Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

[ElectricFetus]

So you are guessing that he was being harassed on the phone, etc?

Yeah and the 20 other senators asking him to resign, and the DNC, etc.

Or are you suggesting that these women are all somehow or other hysterical and suddenly came up with a story about his groping them and somehow or other roping other women and men to corroborate their story...?

Again show me who corroborated their story, link it, give me names.

Well yes EF. Women make sooo much money and become so famous in accusing powerful men of sexual harassment and sexual assault...

Money, no, social media attention, yes, it is practically high-school "cool kids" points. Social media provides a sense of attention and popularity and power that is virtual, pedantic and dangerous. As dangerous as a coven of virginal school girls claiming fellow village members are witches... just in digital format and across the world (with russian trolls no less) and with the election of a pig boar as the most dangerous side-effect so far, which I would argue is worse then burning a few people on stakes.

Why do you persist in engaging in a myth? And a dangerous myth at that?

Because it is not for the public to decide if an the accuser is telling the truth or the accused is guilty or not, that is for the police, a court of law, to determine.

Moral panic for whom?

For society? Please do look up moral panics of history to have a understanding.

Do you equate women speaking out against sexual violence to be a moral panic?

I equate people speaking out on twitter and blogs shield by total anonymity or with baseless claims clearly seeking attention, etc, to be a moral panic. If anyone really wants to do something about sexual harassment and assault: go to the police, speaking out about it on social media does nothing good, all that speaking out on social media so far has got us president trump, it is less then useless, it is destructive to progress and civilization its self.

Would you rather sexual assault and sexual harassment stayed hidden to protect your sensitivities?

I have stated repeatedly what I rather have happen: they should have gone to the police and lawyers years ago instead of allowing sexual assulters/harassers to roam for decades. Now nothing is going to happen to these men other then being tarred and feather, which only people like you think is a fitting punishment for sexual harassment and assault.

Oh no, I know exactly what you are on about and have stated as such. It's interesting that you now retreat to the point of a hypothetical, after you and at least one other boasted about how I could not prove you wrong, despite the fact that you were doing this openly. There could be one million of you doing it, the fact is that the false accusation stemmed from you and there is more than ample proof of what you were doing and why you were saying you were going to spread that malicious rumor. To wit, my question of whether you really are that stupid prevails.

And you still don't see how that equivalent to Franken? Anyways if you are not threatened by my opinion that you eat children, what is the problem then?

Well if it is slander, the financial gain for him would be greater. Are you now trying to make excuses for him to not sue, despite arguing that he has been slandered? Al Franken is quite wealthy. Are you now suggesting that he is poor and cannot afford to sue the people you have claimed are slandering him?

I'm suggesting that if he wants to remain wealthy the cost of suing and the amount he would get back would be small then what he spends, this is not Hulk Hogan vs Gawker, his accusers would never be able to pay off his legal bills even if he won. That is the problem with internet slander, the thousands of anonymous people make it impossible financially to sue for slander. Even just Leeann Tweeden net worth would not make sueing profitable, who by the way is twice as rich as Franken.

What spelling errors?

The issue is that you are typing different words altogether. "Eat" vs "Each". The irony is that you think the word "each" is a spelling error. The sad part is that you hit two keystrokes instead of one, and they are in different directions for one (you went down instead of up to hit the "c") and would have had to use the right hand to hit the "h" instead of the left to hit the "t".

blah blah blah what does this have to do with the price of cheese now?

Ah so you don't think those 4 exist now? And you are adding the requirement of 'pics or it didn't happen' while downplaying the pic that does exist of at least one incident.. Interesting.

I said that pages ago!

If there was a picture of you eating a child, just one, would you not want to be tried in a court of law and not simply assumed guilty? Maybe your lawyers and witnesses could testify that the picture was fake or that it was a joke, etc... rather then a mob of people filled with self-righteous trendy fervor just seeing what ever they want to see.

The problem is that you think what you are applying logic.

I'm going to be obtuse like you and pretend I have no clue what your saying here, or maybe go into rant about using the article "is" and suffix "-al".

Firstly, you did not cite your original accusation as a hypothetical.

Well when I have an army of thousands of other people ready and willing to call you a child eater I will get back to you on that.

You then advised that you could make that public and again advised how it is a crime I "must have committed".

There are several posts of how you would go about doing it with further reiterations of just how I did it.

Yeah tell me how I would do it? I don't even have a twitter account! I'm not a twat. Social media in this early stage is vile, only link-in and researchgate are evolved enough for useful enlightenment, everything from Facebook to twater has only brought us suffering!

Now, I could very well take it as a threat and would be well within my rights to do so. The claim that you meant it as a hypothetical is new, something you have just latched on to.

Oh well if you could very well take it as a threat then maybe what was brought against Franken was slander too?

Secondly, you are now claiming it is an "opinion", when you never originally cited it as an opinion but as a direct accusation that I murder children and eat them.

You said it was an opinion, dear god you can't even see your own argument used against you!

Thirdly, I have proven slander. Because you also detailed how and why you were slandering me.

Get James, James am I slandering her or is it a hypothetical? You have no problem slandering Franken on claims that I have detailed how and why are bullshit, and you argue that it is righteous to do so, and yet you can't see the hypocrisy that if I raise a mob to claim you have committed horrific crimes, that you think is wrong? It not one or the other either, either they both are wrong or both are fine.

Next up you murdered and ate children... for Satan!

No, not suing is not proof of guilt. Remember, you are the one who keeps demanding that it is slander against Franken. You are the one who keeps demanding that all the women who accused him are lying and you also cited some far fetched conspiracies to do so.

