Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

[Kittamaru]

Oh no there is no proving it never happend, all she can do is apologize for her crimes that she must have committed, and burn at the stake. The harder it trends the more she must burn.

Seems so - taking a moment to look at some of her recent attacks upon me, I love how she demands I go on twitter and post my personally identifiable information. Interesting that a mod would recommend such a dangerous thing to people.

It is also interesting, almost fascinating, to note that anyone that disagrees with her in any fashion is immediately an enemy... she has even attacked other survivors of sexual assault. One would think she would want a solution to this problem. Apparently not.

Then again, this seems to be the standard to which SciForums has arrived. It's rather apparent why so many of our members (and moderators) jumped ship... they didn't want to deal with that particular brand of crazy.

Cest la vie - click - Its been a good run I guess, but yeah, I'm bored with witnessing the same old attacks by the same old people. Good luck to anyone who wants to make them see reason.

EDIT - interesting:

http://amp.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article189931704.html

Andrea Ramsey, a Democratic candidate for Congress, will drop out of the race after the Kansas City Star asked her about accusations in a 2005 lawsuit that she sexually harassed and retaliated against a male subordinate who said he had rejected her advances.

“In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard,” Ramsey said in a statement Friday. “For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”

Ramsey was not a party to the lawsuit or the settlement, although she’s referred to throughout the complaint as Andrea Thomas, her name before she married her husband in late 2006. She denied the allegations to the Star in two interviews over the last two weeks and said the lawsuit is surfacing now for political purposes.


Ramsey repeatedly said that she was not aware of any settlement in the case, but said that if she had been a party to the case she would have opposed settling.

“Had those allegations, those false allegations, been brought against me directly instead of the company I would have fought to exonerate my name. I never would’ve settled,” Ramsey said in an interview on Thursday. “And I would have sued the disgruntled, vindictive employee for defamation.”

So... not only was she not found guilty... she was never even in the case itself to defend herself. And yet, it has seen her tossed from a chance to run.

Even stranger:

In July 2006, LabOne and Funkhouser agreed to dismiss the case without the possibility of bringing it again.

So... the accuser agreed to dismiss it without the possibility of opening it again... it was silent for a decade... and now was used as political leverage.

Seems like a case of "guilty until proven innocent" to me- hell, from what I see, it doesn't look like Ramsey was ever even given a chance to defend herself.

If this is the so-called standard we are going to hold elected (or hopeful) officials to... then I guess we will have a lot of vacant seats soon, as the mere whiff of an accusation is apparently enough to disqualify someone.

 

[birch]

Seems like a case of "guilty until proven innocent" to me- hell, from what I see, it doesn't look like Ramsey was ever even given a chance to defend herself.

strawman. you know that's not the real point of the discussion. even moore has admitted in various ways his guilt through his comments and his history he can't really deny legitimately and franken admitted to what he did. what are you actually arguing for and what are your motives in this discussion to bring up such an example? does this mean you think moore or franken are innocent even if they admit what they did, if not in a court of law?

you do realize some people resign because they know they are guilty and some people admit it because they know they are guilty and don't want to deal with any further publicity or hassle on the matter or to mitigate the embarassment?

of course, accusations alone aren't enough but if one resigns because they know the accuser is correct, are you saying that's unfair? of course that's not.

there are two sides to this: there can be false accusations and legitimate ones. just because there can be false accusations does not excuse away the legitimate ones either which you seem to be aiming to minimize.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Seems so - taking a moment to look at some of her recent attacks upon me, I love how she demands I go on twitter and post my personally identifiable information. Interesting that a mod would recommend such a dangerous thing to people.

Then again, this seems to be the standard to which SciForums has arrived. It's rather apparent why so many of our members (and moderators) jumped ship... they didn't want to deal with that particular brand of crazy.

Oh you have noticed? but I think that is outside the scope of this thread and would be deleted.

So... the accuser agreed to dismiss it without the possibility of opening it again... it was silent for a decade... and now was used as political leverage.

Seems like a case of "guilty until proven innocent" to me- hell, from what I see, it doesn't look like Ramsey was ever even given a chance to defend herself.

