringe.

Again, you are the one who is sitting there hoping that something worse comes out about him, because apparently groping 8 women and sexually harassing them was simply not bad enough, eh Mr "depends on the politics"? You needed more. Which would literally mean even worse things being done to women to satisfy you. Which really, what kind of person sits there and hopes for that for women for the sake of politics? I mean, Kitta is clutching his trolley cart switch ready to send women's rights downriver.. And you? You're sitting there hoping that Franken has done worse things to justify his having been asked to resign.

He was. And that is not something people forget.
(btw: that loud and organized chorus calling for Trump's resignation hasn't showed up yet.)

He was?

I never saw it. Your party tried to fob it to the Ethics Committee like a hot potato and tried to shake their hands at it.

It was only by the time it got to what? 7? That some minor peeps started to come out and by the 8th, they finally started to speak up.

And oh yeah, there has been an absolute silence about Trump from women..

I mean, no one has been asking him to resign.. ever..

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...xual-misconduct-allegations-2017-12?r=US&IR=T
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/...ed-trump-sexual-assaults-171211144416542.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ic-congress-members-trump-investigation-women
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...-front-door/fKK3ByGfYDEbyc8uyfE5EM/story.html

The silence has been deafening...

And the illusion of "everyone" takes root. The bubble closes.

You make these claims and that's just it.. Nothing else.

We've been at this since November and you can't clarify anything, you just keep lobbing accusations and claims that is aimed at who, exactly? Which audience? Who exactly are you talking to?

I was quite specific in what I wrote. Obviously you believe differently. Again, my see across the Pacific to Minnesota goggles aren't on.

Nonsense. I repeatedly and frequently quoted your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations, and pointed to exactly where you went foul - the specific word that was false, the specific term that was dishonest and slanderous, the specific presumption unwarranted and false. I did that for many of your posts. Then I got tired of the typing, and now simply deal with your repetition technique by repeating the label you earned the first time.
Or, as here: dishonest.

You accused me of lying when I quoted your words...

Either they weren't your words, or you are indeed off your rocker.

Which is it?

No, I didn't. (Dishonest).
Except for the part about you running your mouth, which you illustrate the accuracy of again.
The Fox media reflex - everything aimed at the person, coming or going, recast if necessary - is of course a major feature of your rhetoric you share with Kellyanne Conway. (As is the repetition technique). And it's a juvenile and stupid way to "discuss" anything, if that were your goal. But that isn't your goal (or Fox's, or Kellyanne's), obviously.

Ya, you did.

I mean, you even called me Kellyanne..

And it's still dishonest.
Look, Kellyanne - I'm not going to wear down. You lie, I label.

You going to deny that too?

Maybe you're just stupid.

Maybe it's not a lack of integrity and good faith, maybe you're just very stupid.

This wasn't you?

How many personalities do you have in there, iceaura?

Does Frank not know what Freddy is doing?

Nothing - absolutely nothing - honest or in good faith, in response to my posts here. You simply can't do it.

Oh look, you're dodging again.

How strange and unusual!

You literally said that you hope something worse comes out about him. Because apparently groping 8 women isn't bad enough? You demand and require more? "Something more and worse"? Those were your words. How can anyone hope for "more and worse", iceaura? What kind of person even thinks it, let alone hopes for it?

This is the kind of bizarre crap that can take out Klobuchar, if she can't stay clear of it without alienating her support - and she has a name. Tina Smith has no defense, yet. They say she's very capable, very bright, very tough - but she's essentially untested as a campaigner. Cross your fingers.

You mean voters like you sitting there and hoping someone has done "more and worse" to other people for the sake of political justification?
Yeah, I can't imagine how voters like you could be damaging when you spout crap like that.... *rolls eyes*..

 

[iceaura]

We've been at this since November and you can't clarify anything, you just keep lobbing accusations and claims that is aimed at who, exactly? Which audience? Who exactly are you talking to?

I'm just countering the repetition tactic - same as for a creationist, or a wingnut.

And oh yeah, there has been an absolute silence about Trump from women..
I mean, no one has been asking him to resign.. ever..