Lets look at the people of the Satanic Panic: 48 children and and 321 counts of child abuse against the McMartin preschool, and that actually made it to court because how could 48 children be lying? Longest most expensive trial in history to try to prove they perform satanic pedophilia on these children... no convictions, none. Tell me did the accused get any recompense for the years in prison waiting and during trial for such hence crimes, for the slander of supposedly abusing and raping that many children, for Satan?

Your case involves 4 named women and 4 anonymous women, not pressing any charges: total bullshit. My "conspiracy" is backed by historical evidence as being a predictable moral panic. Salem, McCarthy, satanic panic and now #metoo, fuck now that I think about in the 1930 there was panics running up the WW2, including Orson's "war of the worlds", that 4 moral/social panics in 30 year cycles!

As for your OJ Simpson example, yes, I do think he killed his wife and Goldman. That is my opinion based on the evidence at hand. Are you capable of understanding the intricacies of those distinctions?

aaah, but is he a murderer? Would you call him a murderer to his face? how about behind a computer screen, would you and your ilk constantly harass him for being free (and enjoying the rest of his life playing golf?) If you know what golf club he was playing at would you at least give the club a bad review? Are you capable of understanding the intricacies of those actions?

The point was they did not lynch him.

So your point is a fallacy against hyperbole? Your point is it is ok to harass someone over accusation just so long as it not a physical lynching?

And I could have kept it to one post, and just responded with 'you're a moron', but I think it's best to explain why I think you are a misogynistic moron in detail.

But that is not an argument, that is just slander.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Bells]

You'd THINK they'd be a bit more worried about the potential implications of allowing such a party to make multiple lifetime appointments to the judiciary, enshrine in law their particular brand of bible-thumping crazy, and take further steps to consolidate and protect their power from any and all possible threats. I mean, for fucks sake, this is the party that has championed folks who have made such absurd statements as "you cannot rape your wife" (Trump's lawyer), "I think that when you get married you have consented to sex" (Phyllis Schlafly), and "Damn it, when you get married, you kind of expect you’re going to get a little sex." (Senator Jeremiah Denton).

Or, how about this doozy: "I don’t know how on Earth you could validly get a conviction in a husband-wife rape when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie and so forth. There’s no injury, there’s no separation, or anything." (Richard “Dick” Black - Virginia State Senator)

Or perhaps Todd Akin's pronouncement that women "cannot get pregnant from legitimate rape".

Then there's a desire to protect a man's privacy, in the form of "We need to stay out of a man’s bedroom." (Charlie Sharpe of South Carolina)

And now we get to add your voice to the fray!

On the subject of equality for women and women's rights vs politics:

It isn't a matter of expediency. It's a matter of morality; to wit, it is a fairly classic "trolly car" question - out of control trolly car is barreling towards a crowd of people, who will surely die when they are struck. You can flip a switch to divert it onto another track, killing one person instead. What is the "right" decision, when there is no "good" decision?

I would say the one that does the least damage and the least harm over the greatest period of time.

I guess my question at this point is... when are we going to say enough to this Animal Farm bullshit? All are equal, but some are apparently more equal...

On the subject of sexual violence, which encompasses sexual harassment:

Ah, now we're moving from "harassment" to "violence".

On the subject of rape culture, when you decided to go on a spiel about biological urges:

For starters, we need to address the elephant in the room - humanity has a biological imperative. This is indisputable fact - without the drive to reproduce, humanity wouldn't be here, full stop.

When you were advised that you should stop making excuses for sexual harassment and sexual assault and to 'stop diminishing the experiences of women and attempting to silence them (such as what we are currently witnessing with your and EF in the Al Franken thread).. In other words, stop harassing women to try to get them to shut up when they try to speak out. And for god's sake, stop changing the subject each time this is being discussed.', you responded with:

In other words, men should shut up and let the women find a solution?

On the subject of women's rights and in particular, how it pertains to rape culture:

I believe I brought up Animal Farm before... but yeah, that's what this reminds me of; a desire to be "equal" with some "more equal" than others... that's the perception being brought forth by the extremely vocal minority.

Or when you decided to persist with the myth of false rape allegations being somewhat common, when the reality is that it is not and you were advised of this:

Here..
Here..

And there is at least one other thread that I have bothered looking at and there were some doozies in there too. Like when you kept arguing that sexual harassment could just be an "uncomfortable situation"..

You should consider a run for politics. You'd be right at home!

Let us be real here... on the whole, the Republican party has not, does not, and will not give a good Goddamn about women's rights, women's safety, or their right to govern their own body... and now they have a powerful tool to use to knock down any challengers to their power, knowing that even a rumor of sexual assault will almost certainly torpedo the chances of anyone running against them, while their own supporters will largely claim it to be fake news.

This makes little to no sense.

Are you blaming the Republicans for starting a rumour about whom, exactly?

Thus far, it has been women who have outed these men, and at least one man who outed one female candidate for sexual harassment.

Yay democracy...?

From the "Animal Farm" guy who argued to flick the switch on that "trolley car" to kill off women's rights issues for political gain...

Irony!

Well, if you do decide to run for politics, we have a lot of quotes you can use, you know, to win back those voters..

 

[iceaura]

But I do care about the women in your State.

No, you clearly don't. You aren't paying any attention to them, for starters. You have your fantasy world to defend, in which actual Minnesota women have been reduced to some kind of abstract collection of projected motives and interests, an audience for these "messages" your deluded brain has you think you are sending.

You and your little buddies are the one's pitching a fit that Al Franken was asked to resign for sexually assaulting multiple women.

That dishonesty is the remaining thread issue.

But we do have a clue.

Nonsense. You wouldn't lie and slander so childishly, if you had a clue. Your cluelessness is the the initial hypothesis for your inability to post honestly here - the remaining issue of the thread.