If this is the so-called standard we are going to hold elected (or hopeful) officials to... then I guess we will have a lot of vacant seats soon, as the mere whiff of an accusation is apparently enough to disqualify someone.

Hey, ZERO Tolerance! She was charged and settle for outside her control or knowledge and now she is bared from office for life by the democratic central committee. Maybe if she sues for slander and wins she can have the banishment lifted.

strawman. you know that's not the real point of the discussion. even moore has admitted in various ways his guilt through his comments and his history he can't really deny legitimately and franken admitted to what he did.

Oooh what have they admitted to exactly, cite them, quote them.

what are you actually arguing for and what are your motives in this discussion to bring up such an example? does this mean you think moore or franken are innocent even if they admit what they did, if not in a court of law?

That would depend on what they have admitted to.

you do realize some people resign because they know they are guilty and some people admit it because they know they are guilty and don't want to deal with any further publicity or hassle on the matter or to mitigate the embarassment? of course, accusations alone aren't enough but if one resigns because they know the accuser is correct, are you saying that's unfair? of course that's not.

Do you realize some people resign because of political pressure? Look at Ramsey: she dropped out, by your logic she must be guilty then.

there are two sides to this: there can be false accusations and legitimate ones. just because there can be false accusations does not excuse away the legitimate ones either which you seem to be aiming to minimize.

Either false or legitimate they should be decided by a court, hearing or committee, not by random shit stains on the internet.

 

[birch]

Do you realize some people resign because of political pressure? Look at Ramsey: she dropped out, by your logic she must be guilty then.

i never said she was guilty. my point was don't use examples of false accusations to minimize or dismiss legitimate ones.

of course people resign because of political pressure due to many different reasons, not just sexual harassment. and with each case, it should be handled and investigated accordingly. what is wrong with that and therefore, what is your point?

have i used strawmans to minimize or deflect anything? NO.

Either false or legitimate they should be decided by a court, hearing or committee, not by random shit stains on the internet.

don't change the subject, random shit stain on the internet. franken as well as moore's accusers were not random people on the internet. they were real people who had preponderance of evidence against them and with franken even admitting it.

so what is your problem with it?

Oooh what have they admitted to exactly, cite them, quote them.

do you think i'm supposed to do your research to answer your juvenile and immature attempt at mincing truths? this response in a nutshell reveals everything about your motives and it's not good because it's dishonest. too bad for you. you would have to be a really dishonest troll to defend them, and stay on topic as this is about franken and he has admitted and apologized.

did that fly over your head or that is just not evidence of anything to you? do you need to be in the room for you to witness the act or perhaps you need to be in the middle of the action and perhaps a threesome between you, franken and another for you to consider any sane evidence as evidence?

are we going to play this game of cognitive dissonance? you go right ahead, shit stain.

you don't like the fact they are guilty. that's what your problem with this issue is.

 

[iceaura]

and franken admitted to what he did.

Not exactly. He did not admit to what he was accused of.
Bells denies he even apologized.
What he did and/or admitted was not the factor in forcing his resignation - what he was "credibly" accused of was the only consideration named.
And the issue is not "false" vs "true", but degree of guilt. The initial accusation against Franken, for example, was partly inaccurate and phrased for maximum innuendo - that does not make it "false", but it does mean it should be treated carefully.

There are more examples of odd, possible, partial, or questionable guilt - Garrison Keillor's firing, for one. In any wave like this there are bound to be false accusations, wrong accusations, mistakes and misunderstandings and the like - a minority, but they will exist.

The issue in the thread is whether the matter is, or will be, used specifically to harm Democrats for partisan advantage. That is where the matter of exaggerated, false, suppressed, or manipulated accusations becomes an issue here. It's not just guilt or innocence - it's nature and degree of guilt, kind of innocence involved. It's easy to see how even accurate and well-justified accusations could be turned to partisan advantage over time. So they will be, unless purposefully and diligently forestalled. And there is absolutely no reason to think the current Republican media operations will content themselves with accuracy and reasonable justification.