That's dishonest.
The loud and organized Democratic Party chorus of demands for resignation I predicted would not happen has not happened yet. You said it would, directly in response to me - directly in contradiction of my claim, not some other scenario.

Ya, you did.
I mean, you even called me Kellyanne..
- -
This wasn't you?

Dishonest
( It was me, it wasn't what you claim, you've been corrected before)

You literally said that you hope something worse comes out about him. Because apparently groping 8 women isn't bad enough? You demand and require more? "Something more and worse"? Those were your words. How can anyone hope for "more and worse", iceaura? What kind of person even thinks it, let alone hopes for it?

You simply can't post honestly, or in good faith, or without slander.

It's been a while on that one - let's revisit: You are refusing, there, to acknowledge the several previous posts about why exactly the accusations against Franken are not as serious as those against Moore, Weinstein, even Conyers. You first asserted I hadn't posted any such specifics, a few posts after I had, then rejected my direction of your attention, then continued to base your posts on your original false presumption, and now are unable to imagine what they could be. To remind you just of what's been introduced already here, just a partial list of the possible: we could find that Franken had paid lots of money for a nondisclosure agreement, that Franken had threatened or retaliated against his victims, that Franken had refused to desist upon rejection, that Franken had settled lawsuits for big money, that Franken had tapped the Congressional funds for such purposes, that Franken was on some kind of informal list of abusers maintained by interns. None of that occurs to you, as what I would first and by assumption be referring to from my repeated posting in the matter, because you refused to acknowledge the absence of any of that in the first place.
What does occur to you, by reflex, is slander and misrepresentation and insult and personal attack and so forth - the common bulk of your posting here in response to me.

You mean voters like you sitting there and hoping someone has done "more and worse" to other people for the sake of political justification?
Yeah, I can't imagine how voters like you could be damaging when you spout crap like that.... *rolls eyes*..

If this kind of approach, this mode of batshit description of the people who think the quick and ill-considered dumping of Franken regardless of circumstances was incompetent at best and harmful in consequence, becomes identified with the DFL over the next few months, even Klobuchar is vulnerable. This faction could split the DFL, on top of triggering the anti-incompetence anti-Democrat reaction.

 

[Bells]

That's dishonest.
The loud and organized Democratic Party chorus of demands for resignation I predicted would not happen has not happened yet. You said it would, directly in response to me - directly in contradiction of my claim, not some other scenario.

I think that chorus for him to resign started from the moment he won the election and has only gotten louder.

Obviously you disagree. I mean, millions of women marching wasn't loud enough for you, then yeah, to take a leaf out of Kitta's book.. "*shrug*"..

Dishonest
( It was me, it wasn't what you claim, you've been corrected before)

What are you? 5?

Then again, you pitched a fit about the word "is" earlier, so perhaps there are other issues at play here at the moment...

You simply can't post honestly, or in good faith, or without slander.

And you simply keep coming up with this, for when I quote your words and respond to those words. Like when you died comparing me to Conway, I quote and link you literally calling me Conway (which is worse), and you say it is dishonest because it was not as I described or as I had claimed.. I mean, there's pedantic and then there's you, with major issues.

Just to be clear, you literally posted this:

As I posted earlier, my current hope is that something more and worse about Franken comes out, retroactively covering ass and justifying the precipitate call for immediate resignation regardless of consequences.

I want you to think about what that "something more and worse" would entail. It would literally mean that Franken would have had to have done "something more and worse". Clearly, as you have exhibited in this thread, you don't think sexual assault is worthy of resignation. So I hate to imagine what worse things you could be hoping for, as a form of justification and what you deem would be enough for "covering ass".

It's been a while on that one - let's revisit: You are refusing, there, to acknowledge the several previous posts about why exactly the accusations against Franken are not as serious as those against Moore, Weinstein, even Conyers.

I didn't?

I'm not saying it is comparable.

My comment was aimed more at their supporters. Moore.. Well, there are no words to describe his despicable nature and yes, Franken did accept responsibility of sorts and apologised profusely.