Oh no. I meant it could have been preventable if Al Franken had just kept his chubby mitts to himself and not groped women without their consent.

Now you are presenting your team's unforced errors and mind-bogglingly stupid rhetoric as the inevitability of fate. You deny all agency, recognize no responsibility, and are paying no attention to your own bs. That supports the "clueless" hypothesis.

I mean, instead of blaming him for his behaviour which led to his downfall, you seem to be blaming everyone else.

So the remaining issue here is why these people cannot post honestly. Why are the self-desribed holders of the moral high ground liars, slanderers, trolls, and otherwise dishonest, as illustrated in that posting?

You're not fooling anyone but yourselves, after all - in particular, you aren't fooling much of anyone in the Minnesota voting public. If the DFL can't get some separation from you guys, they are going to get beat in 2018. Even Klobuchar is now vulnerable, in this mess you fools have created. Do you realize how bad that would be?

 

[ElectricFetus]

So Franken Spoke Today

https://www.thecut.com/2017/12/al-franken-makes-emotional-speech-to-supporters.html

Senator Al Franken announced earlier this month he will resignfollowing allegations of sexual misconduct, and on Thursday night he addressed his supporters f0r the first time in a speech streamed on Facebook Live.

“Let me be clear,” he said. “I may be resigning my seat but I am not giving up my voice.”

Since November, seven women have accused Franken of inappropriate touching, groping, and kissing. The senator denied the allegations, and repeatedly apologized. But he resigned after facing pressure from his Democratic colleagues in Congress, and will be replaced byMinnesota Lieutenant Governor Tina Smith on January 3rd.

However, a recent poll suggests that 50 percent of Minnesotans believe he should stay in office, and 60 percent think the Senate Ethics Committee should finish its investigation.

Here is the poll: https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/MinnesotaPoll122817.pdf

 

[Bells]

No, you clearly don't. You aren't paying any attention to them, for starters. You have your fantasy world to defend, in which actual Minnesota women have been reduced to some kind of abstract collection of projected motives and interests, an audience for these "messages" your deluded brain has you think you are sending.

And in your little fantasy, you think a serial groper of women is the best candidate, since it is acceptable because "depends on the politics".

I mean how far has you and your State sunk to, that you think this is the best that you can offer? And how can you possibly believe that a man who views women so lowly that he cannot even respect their rights to their own bodies when it comes to his groping them, can be a voice for their rights? Because his actions would always hang over his head, and over your State's head. When you put politics over even such basic fundamental rights of women, such as the right to not be groped by their wandering politician, then of course one would believe as you do.

That dishonesty is the remaining thread issue.

Oh, you mean you have all be whining about something else for 18 pages?

Nonsense. You wouldn't lie and slander so childishly, if you had a clue. Your cluelessness is the the initial hypothesis for your inability to post honestly here - the remaining issue of the thread.

Lying? I am taking your words at face value. If you think your State deserves and can only offer a sexual predator for a Senator, well, sucks to be you I suppose. I feel bad for the women in your State, who do not dare to dream of a better option who will represent them without groping them.

Now you are presenting your team's unforced errors and mind-bogglingly stupid rhetoric as the inevitability of fate. You deny all agency, recognize no responsibility, and are paying no attention to your own bs. That supports the "clueless" hypothesis.

Oh now it's a team? Now we must get t-shirts!

You are still blaming everyone else for it instead of him...

So the remaining issue here is why these people cannot post honestly. Why are the self-desribed holders of the moral high ground liars, slanderers, trolls, and otherwise dishonest, as illustrated in that posting?

You're not fooling anyone but yourselves, after all - in particular, you aren't fooling much of anyone in the Minnesota voting public. If the DFL can't get some separation from you guys, they are going to get beat in 2018. Even Klobuchar is now vulnerable, in this mess you fools have created. Do you realize how bad that would be?

Look dude, you have made your point here clear. You support a man who gropes women. You value your politics more than you value the right of women to not be groped. Because.. "Depends on the politics". You can whine about me and "these people" as much as you want, that shit you are wallowing in and embracing, doesn't wash off. It stains.

So don't whine about 'our' lying because 'we' take your words at face value. This is what you are standing for and throwing down for. The only fool who created this mess is the one who went out of his way to sexually assault women and instead of blaming him, you are blaming everyone who dares to call out his behaviour. As I said, that kind of shit doesn't wash off. You are covered in it.

 

[iceaura]

Oh now it's a team? Now we must get t-shirts!

Try "I'm with the rapist abettor - Her". Or is that too last year?

How about "I'm with Stras, and his fine record of public service"? That's up to date.

How about "No white men!" - on the back: "except Republican ones". (That's a quote from your local message leadership, btw - the "no white men" phrase. You've already sent that one explicitly, in the local papers and on TV. In a State whose voters are 85% white).

How about "Ten year old photo-op grabass first and foremost, Medicare cutbacks and workplace assault and childcare issues and school system guttings and abortion availability sometime in the future if we can get bipartisan support without saying bad things about anybody like Franken did".
That's a little long. But everything Klobuchar and Smith say is a little long - gotta read some mighty fine print, when spineless triangulators get involved in messaging and symbolic metacommunication.

Or did you have some other messages in mind? Because if you did, you've got less than thirty weeks to get them out there - and no more Franken with his big mouth, backbone, and willingness to go to the mat on women's rights. You've got Tina Smith instead. She's going to reach across the aisle, apparently, or something.

Look dude, you have made your point here clear. You support a man who gropes women. You value your politics more than you value the right of women to not be groped.

Nonsense. You typed all that stupid shit pages ago, and now you've forgotten where it came from.

You are still blaming everyone else for it instead of him...