 

[birch]

Not exactly. He did not admit to what he was accused of.
Bells denies he even apologized.
What he did and/or admitted was not the factor in forcing his resignation - what he was "credibly" accused of was the only consideration named.
And the issue is not "false" vs "true", but degree of guilt. The initial accusation against Franken, for example, was partly inaccurate and phrased for maximum innuendo - that does not make it "false", but it does mean it should be treated carefully.

There are more examples of odd, possible, partial, or questionable guilt - Garrison Keillor's firing, for one. In any wave like this there are bound to be false accusations, wrong accusations, mistakes and misunderstandings and the like - a minority, but they will exist.

The issue in the thread is whether the matter is, or will be, used specifically to harm Democrats for partisan advantage. That is where the matter of exaggerated, false, suppressed, or manipulated accusations becomes an issue here. It's not just guilt or innocence - it's nature and degree of guilt, kind of innocence involved. It's easy to see how even accurate and well-justified accusations could be turned to partisan advantage over time. So they will be, unless purposefully and diligently forestalled.

either way, he admitted it in his own way.

 

[Kittamaru]

An interesting read on this :

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/bill-clinton-harassment-me-too-history-216063

 

[iceaura]

either way, he admitted it in his own way.

No, he did not.

 

[Kittamaru]

strawman. you know that's not the real point of the discussion. even moore has admitted in various ways his guilt through his comments and his history he can't really deny legitimately and franken admitted to what he did. what are you actually arguing for and what are your motives in this discussion to bring up such an example? does this mean you think moore or franken are innocent even if they admit what they did, if not in a court of law?

you do realize some people resign because they know they are guilty and some people admit it because they know they are guilty and don't want to deal with any further publicity or hassle on the matter or to mitigate the embarassment?

of course, accusations alone aren't enough but if one resigns because they know the accuser is correct, are you saying that's unfair? of course that's not.

there are two sides to this: there can be false accusations and legitimate ones. just because there can be false accusations does not excuse away the legitimate ones either which you seem to be aiming to minimize.

How is it a strawman to provide a real world example if the very thing that knee jerk reactions can cause?

Certainly we should not excuse legitimate claims - but if we don't do the legwork to determine which claims are legitimate, then we are no better off; Republicans already use the fake news card to incredible results, do we really want to legitimize any of that for them?

For example - we have a process for these claims. If that process is inadequate them it should be fixed. Scrapping it for being too slow or any number of things, without a replacement ready, leaves us with what, exactly? Where can those victims turn then? Court of public opinion (as it has)?

 

[ElectricFetus]

i never said she was guilty. my point was don't use examples of false accusations to minimize or dismiss legitimate ones.

How do we know which are legitimate or not? A court of law is the best we got.

of course people resign because of political pressure due to many different reasons, not just sexual harassment. and with each case, it should be handled and investigated accordingly. what is wrong with that and therefore, what is your point?

Well if your saying that now: what was your point about resigning must mean guilt?

don't change the subject, random shit stain on the internet. franken as well as moore's accusers were not random people on the internet.

I have already gone over Franken's accusers, 3-4 of them were completely anonymous, three of them brought up baseless accusations with no evidence what so ever, and the first one was a conservative radio host with motive to lie to destroy franken at the behest of Roger Stone, her evidence is a claim of a forced kiss doing as scene rehersal and the bullet proof vest grope picture.

they were real people who had preponderance of evidence against them and with franken even admitting it.

What evidence?

so what is your problem with it?

The subject by the way that I have been pushing since the beginning of this thread, is the need for due process.

do you think i'm supposed to do your research to answer your juvenile and immature attempt at mincing truths? this response in a nutshell reveals everything about your motives and it's not good because it's dishonest. too bad for you. you would have to be a really dishonest troll to defend them, and stay on topic as this is about franken and he has admitted and apologized.

What truth? What has Franken admitted: nothing. He admitted that some people's feelings are hurt and he is sorry for that and that he has no memory of the other incidences, that to you is an admission of guilt?

did that fly over your head or that is just not evidence of anything to you? do you need to be in the room for you to witness the act or perhaps you need to be in the middle of the action and perhaps a threesome between you, franken and another for you to consider any sane evidence as evidence?

I need a court of law, ethic committee or official hearing to review the evidence for me, and determine guilt, for I am a shit stain on the internet that should not have the authority to pronounce guilt on such matters from my desk chair.

you don't like the fact they are guilty. that's what your problem with this issue is.