Moore belongs in prison, and he should be labeled a child sex offender. His accusers all tell a very similar story. One of a sexual predator, who preyed on them, groomed them and then attempted to "date" them, because they were so young. So no, they aren't comparable.

But if we are to take sexual harassment and assault seriously, then we need to address the whole thing regardless of politics and that will never happen. Because women's bodies are once again political fodder for both sides. The partisan politics is making a mockery of what victims endure and go through and hell, it's helping pile more on.

And sure, Franken is not as bad as Moore, but Franken is bad in his own way.

And demanding that Franken didn't really do anything wrong or 'that bad' or 'as bad' as what Weinstein, Moore, Trump and co have done, is trivialising sexual assault and normalising behaviour like groping women. The more people keep excusing it by saying 'well, at least he didn't tiddle a little girl', the less likely women are going to come forward to report being groped or sexually harassed, because hey, at least they weren't molested as a little girl.

I mean duh, it's stating the frigging obvious that he did not molest little girls. But what he did was equally unacceptable. Understand now?

To wit, he doesn't have to rape, or molest little girls or do everything that Trump did to be classified as someone who sexually harassed and assaulted women. Because he did do that.

That was just in the first 2 pages of the Roy Moore thread.

It's that part that it's bad in its own right, that one did not have to compare, that seems to keep confusing you, iceaura. That of course it was not as bad as Moore, for example, but that it is bad in its own right. You get it now?

Or are you going to lie some more?

You first asserted I hadn't posted any such specifics, a few posts after I had, then rejected my direction of your attention, then continued to base your posts on your original false presumption, and now are unable to imagine what they could be. To remind you just of what's been introduced already here, just a partial list of the possible: we could find that Franken had paid lots of money for a nondisclosure agreement, that Franken had threatened or retaliated against his victims, that Franken had refused to desist upon rejection, that Franken had settled lawsuits for big money, that Franken had tapped the Congressional funds for such purposes, that Franken was on some kind of informal list of abusers maintained by interns. None of that occurs to you, as what I would first and by assumption be referring to from my repeated posting in the matter, because you refused to acknowledge the absence of any of that in the first place.

You think offering women money, for example, is "more and worse" than sexual assault?

No, think about it. What's a step up from being a a serial abuser of women, iceaura? And why would you hope that he would do that to someone or that this would come out (meaning that he had done it to women or others), meaning that he has continued to harm people? Let's ignore the sexual "more and worse" that I questioned you about. Even blackmail, threats or retaliation, settlements, used tax payer funds to pay off his victims.. How can you hope that these sorts of things come out, meaning that you are literally hoping he has done it to people for it to come out, just for political justification?

What kind of person hopes for "something more or worse" from an already appalling situation? How can you conceivably even think it, let alone "hope" for it?

If this kind of approach, this mode of batshit description of the people who think the quick and ill-considered dumping of Franken regardless of circumstances was incompetent at best and harmful in consequence, becomes identified with the DFL over the next few months, even Klobuchar is vulnerable. This faction could split the DFL, on top of triggering the anti-incompetence anti-Democrat reaction.

Ah.. "this faction"..

Who is "this faction"?

And are you concerned if "this faction" is involved in trying to oust another Democrat in Colorado for sexual harassment? You going to start penning letters to the DNC about "this faction" for that?

Ya, your people are so angry that a serial groper was asked to resign, I feel for you. I really do. Because it must be hard, demanding that your priorities should ensure the protection of a serial groper of women and that women should simply not expect any better or at the very least, someone who is not a risk of preying on them... Because your politics trumps everything else.

 

[iceaura]

I think that chorus for him to resign started from the moment he won the election and has only gotten louder.

It's gotten louder from the usual suspects, most of them motivated by Trump's various financial crimes, political treasons, and incompetence.

My prediction that Franken's resignation would not be followed by a concerted, organized, incessant call for Trump's resignation from that moral high ground - the one gained by forcing Franken's resignation - has proved accurate so far. You were, as I pointed out, wrong to expect such a consequence of the DNC's handling of the matter.