Dishonest. And you don't even know why, any more.
(I have never blamed anyone for "it". That's not in my posting.)

So don't whine about 'our' lying because 'we' take your words at face value.

That's a lie.
And you don't even know it.
The "whine", the "we", the "my words", the "face value", are all bullshit and dishonest reflexes you can no longer post without.

See, when you can't post honestly, you can't. It's not an attitude any more, however it started - it's an incapability. You've got yourself in a fog, here, where you have lost track of reality - all that stupid trolling you did just confused your own self.

And the only question remaining is why. Why can't this poster type three consecutive sentences of honest response to anything I post here?

 

[ElectricFetus]

So let us review the accusations against Franken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken#Sexual_misconduct_allegations

1. First was conservative radio host Leeann Tweeden (net worth $15 million)*, who showed a photo of Franken air groping her kevlar vest covered chest while supposedly sleeping 2006, and she also accused him of forcibly kissed her without her consent as part of a rehearsal for a USO skit. She made these accusation on the radio show, on her blog and on the #metoo twitter hashtag. Franken apologized for the photo and denied the forcible kiss has haven been "remember very differently". Tweeden accepted the apology thus avoiding legal suit.

2. Lindsay Menz, on facebook and twitter, claimed in 2010 that Franken gropped her butt in a photoshoot, Franken denied this claim with a "I don't remember, I have taken thousands of photoshoots"

3-4. Huffington Post reported that two additional women who insisted upon anonymity said that Franken had subjected them to very similar misconduct during political events in 2007 and 2008, franken again denies with "I do not remember"

5. Jezebel reported that another anonymous woman said that after she was a guest on Franken's radio show in 2006, Franken leaned in toward her face during a handshake and gave her "a wet, open-mouthed kiss" on the cheek when she turned away.

6. Stephanie Kemplin told CNN that Franken held the side of her breast for 5 to 10 seconds "and never moved his hand" while posing for a photo with her during a 2003 USO tour in Iraq.

7. Politico reported that an anonymous former Democratic congressional staffer said, and Franken denied, that Franken had tried to kiss her (but failed to do so) as she exited the studio after an interview on his radio show in 2006/

8. Tina Dupuy, wrote a piece in The Atlantic alleging that Franken squeezed her waist while posing for a photo at a presidential inauguration party in early 2009.

So we have 4 named women and 4 anonymous women, claimed franken at worse kissed them forcibly, to squeeze their waist, from as as soon at 7 years ago to 15 years ago. We have no corroborators linked in there by the way.

For this Franken was first removed from an anti-rape bill, he started an ethic committee review on himself, then Indivisible called for his resignation, then over 2 dozen senators called for his resignation. Under all this pressure he as resigned.

Base on the nature of the evidence I believe this will go down in history with the satanic panic and mccarthism as a moral panic and franken as a victim of the hysteria. Though I suspect he was forced out for political purposes: Liberals can't deny a women's claim because of the infantilizing "women never lie" ideology of the SJW left, as such franken could only sit there and take it, also he was forced out to put pressure on moore and trump, while moore lost thankfully, nothing phases a narcissistic psychopathic pig boar like trump, or moore as it turns out who continues to deny he lost and claims voter fraud. Republicans always double down on being totally right and everyone else including reality itself being wrong... and somehow they keep getting elected! Well certainly we should not go that far into emulating the republican level of borish denialism certainly apologizing for any claim against you is clearly the kiss of death. The DNC considered Franken a worthwhile sacrifice despite Minnesota being one cancer riddled governor away from going Red, now we are in a tight spot for the 2018 elections with Tina Smith having to earn her keep in a republican controlled senate in just 9 months. Republicans will most certainly attack on the fact that a majority of Minnesotans feel Franken was wrongly forced out and use that a wadge against democrats in general, thus gaining votes against the whole DFL, improving their chances in the governors race and replacement senator race.

*Apparently being rich means you are not allow to have human rights, while I'm all for taxing the rich, plastering them with sexual harassment claims is not going to do anyone any good. As we should have learned from the fall of Gawkier, airing the rich's dirty laundry does nothing, it does not help the poor and middle class and only at best gets and outed gay conservatives billionar to finance hulk hogan to sue gawkier into oblivion, the only ones making any money out of all that were lawyers, the fucking jaw-less lampreys of our society.

 

[iceaura]

Maybe a little more rundown is neceessary, to counter the liar's repetition technique:

And in your little fantasy, you think a serial groper of women is the best candidate, since it is acceptable because "depends on the politics"

Dishonest.
I have posted nothing about "best candidate", nothing about "acceptable", and was referring to something else entirely with "depends on the politics". You invented that bs as slander and trolling at the time, remember? You - not me - invented that stupid shit.

And how can you possibly believe that a man who views women so lowly that he cannot even respect their rights to their own bodies when it comes to his groping them, can be a voice for their rights?

I haven't addressed that. You keep trying to assign that crap to me, to avoid dealing with my actual posting.

Short version: Not "can be", has been. It's a consideration, not an endorsement. Not a "voice", an agent - an actual vote, employer of power, enactor of legal and political leverage in those interests. It's the reason the DFL should not have (imho) put his seat at risk in 2018, especially and flagrantly not on the accounts and issue in the media.

How does one know this? By not being a fucking idiot like you. By not going off fecklessly and half-cocked.

It's called the "public record". Check it out. Compare Franken's Senate record with - for example - Klobuchar's, Clinton's, Hillebrand's, basically anyone's. The latest example would be his blue-slip denial of David Stras's appointment - an act of historical awareness and actual political courage in defense of women's legal rights and future prospects in his State, beyond that available from (for example) the triangulating and Republican-enabling Klobuchar.