I would love for Moore and Trump to be guilty, I would love if a court of law or impeachment hearing could determine that guilt, until then I have nothing but speculation. Likewise I want the same respect for my side: that guilt be determine via due process. If the (what is the number now) ~90 women that accuse Trump of sexual harrasment could go to a court of law and subpoena him that would be fucking great, but until then they are just noisy chatter.

 

[birch]

No, he did not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/...xual-harassment-groping-forcible-kissing.html

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t,” he continued. “And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.”

do you really need someone to blatantly tell you something for you to understand what they are saying? can't you tell when someone is admitting while not admitting?

objectifying and even making a mocking pose of groping her breasts is not respect, first of all. and even worse, other women coming forth with similar accusations.

and he can't even refute that really either. why do you think? something vaguely about maybe he should be more careful. you know, didn't really realize or know what he was doing, sort of thing supposedly. admitting but not admitting.

 

[ElectricFetus]

do you really need someone to blatantly tell you something for you to understand what they are saying? can't you tell when someone is admitting while not admitting?

objectifying and even making a mocking pose of groping her breasts is not respect, first of all.

What a crime, truly horrific, him years before becoming a senator, as a comedian making crass jokes. So we should hound him out and give republicans a shot instead? He is not admitting any guilt, only that today's culture no longer tolerates what he did (unless he was a republican of course).

 

[Kittamaru]

What a crime, truly horrific, him years before becoming a senator, as a comedian making crass jokes. So we should hound him out and give republicans a shot instead? He is not admitting any guilt, only that today's culture no longer tolerates what he did (unless he was a republican of course).

The problem would be, as the article I linked pointed out, that we are applying the social constructs of 2017 to things that happened a decade or more ago.

That doesn't excuse impropriety, mind you - but much like there are Bugs Bunny cartoons that are presently banned in the US that had aired in the past "on a different time", well, things change. What was once considered acceptable or even normal isn't. That's a good thing, truly - but can you retroactively apply a law or social norm to things that happened in the past?

 

[parmalee]

The problem would be, as the article I linked pointed out, that we are applying the social constructs of 2017 to things that happened a decade or more ago.

That doesn't excuse impropriety, mind you - but much like there are Bugs Bunny cartoons that are presently banned in the US that had aired in the past "on a different time", well, things change. What was once considered acceptable or even normal isn't. That's a good thing, truly - but can you retroactively apply a law or social norm to things that happened in the past?

You can't possibly be serious here, no?

By "past," you mean like 2005? You really think the legal definition of "sexual harassment" differed greatly in 2005?

The only instances of notoriety which go back much further than a decade involve minors, i.e., Moore, Spacey, Dustin Hoffmann, Roman Polanski.

 

[parmalee]

Also, this:

As it stands, the trolley example is still a perfect fit for the scenario, especially as this country continues to make a humongous jackass of itself in the world stage.

Think this one through a bit. There's a reason that no one in philosophy departments ever wants to teach an ethics course, and philosophy students seldom take ethics courses (typically, they're only taken by non-liberal arts students who needs an easy humanities credit).

Short answer: 'cuz it's boring. Slightly longer answer (I don't do long answers--no disrespect intended, just not my thing): really, it's not (boring); it's just that it only becomes interesting well past the introductory levels.

IOW who is the "one" here and who is the "many"? Who is being thrown under the bus, precisely? It's a lot more nuanced, and the reality is lifeboat ethics, or the trolley problem, is never a perfect metaphor in real life. It's silly, it's crude, and it's overly reductionist. Moreover, there's never a satisfactory answer, unless you're a rigid deontologist or a utilitarian. (And no one is, 'cept for ridiculous people like Peter Singer.) In short, it simply don't work--here or anywhere.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The problem would be, as the article I linked pointed out, that we are applying the social constructs of 2017 to things that happened a decade or more ago.

Yeah I agree totally. Now someone can say you touched their butt decades ago and have you hounded on mere accusation because today it is socially acceptable to take accusation as fact and proof of evil. I say if they did not charge you for sexual harassment then, they can't now bring up the issue just so they can have a story to add to a hasstag and get a bunch of likes for. They need to go to a court of law and see if they are still within the statue of limitations, get a lawyer, etc.