Obviously you disagree. I mean, millions of women marching wasn't loud enough for you,

That was almost a year ago.
The organizers of the Women's March are now, by report, focusing on impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors committed in office. They have a good case and decent prospects - the prospects would be better if Franken were in the Senate, and will be much worse if the DFL loses both Minnesota Senate seats in November, but one can't have everything.

In other words: obviously not a consequence of the DNC's behavior then or now, and not a consequence of the Democratic Party's occupying the moral high ground, and not made louder or stronger by the incompetent DNC mishandling of Franken this past November (made weaker, if anything).

Try to keep track, ok? Try.

Then again, you pitched a fit about the word "is" earlier, so perhaps there are other issues at play here at the moment...

No, I didn't.
Dishonest. And attempted slander, of course.

I want you to think about what that "something more and worse" would entail. It would literally mean that Franken would have had to have done "something more and worse".

Such as paid for a non-disclosure agreement, threatened or retaliated against defiant victims, etc.
I listed some possibilities. Pages ago, and recently, I listed some of what I was thinking about. This is your third round of pretending those posts do not exist, and other posting not made by me exists instead.
I want you to read my posts, and respond to them honestly. But you can't.

That was just in the first 2 pages of the Roy Moore thread.

It's that part that it's bad in its own right, that one did not have to compare, that seems to keep confusing you, iceaura. That of course it was not as bad as Moore, for example, but that it is bad in its own right. You get it now?

Or are you going to lie some more?

You quote your own dishonesty, and don't recognize it.
It's not that you are deliberately pretending to not recognize what's going on in those posts, or deliberately failing to understand the subsequent posting regarding your initial l-s-m, it's that you can't.

When I pointed out (long ago) that you cannot - are incapable, do not have the ability - to post honestly in response to my posting, I chose the words carefully. It's not deliberate, it's not intentional, on your part, to lie and slander and misrepresent. It's a reflex. And it's common in this faction in my State, and it's seriously significant in my State right now.

The question of how to deal with this stuff has become critical in my town. The bubble world this faction lives in, the fantasy defended by these lies, slanders, and misrepresentations, has been brought to the front in my State. They really do mistake themselves for "everyone" - at least, everyone decent and reasonable, everyone who values the moral high ground - and they expect the votes to follow as soon as they have sent their message of moral altitude. They have no idea of their having been incompetent, unreliable, naive, and injurious to everyone and everything they claim to support, of having screwed up and betrayed people who know better than they do.

The question left is how closely this exhibition of incompetence will be taken as representing or characteristic of the DFL and its endorsed candidates in Minnesota, and how much defending it by slander will weaken the DFL internally.

That's possibly influential enough to get Republicans elected to both Senate seats and the Governorship of my State (and a couple of related House seats, collaterally) in November of this year. That would be bad, imho. That's an emergency, of a kind - a harming of Democrats that would also be a harming of my community and everyone I know.

 

[Bells]

It's gotten louder from the usual suspects, most of them motivated by Trump's various financial crimes, political treasons, and incompetence.

My prediction that Franken's resignation would not be followed by a concerted, organized, incessant call for Trump's resignation from that moral high ground - the one gained by forcing Franken's resignation - has proved accurate so far. You were, as I pointed out, wrong to expect such a consequence of the DNC's handling of the matter.

Yep.

That was almost a year ago.
The organizers of the Women's March are now, by report, focusing on impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors committed in office. They have a good case and decent prospects - the prospects would be better if Franken were in the Senate, and will be much worse if the DFL loses both Minnesota Senate seats in November, but one can't have everything.

In other words: obviously not a consequence of the DNC's behavior then or now, and not a consequence of the Democratic Party's occupying the moral high ground, and not made louder or stronger by the incompetent DNC mishandling of Franken this past November (made weaker, if anything).

Try to keep track, ok? Try.

While ignoring that all attention would be on Franken and the accusations against him, thereby not only detracting away from their demands, but also raising that specter of hypocrisy from Democrats.
I mean, you do see that, right? "Try."

No, I didn't.
Dishonest. And attempted slander, of course.