Look: The only target of your bullshit about my posting here is here. You can't help the DFL in its self-inflicted emergency situation by slandering me and my posting here. The women of Minnesota are not supported by lies and slanders and feckless spewing - at least, they say they aren't. Are you listening to them?

You're not fooling anyone but yourselves, after all - in particular, you aren't fooling much of anyone in the Minnesota voting public. If the DFL can't get some separation from you guys, they are going to get beat in 2018. Even Klobuchar is now vulnerable, in this mess you fools have created. Do you realize how bad that would be?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Short version: Not "can be", has been. It's a consideration, not an endorsement. Not a "voice", an agent - an actual vote, employer of power, enactor of legal and political leverage in those interests. It's the reason the DFL should not have (imho) put his seat at risk in 2018, especially and flagrantly not on the accounts and issue in the media.

First of all this was the DNC doing, not the DFL.

It's called the "public record". Check it out. Compare Franken's Senate record with - for example - Klobuchar's, Clinton's, Hillebrand's, basically anyone's. The latest example would be his blue-slip denial of David Stras's appointment - an act of historical awareness and actual political courage in defense of women's legal rights and future prospects in his State, beyond that available from (for example) the triangulating and Republican-enabling Klobuchar.

Yes this was a serious loss of a progressive, not a bernie progressive, but more so than most democrats, and I will put high bets even his replacement Tina Smith will not do as much for progressivism and even women as Franken did. Apparently a few accusation of him groping during a moral panic is worth granting republicans an opportunity to further fuck as all, including women who republicans have no problem striping rights from in appease their "Jesus loves the little babies" base.

Now back in 2008 I voted against Franken in the primary for Tinkleberg (yeah even the name would have meant him losing the general, my bad) Franken was too corporate for me over a far left tinkleberg, that and Franken's career as a comedian looked to be a detriment (turns out it was) none the less Franken wanted my delegate vote so he came the UMN and came to the BBE department where we pitch biofuels on him. In the long run Franken turned out to be better then I expected.

Look: The only target of your bullshit about my posting here is here. You can't help the DFL in its self-inflicted emergency situation by slandering me and my posting here. The women of Minnesota are not supported by lies and slanders and feckless spewing - at least, they say they aren't. Are you listening to them?

Again I don't think the DFL is at fault, this is hte DNC doing, and also Bells speaks for all women, don't you know that?

 

[Tiassa]

You're not fooling anyone but yourselves, after all - in particular, you aren't fooling much of anyone in the Minnesota voting public. If the DFL can't get some separation from you guys, they are going to get beat in 2018. Even Klobuchar is now vulnerable, in this mess you fools have created. Do you realize how bad that would be?

I don't know, Iceaura, a couple weeks ago you broke down to outright lying↑.

Maybe you should do more than spend your time looking for ways to talk down to women like a petulant child talking back. Because, really, when your only answer for yourself is to make up bullshit, other people notice.

You ran out of credibility weeks ago, and are only embarrassing yourself. I mean, we get it; the human rights of women are subordinate to your aesthetics. Seriously, Iceaura, that doesn't make you new, or smart, and the least you could do is be honest about it, but as you showed a couple weeks ago, when you can't figure out how to insult someone, you just make shit up.

I personally don't see why Bells or anyone else should have to tolerate you or your behavior, Iceaura; the one thing you've made clear in recent weeks is that you have nothing honest to offer.

So let us be clear: You aren't fooling anyone.

We're aware of your priorities—

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

and sees - wait for it - a "pattern". Not exactly news, one would think. Not rocket science. Until one reads the description of the "pattern" seen. And then - wtf?

—since you already told us.

You know, in the same post where you could only answer your own history by ... wait for it ... blaming someone else.

No, really, you laid out your priorities in that one. And much like the question about acceptable levels of sexual violence↑, the problem you seem to have is others disdain your priorities↑:

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

Depends on the politics. In this case, in this particular political situation and given the "level" established by the particular public accounts so far, Franken should in my opinion have been left in office until after the 2018 elections. You may morally and ethically disagree, after considering the matter. But only after considering the matter.

Failing to consider the matter, before acting, is not high moral ground. It is abandoning reason, and opening the door to the monsters already on the step..

You've pretty much spent weeks, now, focusing on an altogether unoriginal, uninspired, and unintelligent obsession with ritually denouncing a woman as a liar, and no, that's not really surprising.

So, yeah, liike you said:

Maybe a little more rundown is neceessary, to counter the liar's repetition technique

Yes, show us yet again:

Try "I'm with the rapist abettor - Her". Or is that too last year?

No, seriously, dude, you're the one who advocates safe political space for sexual violence.

So, yeah. Show us again, Mr. Depends On The Politics; just keep making shit up, because, what, obsessive dishonest sloth is the best you can achieve?

 

[Bells]

Try "I'm with the rapist abettor - Her". Or is that too last year?

I wouldn't know. Is that what you were wearing last year? Is yours frayed from over use?

I mean, you are the one advocating for excusing sexual assault for the sake of politics, I'm not.

How about "I'm with Stras, and his fine record of public service"? That's up to date.

How about "No white men!" - on the back: "except Republican ones". (That's a quote from your local message leadership, btw - the "no white men" phrase. You've already sent that one explicitly, in the local papers and on TV. In a State whose voters are 85% white).

How about "Ten year old photo-op grabass first and foremost, Medicare cutbacks and workplace assault and childcare issues and school system guttings and abortion availability sometime in the future if we can get bipartisan support without saying bad things about anybody like Franken did".
That's a little long. But everything Klobuchar and Smith say is a little long - gotta read some mighty fine print, when spineless triangulators get involved in messaging and symbolic metacommunication.