 

[Kittamaru]

You can't possibly be serious here, no?

By "past," you mean like 2005? You really think the legal definition of "sexual harassment" differed greatly in 2005?

The only instances of notoriety which go back much further than a decade involve minors, i.e., Moore, Spacey, Dustin Hoffmann, Roman Polanski.

We have seen folks dredge up Bill Clintons transgressions, so yes - people are doing the jiggity jig hard to get their hate on.

As I said - if we want to fix this then we should do so, but do we have precedent to retroactively apply new standards (even if the "new" standard simply involves holding everyone, rich and powerful or poor and powerless)?

Which also brings up the question of statute of limitations.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Precedence = statute of limitations.

If someone sexually assaults or harassers you you need to come out right away to the police, failure to do so is one you. You can't years to decades later remember it in the new light of a sexual harassment hysteria, and bring it to social media for justice.

 

[Bells]

Seems so - taking a moment to look at some of her recent attacks upon me, I love how she demands I go on twitter and post my personally identifiable information. Interesting that a mod would recommend such a dangerous thing to people.

What do you think the victims of sexual harassment and sexual violence would do to you if you did, Kitta?

Have you seen any of them threaten or commit acts of violence against the many men who have defended sex offenders and rape culture as you have in this thread for "politics"? No, they have not. Far from it.

The reason I dared you to do it, Kitta, was to see whether you would actually put your name to defending and protecting rape culture for the sake of politics. I mean, I know you won't do it. People like you tend to be cowards.

I'll put it this way. I put my real name on #MeToo. I also used my real name in a professional capacity when denouncing the #WhatAboutTheMen brigade that often crops up defending sex offenders online. It's not like I suggested you go to a men's rights advocacy twitter handle and suggested you defended women and rape and sexual assault victims there. That would be dangerous.

And considering your behaviour here, troll, you don't get to complain about any attacks on you. You can't even address me in person and instead troll by talking about me to others..

It is also interesting, almost fascinating, to note that anyone that disagrees with her in any fashion is immediately an enemy... she has even attacked other survivors of sexual assault. One would think she would want a solution to this problem. Apparently not.

They are?

Hmm.. Interesting. Where have I said that iceaura, pjdude, etc is my enemy?

If you think that a solution is to sell off women's rights for the sake of politics, then you clearly do not understand just how bad sexual harassment and sexual assault is for women.

And I did not attack any survivors of sexual assault. I questioned pjdude's politics, but I did not "attack" him. Unlike you, when you went off at Birch and myself. Like when you invented an offense for you to be personally offended at when addressing birch and having a go at her for it. And this was after and in response to her explaining the sexual violence she has had to endure.

And on and on that went...

Then again, this seems to be the standard to which SciForums has arrived. It's rather apparent why so many of our members (and moderators) jumped ship... they didn't want to deal with that particular brand of crazy.

Right. It's everyone else and not you.

So... not only was she not found guilty... she was never even in the case itself to defend herself. And yet, it has seen her tossed from a chance to run.

Where does it say she was found "not guilty"?

The article states that the EEOC was unable to find evidence that the company they both worked for was broken the law, but that the accuser had the right to sue.

Soo, can you quote where it says that she was "not guilty"? It says the company settled the lawsuit.

Even stranger:

So... the accuser agreed to dismiss it without the possibility of opening it again... it was silent for a decade... and now was used as political leverage.

He reached a settlement with the company, which essentially dismisses the lawsuit and because he reached a settlement, he cannot sue for the same thing again.

So it's not "even stranger". So perhaps you should stop misrepresenting it..

Her actions were brought to light in that lawsuit against the company she worked for at the time. She was asked about what she was accused of. She then withdrew from the race.

Seems like a case of "guilty until proven innocent" to me- hell, from what I see, it doesn't look like Ramsey was ever even given a chance to defend herself.

The plaintiff sued the company. She was named in the lawsuit. I am fairly certain the company would have run its own internal investigation over what was alleged. And then they settled.