You are absolutely correct. It was "it" that you pitched your fit over. I do apologise for that error.

Such as paid for a non-disclosure agreement, threatened or retaliated against defiant victims, etc.
I listed some possibilities. Pages ago, and recently, I listed some of what I was thinking about. This is your third round of pretending those posts do not exist, and other posting not made by me exists instead.
I want you to read my posts, and respond to them honestly. But you can't.

Essentially, you were hoping for more harmful behaviour from Franken, which essentially means that you were hoping for more suffering and harm to his victims, to 'justify' the party asking him to resign.

However you want to cut this, however you want to word it, the end result would have been more undue suffering to his victims and you hoped for that. So again I'll ask.. What the hell kind of person hopes for something like that?

You quote your own dishonesty, and don't recognize it.
It's not that you are deliberately pretending to not recognize what's going on in those posts, or deliberately failing to understand the subsequent posting regarding your initial l-s-m, it's that you can't.

You said:

You are refusing, there, to acknowledge the several previous posts about why exactly the accusations against Franken are not as serious as those against Moore, Weinstein, even Conyers.

And I pointed out that I had made my views on that clear from the get go.

When I pointed out (long ago) that you cannot - are incapable, do not have the ability - to post honestly in response to my posting, I chose the words carefully. It's not deliberate, it's not intentional, on your part, to lie and slander and misrepresent. It's a reflex. And it's common in this faction in my State, and it's seriously significant in my State right now.

Considering your own dishonesty in these discussions, you don't really have a leg to stand on at this point (or a stump if you have no legs). You have been pedantic, neurotic, abusive, insulting, you have victim blamed and shamed, you have embraced rape culture because "depends on the politics".

The question of how to deal with this stuff has become critical in my town.

I would recommend not embracing rape culture for the sake of political convenience.

You know, as a start.

The bubble world this faction lives in, the fantasy defended by these lies, slanders, and misrepresentations, has been brought to the front in my State.

What fantasy, iceaura?

You again note "this faction". Who is "this faction"?

 

[Bells]

They really do mistake themselves for "everyone" - [snip for word count]

I need to ask, are you addressing me now? Or is this just a general statement to, you know, tell us how you really feel about people like me and "this faction" (whoever they happen to be) because we demand that politicians at the very least, do not sexually harass and abuse women?

Here's some light reading for you:

Republicans have never held themselves to the same standards of behavior as Democrats, and it will never be a good idea to sink to the GOP’s depths of hypocrisy. Theirs is the party that panders to a set of rabid anti-abortion voters who couldn’t care less about the transgressions of its leaders as long as they vote to curtail women’s bodily autonomy. Its tolerance even extends to men who privately tell their own extramarital girlfriends to get the abortions its voters despise. It’s the party that lifted Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, positions the Violence Against Women Act as an assault on family values, believes equal pay legislation is anti-male, bemoans the days when women stayed home to keep house, and works to make it harder for colleges to combat campus rape. Dems are hardly blameless—no less than Joe Biden did Thomas a big favor by casting doubt on Anita Hill’s claims of sexual harassment—but in the Republican Party, contempt for women is a feature, not a bug. It would do Democrats no good to start hedging their own commitment—new as it is, for some—to gender equity.

Progressives like Kate Harding, who wrote a Washington Post piece last month arguing that Franken’s resignation would do more harm to women than good, believed they were playing the long game when they encouraged Democrats to allow the senator to keep his seat. Kicking him out might make the party look good now, but the potential damage done by the ouster of a good liberal could last for years. I’d counter with an even longer game: Think about the Democrats with long, bright futures ahead of them, the rising stars, the next Obamas, the legislators who might pass universal Medicare or eliminate Medicaid abortion bans or become president someday. If Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, and Kamala Harris didn’t condemn Franken, they’d lose no small degree of faith among women currently feeling empowered by the #MeToo movement to root out abusers. If Franken was allowed to keep his seat while his party comrades twiddled their thumbs, young people who already think the Democratic Party is a corrupt instrument of the bourgeoisie would have one more reason to write it off for good. By sacrificing one senator, however popular he might be and whatever the perils of relinquishing his seat, Democrats were able to prevent irreparable damage to the party’s reputation among the people it should care about most: its base.