Or did you have some other messages in mind? Because if you did, you've got less than thirty weeks to get them out there - and no more Franken with his big mouth, backbone, and willingness to go to the mat on women's rights. You've got Tina Smith instead. She's going to reach across the aisle, apparently, or something.

I already put up the t-shirt in a previous post? Did it not meet your requirement?

Oh wait, I stand against rape culture.

You elect to protect it for the sake of your politics. I mean, you can get away with making rubbish up like EF has been doing and attempting to align me with something I have been arguing against for weeks now and that's on you. Just reeks of desperation, I guess. How much lower are you willing to go for Franken?

Nonsense. You typed all that stupid shit pages ago, and now you've forgotten where it came from.

I remember what I said and what you said. You are the one accusing me of lying when I quote your own words right back to you.

Dishonest. And you don't even know why, any more.
(I have never blamed anyone for "it". That's not in my posting.)

Oh, but it is in your posting, iceaura.

That's a lie.
And you don't even know it.
The "whine", the "we", the "my words", the "face value", are all bullshit and dishonest reflexes you can no longer post without.

See, when you can't post honestly, you can't. It's not an attitude any more, however it started - it's an incapability. You've got yourself in a fog, here, where you have lost track of reality - all that stupid trolling you did just confused your own self.

And the only question remaining is why. Why can't this poster type three consecutive sentences of honest response to anything I post here?

And why do you keep denying what you have been arguing for these last few weeks?

Dishonest.
I have posted nothing about "best candidate", nothing about "acceptable", and was referring to something else entirely with "depends on the politics". You invented that bs as slander and trolling at the time, remember? You - not me - invented that stupid shit.

I quoted your words in full in a previous post. Are you now saying that you were answering to something else, when my question and what you quoted and responded to was quite clear? Are you in "a fog", iceaura? Is the stench of the rape culture shit you are embracing making your eyes go all blurry that you can't see? Or causing memory issues?

I mean, you can only get so far by accusing me of inventing something that you wrote without looking like a bigger idiot at this point. Do you suffer from a psychiatric disorder that results in your spacing out and you can't remember what happened? Because that would be the only valid excuse you have at the moment.

The rest is just white noise, incessant whining and blaming everyone else instead of admitting to your own words and owning them.

I haven't addressed that. You keep trying to assign that crap to me, to avoid dealing with my actual posting.

Yep.

So what else are you willing to accept for the sake of your politics?

Short version: Not "can be", has been. It's a consideration, not an endorsement. Not a "voice", an agent - an actual vote, employer of power, enactor of legal and political leverage in those interests. It's the reason the DFL should not have (imho) put his seat at risk in 2018, especially and flagrantly not on the accounts and issue in the media.

How does one know this? By not being a fucking idiot like you. By not going off fecklessly and half-cocked.

It's called the "public record". Check it out. Compare Franken's Senate record with - for example - Klobuchar's, Clinton's, Hillebrand's, basically anyone's. The latest example would be his blue-slip denial of David Stras's appointment - an act of historical awareness and actual political courage in defense of women's legal rights and future prospects in his State, beyond that available from (for example) the triangulating and Republican-enabling Klobuchar.

And he did all this, while groping women at public events and forcing himself on them..

Now, we know you are willing to accept this sort of behaviour, because well, politics and hey, 'it's not your party' (remember when you pitched a fit about that too?). That distant sniveling embrace of a culture that is ultimately harmful to women and whining about everyone else, when that behaviour is called out and exposed. It's everyone else's fault but his.

He could have cured AIDS, cancer, fixed global warming, ensured women had the right to safe abortions across the US, brought in public health care for all and what he did would still be bad and would still mean that he should resign for what he did.

I mean, what part of that don't you quite understand?

What part of there are some things that are not excusable and protecting him and leaving him in place is bad, because of what he did to those women, don't you understand?

Such behaviour should not be protected and citing a terrific political history is not an excuse and arguing that he should remain in place because he's such a good voice or whatever, is not an excuse.

Once you make such distinctions, you water down the actual issue, you make it less bad and you are doing it for politics.

Look: The only target of your bullshit about my posting here is here. You can't help the DFL in its self-inflicted emergency situation by slandering me and my posting here. The women of Minnesota are not supported by lies and slanders and feckless spewing - at least, they say they aren't. Are you listening to them?

Yep. And I am also listening to his victims and to the millions of us who have experienced this sort of behaviour. In other words, we need to stop making excuses for it and the fact that you are doing so by acting like a waterboy for rape culture, just makes you look weak and pathetic.

 

[iceaura]

Try "I'm with the rapist abettor - Her". Or is that too last year?
I wouldn't know.

Why not? Some women you don't listen to?

Oh wait, I stand against rape culture.

You would have to be honest to do that. You're not capable here.

You elect to protect it for the sake of your politics.

You can't post like that and stand against - or for - anything. At least, not as a liberal or progressive.

I remember what I said and what you said.

You can't even read and respond to it honestly when it's directly in front of you, let alone pages later.

Now, we know you are willing to accept this sort of behaviour, because well, politics and hey, 'it's not your party' (remember when you pitched a fit about that too?).

That's your entire posting here - lies, slanders, misrepresentations.

He could have cured AIDS, cancer, fixed global warming, ensured women had the right to safe abortions across the US, brought in public health care for all and what he did would still be bad and would still mean that he should resign for what he did.

I mean, what part of that don't you quite understand?

Do you think I am going to forget my own posting, my own issues, my own arguments, if you repeat your bs often enough? Is that why you post like that?

Once you make such distinctions, you water down the actual issue, you make it less bad and you are doing it for politics.

Why do you lie, and slander, and misrepresent?

Yep. And I am also listening to his victims and to the millions of us who have experienced this sort of behaviour.