If this is the so-called standard we are going to hold elected (or hopeful) officials to... then I guess we will have a lot of vacant seats soon, as the mere whiff of an accusation is apparently enough to disqualify someone.

Aren't you the one that called Moore a pedo? Double standards much? Oh wait, that's right. "Politics"!

It's only bad if the other side does it. Because it's all about winning.

 

[Bells]

See: That's a lie. A deliberately dishonest pretension. That's what I'm talking about. You cannot post honestly in this thread.
You don't even know how, any more.

He was accused of rape and sexual assault and sexual harassment. The accusations were credible. Are you suggesting the Democrats should not have called him out on it? Oh wait. Politics! I forgot that it's only bad when the other side does it.

Or were were arguing that his wife should be excluded from politics because of what he did?

You were and are dishonest, as revealed by your repeated refusal to correct what could have been a mistake, initially. You can't "point out" any more, you've carried it too far - you can only correct, with an apology.

My response is still "neither". Because neither party can be the party for "real women".

You're dishonest, and I will repeat that as often as you attempt the deception.

And I have given you my answer and explained why.

Why can't you accept that?

I have already informed you that you are well into the realm of harassment now. So you still think it's acceptable to keep demanding an answer to a question I have already answered for nearly a dozen or so pages now, because I have not given you the answer that you want to hear?

In a thread about sexual harassment no less...

Astonishing really.

I don't "disagree". I label a dishonesty.

My answer is still neither, because neither party can be the party for "real women".

That should be fairly evident, iceaura. Now, rub two stones together as you squat down by the fire in your man cave and try to imagine why my answer is neither..

Dishonest. All four, collectively and individually.

"Depends on the politics".

Your words, remember?

As illustrated, right there - the exact same question one is forced to by the wingnut righties: are they lying, or are they stupid?

And as I said before. I am taking you at your word. Because "depends on the politics" was your response when you were asked:

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?​

I mean, that is the right wingnut narrative when it comes to sex offenders within their ranks.

Your narrative in this thread has consisted of screeching "dishonest" because I refuse to give you the answers you want to hear. Also a right wingnut narrative and rhetoric.

And you question why I said "neither" to your question about which is the party for "real women"?

Is it now. Gotta love the irony.
See, I didn't accuse her. Those women did. I didn't claim all "credible" accusations by such women should be given the same weight and responded to the same way, you did. And I didn't lump all this stuff into one category as if the distinctions of circumstance and behavior made no significant difference, you did.
The question is how you deal with the situation you have created for yourself here, with Hillary Clinton.

Where did those women particularly accuse Hillary Clinton of committing sexual violence?

They accused her husband. Not her. You do recognise they are two distinct people, yes?

And I have already given my answer in regards to Hillary Clinton. Did you not read it?

You didn't. See the first paragraph here in this post, for your typical response then and since.

I did. Right here.

Of course. So: Sometimes it's ok to install a credibly accused abuser in a powerful office.

So what sex offenses did she commit?

It depends on the circumstances, the politics, what happened, and what the current situation is.

Why are you trying to set a narrative that she sexually harmed women when it was her husband who was accused of it?

That's the kind of right wing bullshit that the right tried to do, and tried to do with Abedin for her husband's criminal offenses.

I voted for Clinton myself, see - knowing what she had been accused of, by women I am not supposed to disbelieve.

Her husband committed the crimes. Why do you think she is responsible for something he did?

I addressed her response, as linked above. She didn't commit a crime. She acted to protect herself and her daughter and as I said, she was a victim of him and his actions.

Just like I will vote for the Minnesota Senate candidates most likely to beat the Republican nominees in ten months, unless they have done something worse than what the Republicans will do in office in my judgment (genuine, menacing, fascism) - probably the two Democrats, authoritarian leaning wimps though they may be, but third Parties have a decent track record in Minnesota, and the Dems are making themselves a lot weaker than management seems to realize. Lesser of two weevils, as they say.

If Hillary Clinton had groped women as Al Franken did, then you might have a point...

As for who you vote for, regardless of whether they are sex offenders because it "depends on the politics" and sex offenders have at times made "good politicians" says it all about how you vote, specifically. Because politics.