There’s another still longer game to think about, too. In the best-case scenario, the hurt caused by Franken’s resignation will be a memorable lesson to Democrats: Don’t mistreat women, or promote the candidacies of people who do—otherwise, your party might take a debilitating loss when it can least afford it, and the whole country will suffer. The moral high ground can be painful to walk, but at least there are fewer gropers there.

​

You keep accusing "this faction" of somehow or other having harmed your chances in Minnesota. But have you taken one moment to consider the alternative? At all?

I am a constituent of Senator Al Franken. I voted for him. I gave a copy of his latest book to my dad. I've met him a handful of times. I think he's done good, if not great, work in office representing my interests.

In light of the allegations against him, I think he can do even more good by stepping down.

It rankles Franken supporters to have his relatively petty indiscretions lumped in with the criminal accusations against Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, as well as the serial assaults that a dozen women have claimed to have suffered at the hands of President Trump. What's more, in obvious contrast to Moore and Trump, Franken has been contrite and apologetic about his behavior. And so, people have some questions: Doesn't he deserve credit for apologizing? Doesn’t he deserve credit for being an ally to women in every other way? Shouldn't it matter that female staffers and former SNL employees have come forward to testify to his character?
​

That last paragraph applies to you. She then points out:

To my mind, these would be helpful arguments if Franken's fate was in the hands of a judge or jury. These outside forces can't know the truth of Franken's beliefs or motivations; they can't know if he's "really" a sexual predator, or a sexist, or both. But if Franken were to resign, he could acknowledge that question isn’t one of who he “really” is, but simply: is he prepared to be held accountable for his actions?

To be very clear: I don’t think Franken should lose his job as punishment. I think Franken should voluntarily relinquish a privilege in recognition that women’s voices and experiences are more important than his short-term political career.

[...]

As long as men who commit acts of sexual predation or violence suffer no consequences, women will carry that weight. Trump's presence in the White House only increases the gravitational pull. As of this writing, there are only two women who have come forward to accuse Franken of inappropriate sexualized touching. Perhaps that's all that there will ever be. The thing I keep coming back to, the thing that drives my belief that something more than an apology is in order, is that photo.

I realize that, of the things Franken has been accused of doing, the picture of him pretending to grope Leeann Tweeden while she's asleep is the least serious. He doesn't even appear to be touching her. Were we to know nothing else about that trip, if that photo simply remained on the camera roll, if she had never seen it, one could argue that it was almost entirely harmless—a childish prank, an artifact of the bad blood that sometimes curdles when people travel in close quarters under less than ideal conditions.

Franken has said the photo was “intended to be funny.” But I see a deliberate insult by a man supremely confident in his authority. I see a woman prepared to survive a firefight, but, in the moment, powerless to prevent the most intimate kind of violation. I see a thinly-veiled threat: Look at what I did to you. Look at what I did to you without the fear of getting caught. Look at what I did to you and know that I could do it again.

Embedded in that photo is the same message that the election of Donald Trump sent millions of women: When you're a star, they let you do it.

[...]

That Franken may not have been aware he was behaving like a predator makes it all the more imperative that he take responsibility for it. If he doesn't, I doubt anyone else will. As Tweeden said last week, change is not going to come "from the victims coming out and talking about it. I think it's going to come from the people who maybe do the abusing that don't even realize they're doing the abusing."
​

That, iceaura, is the narrative and the reality that you have consistently refused to acknowledge.

All you have done is whine about lies, misrepresentations, "this faction", you have whined about how the Democrats mishandled it by asking him to resign now because you think he should have remained in place until after the 2018 elections, because that seat is now in danger, among others.

Not to mention made snide remarks about the political nature of the first two accusations, casting doubt because of politics, while ignoring the many women who followed, Democrats, who were also sexually harassed and groped. You literally, and I mean literally, embraced rape culture for the sake of politics.