You're specifically ignoring them, in order to lie and slander and misrepresent. Why are you doing that?

I quoted your words in full in a previous post.

You have never posted honestly in response to me on this thread. Not once.
You lie, you slander, you misrepresent, and that's all you do. Why is that?

Are you now saying that you were answering to something else, when my question and what you quoted and responded to was quite clear? Are you in "a fog", iceaura? Is the stench of the rape culture shit you are embracing making your eyes go all blurry that you can't see? Or causing memory issues?

You don't need to post any more examples - your spew is documented thoroughly in this thread. It has become the remaining topic of interest.

You can't post honestly here, in response to my posting. The remaining question is why not.

And that's a relevant question for this thread. Because if the DFL can't figure out how to handle this faction, the risk of a Republican coup in ten months is high. People do not vote for incompetence and stupidity and slander and unreliable bullshit from the DFL - that's the Republican base. The Republicans have the power and money and media influence, they will run the table if the DFL abandons reason and principle for feckless "messages".

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yep. And I am also listening to his victims and to the millions of us who have experienced this sort of behaviour. In other words, we need to stop making excuses for it and the fact that you are doing so by acting like a waterboy for rape culture, just makes you look weak and pathetic.

Aaah who here is advocating rape? No one here is advocating rape. What excuses are being made? I ask that if anyone, male or female is harassed, assaulted or raped you go to the police so your assaulter can be arrest, tried, punished and treated, or at the very least sue. What are you asking be done? Beside some generic make the justice system nicer to the accused, yeah sure no one is in disagreement with that, they still need to go to the police though. Oh do you want laws passed, well regardless of what ever those laws are we would need politicians that would pass said laws, certainly not going to happen with trump in charge, and all these women knew that and only 53% voted against trump, clearly being a fucking pussy garbing pig boar was not a serious enough detriment in the mind of roughly half of women in america. So long story short your priorities are totally whacked off the norm, you have no comprehension of what most other women prioritize, your rather have a progressive left wing senator forced out because of unproven accusation of sexual harassment and leave an opening for anti-abortion corporatist bible thumping republicans, then leave a progressive senator be to do progressive work that would overall benefit women, by the millions.

Back to one of my earlier questions: If the choice was Bill Clinton or Bob Dole, which would you go with?

 

[Bells]

Why not? Some women you don't listen to?

The women I listen to call it progress, that he is doing the right thing by resigning. You know, they aren't embracing rape culture like you are..

You would have to be honest to do that. You're not capable here.

Are you now attempting to stupidly argue that do not stand in the fight against rape culture, iceaura?

Or are you just lashing out because Mummy won't buy you a lollipop at the supermarket counter?

You can't post like that and stand against - or for - anything. At least, not as a liberal or progressive.

See, as a far left liberal and progressive, I do get to argue against rape culture and against embracing politicians who sexually assault women. You clearly disagree. That's on you. Not me. And not anyone else. You stand with the EF's and Kitta's of this world who are openly defending rape culture for the sake of politics.

Keep wallowing in it, iceaura.

You can't even read and respond to it honestly when it's directly in front of you, let alone pages later.

I quoted what I said and what you said in response a few posts ago. Are you now disputing your own words?

That's your entire posting here - lies, slanders, misrepresentations.

Are you now denying saying that it is not your party?

Do you think I am going to forget my own posting, my own issues, my own arguments, if you repeat your bs often enough? Is that why you post like that?

As I said, I quoted your words back to you and you responded by calling me a liar.

Why do you lie, and slander, and misrepresent?

But I am not, iceaura. And the more you keep demanding that I am lying, the more I will quote your own words back to you and watch you try to blame me and others for that too.

You're specifically ignoring them, in order to lie and slander and misrepresent. Why are you doing that?

I am? Hmm, pretty sure I have been quoting their words in this thread and your response has been to accuse me of misrepresentations, lying and slander anyway...

Why are you doing that?

Oh wait, politics!

You have never posted honestly in response to me on this thread. Not once.
You lie, you slander, you misrepresent, and that's all you do. Why is that?

And this has been your stock standard response to my calling out his abuses and the rape culture you are frothing at the mouth to protect. Repeatedly.

Of course you think I am lying. I am so opposed to your defending rape culture for the sake of politics that you cannot even imagine that I could actually disagree with you. Hence the repeated lectures, harassment, demanding I answer questions differently, accusations that I am lying for taking your words at face value.

You blame everyone else for Franken, instead of blaming him for groping multiple women. You have slyly attempted to cast doubt on his accusers, you have made suggestions about their political ideology as a reason for their speaking out, while ignoring the fact that the majority of the women who came forward were Democratic women.. At what point are you going to admit that this was entirely his doing and not me or others like me who have taken a stand and demanded that 'enough was enough'?

You don't need to post any more examples - your spew is documented thoroughly in this thread. It has become the remaining topic of interest.

What's the matter? Do your own words make you squirm?

You can't post honestly here, in response to my posting. The remaining question is why not.

I am posting honestly in response to your rampant rape culture defenses. And perhaps that's your issue. Perhaps you believe that women should just nod in agreement when you speak?

And that's a relevant question for this thread. Because if the DFL can't figure out how to handle this faction, the risk of a Republican coup in ten months is high. People do not vote for incompetence and stupidity and slander and unreliable bullshit from the DFL - that's the Republican base. The Republicans have the power and money and media influence, they will run the table if the DFL abandons reason and principle for feckless "messages".

Yep. And your man groped multiple women and his female colleagues finally said enough was enough and asked him to resign.

Blame him for that and not anyone else. So stop making excuses.. Because it's just pathetic.

 

[iceaura]

I don't know, Iceaura, a couple weeks ago you broke down to outright lying↑.

No, I didn't.
You did. That was you, lying. Flat and open. You swallowed the koolaid on Clinton, that was humiliating, and you've been hiding from the way you treated other people in that matter ever since.

Meanwhile, to quote the wise advice giver of the forum: The women are speaking - you shut up. Full stop.

That will save you from further descriptions of your fucked up twisting like this one:

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

My memory actually softened them a bit, made them less obviously what they are. So thanks for the reminder - you've been posting like that a long time now, lots of stuff like that, and so I don't have to worry about somehow failing to grant due consideration for whatever validity you have buried in them. Dig it out yourself.

Which was spot on, dude. And you know it.

 

[iceaura]

The women I listen to call it progress, that he is doing the right thing by resigning.

And the women you don't listen to - are the rest of us allowed to listen to them?
Do we have your dispensation to maybe even believe them? Pay attention to why and how they vote, who they think is on their side, and who is incompetently betraying them for bullshit?
The reason I ask is that these women - the ones not worth your attention - are actually kind of like a voting majority in my region. And since my interests lie in the area of political power and influence - including actual women's rights in the real world, which I believe are seriously threatened by the rise of fascism in the Republican Party - they are worth my attention. In my opinion. Only if you approve, of course - wouldn't want to be all misogynist and rapy cultural by listening to the wrong women.

I am posting honestly in response to your rampant rape culture defenses

And that's a lie, intended to slander. You can't post anything else.
You haven't posted three consecutive honest sentences in response to my posts in this entire thread.

Of course you think I am lying.

And slandering, and misrepresenting, my posts. Yes. As you did right there.

The question is why.

And the reason for the question is the 2018 election in Minnesota - which is thirty weeks away, and which is currently in grave danger of being handed to the Republican Party.

 

[Tiassa]

In your posting here, all of that was, yes. And that's not even a complete list. Essentially everything you have posted here in response to me could be included.

You know, you're really lazy about your temper tantrums, and you're also a really lazy liar↗, so maybe you should take a moment to consider just how unreliable your assessment is.

The only thing you appear to get out of spending all this time verbally abusing a sosobra is the smug fantasy satisfaction of putting a woman in her place.

Your judgment is seriously questionable.

 

[iceaura]

You know, you're really lazy about your temper tantrums, and you're also a really lazy liar↗, so maybe you should take a moment to consider just how unreliable your assessment is.

"Temper tantrums"? "Liar" based on Bells's posts in response to me?
You're serious.
That Clinton koolaid is fearsome stuff - major league. You're going to be years in recovery.

The only thing you appear to get out of spending all this time verbally abusing a sosobra is the smug fantasy satisfaction of putting a woman in her place.

And you. My fantasies - otherwise known as posts, which one can read at will (and even comprehend, with just a minimum of the good faith you will never repossess without repentance) - include open mockery of you and your bullshit in this matter as well.
You're not a woman, remember, despite your unwillingness to quit speaking, full stop.

And neither are many of the underlying players in the Minnesota elections ten months away.
Up: the Republicans have no good candidates yet - the GOP is without defensible policy or ideology, and no prominent Republicans here can as yet separate themselves from the national Party. So their otherwise clear strategy of running as the competent Party is compromised in the early going.
Down: the DFL seems to be fighting for status quo, playing not to lose or at least minimize losses. This is nothing new for Klobuchar, and is easy to understand given the situation they have created for themselves, but may handicap new faces such as Smith. Smith's reputation seems to be one of ability and intelligence and strong backroom skills in negotiating with corporate power - that can be made to look like weaseling and double-dealing with big money, she lacks name recognition especially among black people and outstate, and if she proves a weak campaigner caught up in DNC tactics of triangulation and politalk her genuine abilities will not save the seat.
Here's the map she's contending with: https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/minnesota/

 

[Capracus]

Another of Franco’s accusers, filmmaker Violet Paley, told the LA Times that Franco pressured her into performing oral sex on him in her car. The two had been having a consensual relationship, but they’d never engaged in oral sex before he exposed himself, she said.

“I was talking to him, all of a sudden his penis was out. I got really nervous, and I said, ‘Can we do this later?’ He was kind of nudging my head down, and I just didn’t want him to hate me, so I did it.”

She began to perform the sex act, but was uncomfortable. To extricate herself from the situation, she told Franco she spotted someone near the car.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...754e4b08a1f624bc76a?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

I guess Franco must also be guilty of forcing all of Violet’s other actions in their consensual relationship. What if Franco had asked her to cut off her forearm with a pocket knife? Would she have complied just to make him happy? And from Franco’s point of view, what sexual compromises did he endure just to please Violet? Must all of the nuances of a relationship be so rigidly governed to be deemed acceptable and forgivable?

 

[birch]

Another of Franco’s accusers, filmmaker Violet Paley, told the LA Times that Franco pressured her into performing oral sex on him in her car. The two had been having a consensual relationship, but they’d never engaged in oral sex before he exposed himself, she said.

“I was talking to him, all of a sudden his penis was out. I got really nervous, and I said, ‘Can we do this later?’ He was kind of nudging my head down, and I just didn’t want him to hate me, so I did it.”

She began to perform the sex act, but was uncomfortable. To extricate herself from the situation, she told Franco she spotted someone near the car.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...754e4b08a1f624bc76a?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

I guess Franco must also be guilty of forcing all of Violet’s other actions in their consensual relationship. What if Franco had asked her to cut off her forearm with a pocket knife? Would she have complied just to make him happy? And from Franco’s point of view, what sexual compromises did he endure just to please Violet? Must all of the nuances of a relationship be so rigidly governed to be deemed acceptable and forgivable?

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.