So whine all you want about "this faction", about how you think his not being there is going to harm your state and women, while completely ignoring the harm he actually did to women. And complain all you want about how what Franken did is nowhere near what Moore, Trump, Weinstein did while completely ignoring that what he did is bad in its own right. That it does not have to get to the level of Moore, Trump, Weinstein, for it to be bad.

 

[iceaura]

Or is this just a general statement to, you know, tell us how you really feel about people like me and "this faction" (whoever they happen to be) because we demand that politicians at the very least, do not sexually harass and abuse women?

That one, minus the idiotic presumptions and bs about how I "really feel", the attempted focus on "people", the "because" involved, etc. Minus everything after "general statement", in other words - it's all misrepresentation in the cause of slander.

That, iceaura, is the narrative and the reality that you have consistently refused to acknowledge.

I have never refused to acknowledge any such narrative. Not even once, let alone "consistently".

That last paragraph applies to you

No, it doesn't. You have been corrected on that count in maybe half of my posts here.

You keep accusing "this faction" of somehow or other having harmed your chances in Minnesota. But have you taken one moment to consider the alternative? At all?

That of course has been my major consideration, and was the attempted central topic of my posting until I realized it was impossible to discuss here, in part because of posters like you; sort of an illustrative microcosm of the jamb the liberals and so forth who are counting on the Minnesota DFL have found themselves in.

There were several alternatives to the way the DNC handled Franken, as I have noted repeatedly here. They chose as they did - precipitate and incompetent creation of unforced emergency and risk of great harm - imho partly in consequence of the influence of your faction, significantly influential in the Democratic Party and the DFL.

Meanwhile, you cannot post honestly in response to me here. You cannot be corrected, informed, or persuaded to desist from your lies, misrepresentations, and slanders. And that is significant. Illustration:

Not to mention made snide remarks about the political nature of the first two accusations, casting doubt because of politics, while ignoring the many women who followed, Democrats, who were also sexually harassed and groped. You literally, and I mean literally, embraced rape culture for the sake of politics.

All of that (and everything around it) has been corrected several times now. All of that is completely dishonest.

Why, is the remaining matter of interest - in part because some answers or clues might help in dealing with this faction, and deflecting the harm they threaten in the 2018 Minnesota elections.

 

[Bells]

That one, minus the idiotic presumptions and bs about how I "really feel", the attempted focus on "people", the "because" involved, etc. Minus everything after "general statement", in other words - it's all misrepresentation in the cause of slander.

*Yawn*

You seem to forget that I have read your posts here..

I have never refused to acknowledge any such narrative. Not even once, let alone "consistently".

You have been doing exactly that in three threads now.

No, it doesn't. You have been corrected on that count in maybe half of my posts here.

When you first started whining about Franken being lumped or compared to Moore, Trump or others:

I've heard nothing about him yet that belongs in the same conversation as Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or D0nald Trump for that matter. There may be another few shoes to drop, this radio host's accusation may be the tip of a bad berg, but so far that's the whole thing - and it's being exaggerated, not downplayed, by the major media and the Democratic Party and a whole slew of liberals. What's up with that?

And then:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/roy-moore-accusations.160205/page-2#post-3487896

There are more, but I am honestly not feeling motivated enough to go digging through your posts at the moment.

You have consistently complained about Franken being 'lumped in' with the Moore's and Trump's of this world.

Again, you seem to forget that you and I have been waltzing around this for a while now and I have read your posts.

Oh look, on the second page of this thread..

This is where failing to distinguish the Frankens and Bartons (and Spitzers and Keillors and so forth) from the Moores and Trumps and Ailes's takes you: to a place in which you can't separate predators from jerks, crime from offensiveness, calculation from impulse, fear from disgust, injury from insult; to a place in which reason does not govern.

As I said, that paragraph is you.

That of course has been my major consideration, and was the attempted central topic of my posting until I realized it was impossible to discuss here, in part because of posters like you; sort of an illustrative microcosm of the jamb the liberals and so forth who are counting on the Minnesota DFL have found themselves in.

There were several alternatives to the way the DNC handled Franken, as I have noted repeatedly here. They chose as they did - precipitate and incompetent creation of unforced emergency and risk of great harm - imho partly in consequence of the influence of your faction, significantly influential in the Democratic Party and the DFL.

And we have been through this before. Repeating myself once more.. His only option was to resign. For his victims, the party and frankly himself. Groping 8 women, his disbelief that what he did was bad and his apology amounting to 'sorry if you felt offended'.. He didn't really acknowledge his behaviour, but simply acknowledged that his actions, his being a guy who likes to "hug" people.. He tried to pass the buck on instead of acknowledging that it was him, he placed the onus on his victims for their having felt offended by how he behaved, not that what he did was wrong, but that they felt offended by it.

The incompetence, in my opinion, was letting it get to 8 accusers before asking him to resign.

He should have resigned right from the first accuser, instead of kicking it to the ethics committee, his fellow senators which would have amounted to his continuing as he was, without any real consequence to himself.

Meanwhile, you cannot post honestly in response to me here. You cannot be corrected, informed, or persuaded to desist from your lies, misrepresentations, and slanders. And that is significant. Illustration:

*Yawn*

You are boring! You keep repeating this, while dodging every question posed to you. Quoting your own words back to you results in these same stupid responses.

All of that (and everything around it) has been corrected several times now. All of that is completely dishonest.

Wait, are you saying you did not cast doubt on his first two accusers?

Like when you went on about Tweeden's "factual errors", or when you commented that Tweeden was "coached".

Oh, another one:

Not the Trump voting, birther believing, professionally coached and rhetorically sly Republican accusers of Franken, of course - those are "women speaking"

No, such remarks aren't 'snide' attempts to cast doubt on his accusers at all..

Why, is the remaining matter of interest - in part because some answers or clues might help in dealing with this faction, and deflecting the harm they threaten in the 2018 Minnesota elections.

Again with "this faction".

We really need to get t-shirts...

 

[Kittamaru]

Just gonna put this little tidbit here... something a favorite show of mine brought up:

You just want cruelty to beget cruelty. You're not superior to people who were cruel to you. You're just a whole bunch of new cruel people. A whole bunch of new cruel people, being cruel to some other people, who'll end up being cruel to you. The only way anyone can live in peace is if they're prepared to forgive. Why don't you break the cycle?

 

[Tiassa]

Just gonna put this little tidbit here... something a favorite show of mine brought up

Well, that right there is your problem.

You just want cruelty to beget cruelty. You're not superior to people who were cruel to you. You're just a whole bunch of new cruel people. A whole bunch of new cruel people, being cruel to some other people, who'll end up being cruel to you. The only way anyone can live in peace is if they're prepared to forgive. Why don't you break the cycle?

I don't think you're capable of explaining that.

 

[Bells]

You just want cruelty to beget cruelty. You're not superior to people who were cruel to you. You're just a whole bunch of new cruel people. A whole bunch of new cruel people, being cruel to some other people, who'll end up being cruel to you. The only way anyone can live in peace is if they're prepared to forgive. Why don't you break the cycle?

Yo, 'Mr trolley car flick switching animal farm'.. Heal thyself.

You want to talk about cruelty? How about your willingness to sell women's rights down the line, you know, for the "greater good". How about when you launched attacks on victims of abuse and sexual assault, for the sake of your politics?

How about when you attempted to silence women who were talking about something that affects our day to day lives, and tried to make it about you. How about when you used my rape as a tool to abuse and insult me in the worst way, for your politics.

You want to talk about cruelty, Kitta? Look in the mirror.

Because I can tell you now, what you have done these past few weeks, what you have said, is unforgivable.

You are dishonest, you are craven and you are a hypocrite. And as much as you might start quoting Doctor Who as a "little tidbit", as though you are above it all, that effluent you spread around these last few weeks won't wash away.

As our colleague noted above. You aren't capable of explaining that quote. The irony of what you don't understand is that Doctor Who, was actually talking about people like you.

So yeah, let's talk about cruelty, Kitta. Let's talk about breaking the cycle. It starts with you looking in the mirror.