# Now, Al Franken **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 16, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770 "2017-11-16T15:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/781 "2017-11-20T21:58:00Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > …Let the Senate decide whether they think this behavior is worth investigating … Now, that brings to mind a question I had not considered until now. Senator Franken has publicly called for an investigation and pledged his cooperation. Presumably, he will testify under oath. As will his accuser, we may assume? Or may we not? So, what if the Republicans don’t want an investigation? What if they want to say we are too much gentlepersons to inflict any more publicity on her. Out of respect for her privacy, no investigation. Could they do that? No snark, don’t know. Can he insist? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/782 "2017-11-20T22:02:12Z")
I still find it a bit mind-boggling that some folks think that “sexual assault = don’t get support for being Senator” is totally outside of the realm of possibility. It’s obviously not the reality yet, but why is that so impossible or infeasible? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/783 "2017-11-20T22:02:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What incorrect facts did I repeat? I agreed with a post that was attempting to characterize the thought behind my argument, not anything about Byrd in particular. You said “I may be misunderstanding the extent of Byrd’s past (I thought he was a member of a local KKK group in his late teens/early 20s). If he was a part of any racist incidents of violence or intimidation, then I’m not sure if repentance and apology would be enough.” But you left out the middle ground between “member” in his “late teens /early 20s” and “violence or intimidation”. Which is that he was a lot more than just a member, and at older age, but was not (to my knowledge) involved in any violence. > [@](#): > > But that’s an entirely different criticism – you’re just saying it’s not feasible. Do you think my strategy is a good idea to aspire to, or a bad idea? If you’re talking about strategies, then what’s feasible is the most fundamental concern. A strategy which is not feasible is completely worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/784 "2017-11-20T22:08:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I still find it a bit mind-boggling that some folks think that “sexual assault = don’t get support for being Senator” is totally outside of the realm of possibility. It’s obviously not the reality yet, but why is that so impossible or infeasible? I’m not sure if you’re including me with “some folks”, but FTR I think it’s possible that you’ll get to that point but as a byproduct of broader societal attitudes, and not as a strategic move. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/785 "2017-11-20T22:11:54Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You said “I may be misunderstanding the extent of Byrd’s past (I thought he was a member of a local KKK group in his late teens/early 20s). If he was a part of any racist incidents of violence or intimidation, then I’m not sure if repentance and apology would be enough.” But you left out the middle ground between “member” in his “late teens /early 20s” and “violence or intimidation”. Which is that he was a lot more than just a member, and at older age, but was not (to my knowledge) involved in any violence. I left them out because I didn’t know (hence “I may be misunderstanding…” and “I thought he was…”). > [@](#): > > If you’re talking about strategies, then what’s feasible is the most fundamental concern. A strategy which is not feasible is completely worthless. Abolition wasn’t feasible in the early 19th century, but fighting for broad abolition was both a worthwhile goal and built foundations for later and ultimately successful efforts in ending slavery. It was not “completely worthless” at all. Things that aren’t feasible at this moment may be feasible later, and working towards them now can help them be achieved later. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/786 "2017-11-20T22:13:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not sure if you’re including me with “some folks”, but FTR I think it’s possible that you’ll get to that point but as a byproduct of broader societal attitudes, and not as a strategic move. A strategic move, or an attempt, even if it failed, could be part of that. Further, I’m arguing that broader societal attitudes are moving in this direction, and that this will be inevitable. If so, working towards it now could actually have value. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/787 "2017-11-20T22:23:34Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > I understand that he’s “one of us” and that people like him. I liked him too. He needs to go. Out of curiosity, does this calculus change if Minnesota had a Republican governor? That is, does Franken have to go, period, or go, because his replacement is also “one of you?” What if the stakes were higher? If this news came out as the House had passed, and the Senate was poised to pass, a pair of constitutional amendments: Amendment XXVIII (“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid the States from regulating or forbidding abortion in any way,”) and Amendment XVIX (“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of one man and one woman, with gender determined by that assigned at birth.”) Al’s the potential vote to kill these in the Senate but the replacing governor is a Republican and it’s widely believed he intends to appoint a staunch reactionary who will vote them in. It’s also widely believed that 38 states might be found to ratify one or both. Does he still have to go then? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/788 "2017-11-20T22:28:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I left them out because I didn’t know (hence “I may be misunderstanding…” and “I thought he was…”). Right, but had you read the linked article you would have known. > [@](#): > > Abolition wasn’t feasible in the early 19th century, but fighting for broad abolition was both a worthwhile goal and built foundations for later and ultimately successful efforts in ending slavery. It was not “completely worthless” at all. Things that aren’t feasible at this moment may be feasible later, and working towards them now can help them be achieved later. Your idea was that Democrats would consistently hold to a firm line on anyone accused of sex assault for 15-20 years with no rewards until the end of that time, at which point they’ll finally reap political rewards. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Therefore, that’s not an argument in favor of that strategy. You want a moral argument that’s something else. I’m commenting on the strategy. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/789 "2017-11-20T22:34:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Out of curiosity, does this calculus change if Minnesota had a Republican governor? That is, does Franken have to go, period, or go, because his replacement is also “one of you?” > > What if the stakes were higher? > > If this news came out as the House had passed, and the Senate was poised to pass, a pair of constitutional amendments: Amendment XXVIII (“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid the States from regulating or forbidding abortion in any way,”) and Amendment XVIX (“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of one man and one woman, with gender determined by that assigned at birth.”) Al’s the potential vote to kill these in the Senate but the replacing governor is a Republican and it’s widely believed he intends to appoint a staunch reactionary who will vote them in. It’s also widely believed that 38 states might be found to ratify one or both. > > Does he still have to go then? Nothing changes here for me. The culture and society are changing, finally, and I don’t care about short term politics on this – no more supporting sexual abusers for me, and hopefully not for any other decent people either. Even for “minor” instances of sexual abuse. Short of a hypothetical in which aliens are holding Earth hostage, and will destroy it unless I support sexual abusers, no. Fuck 'em all. Fuck all sexual abusers, even the minor ones. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/790 "2017-11-20T22:46:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Out of curiosity, does this calculus change if Minnesota had a Republican governor? That is, does Franken have to go, period, or go, because his replacement is also “one of you?” > > What if the stakes were higher? … “What if Franken has his finger on the button, and his resignation would result in nuclear conflagration?” ## “Yes. Yes he should resign. Those are the breaks. It was a good run while it lasted.” I’m a utilitarian, so I weigh all factors. JS Mill recommends that utilitarians compensate by attaching lighter weights when they accord with one’s self interest or gut inclinations: I do that too. Weighing considerations involves de-weighting plausible threats and emphasizing present and immediate threats, to take but one example. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/791 "2017-11-20T22:48:55Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Same conclusion if your mother/wife/sister/daughter were on the receiving end of unwanted attention? How would you justify your reasoning to them it that were the case? Yeah, I think/hope so. I’d say “Some men are pigs and deserve to be called out and have their faces slapped.” Having one’s ass grabbed is undoubtedly unpleasant, but I personally don’t think it as traumatic as some folk make it seem. If that’s the worst thing that happens to you… ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/792 "2017-11-20T22:56:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Nothing changes here for me. The culture and society are changing, finally, and I don’t care about short term politics on this – no more supporting sexual abusers for me, and hopefully not for any other decent people either. Even for “minor” instances of sexual abuse. Short of a hypothetical in which aliens are holding Earth hostage, and will destroy it unless I support sexual abusers, no. Fuck 'em all. Fuck all sexual abusers, even the minor ones. Those sort of non-nuanced stances are dangerous in many ways. Let’s say you have a child in college and he and his partner had a bit too much to drink and a hand went where a hand shouldn’t because consent is “impossible” with that much drink. Should that be the end of your child’s or his partner’s ability to be a productive member of society? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/793 "2017-11-20T22:59:05Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Those sort of non-nuanced stances are dangerous in many ways. Let’s say you have a child in college and he and his partner had a bit too much to drink and a hand went where a hand shouldn’t because consent is “impossible” with that much drink. Should that be the end of your child’s or his partner’s ability to be a productive member of society? No, of course not, and I haven’t advocated that. However, if someone commits sexual assault as an adult (as opposed to, say, snapping a bra in the 9th grade), I won’t support them for political office, and I don’t think a political party should either. Nor should decent people, IMO. So what’s the problem with my position? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/794 "2017-11-20T23:23:30Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Haven’t heard anything yet which leads me to think he should resign. > > Let the Senate decide whether they think this behavior is worth investigating and, id so, what penalty they feel appropriate afterwards. And let the voters decide if they wish to attempt recall (if that is possible) or to elect someone else. > > I clearly acknowledge that these allegations strongly suggest AF is an imperfect human being. I do not see how they establish that he is unfit for his position, and I do not see what beneficial results would come from his prompt resignation. > > Some moral failings might render a Senator unfit. In my book, an unwanted kiss and a buttgrab don’t come close. Did you drop a negative in that first sentence? As is, it stands in contradiction to what follows. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/795 "2017-11-20T23:25:45Z")
I think you may have added a comma to his first sentence. Otherwise your post makes no sense at all that I can see. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/796 "2017-11-20T23:30:02Z")
The first sentence says he should resign. The rest of the post says he shouldn’t. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/797 "2017-11-20T23:32:30Z")
Like I said. I think you read “Haven’t heard anything yet, which leads me to think he should resign”. When he really wrote “Haven’t heard anything yet which leads me to think he should resign”. If he saw more serious allegations he might think he should resign. But to this point he hasn’t seen anything serious enough to warrant resigning. IOW, “Haven’t heard anything yet which leads me to think he should resign”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/798 "2017-11-20T23:34:04Z")
Ah. Got it. Commas are hard! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/799 "2017-11-20T23:41:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Nothing changes here for me. The culture and society are changing, finally, and I don’t care about short term politics on this – no more supporting sexual abusers for me, and hopefully not for any other decent people either. Even for “minor” instances of sexual abuse. Short of a hypothetical in which aliens are holding Earth hostage, and will destroy it unless I support sexual abusers, no. Fuck 'em all. Fuck all sexual abusers, even the minor ones. **iiandyiiii** : I certainly admire the passion with which you argue your position in the face of relentless opposition from friend and foe. I have a question regarding this post: When I was a young lad, I went on some dates with lovely young ladies. Sometimes, at the ends of those dates, there were awkward moments on the doorstep that ended with me mashing my lips against hers. I’m reasonably confident that not all of those kisses were welcomed with enthusiasm. While there was never any manifest opposition to them, my understanding of our society’s evolving rules of consent is that some of those clumsy, early interactions with members of the opposite sex were - at least in the opinion of some - non-consensual, although not really sexual in nature. Am I a violator-of-consent? If I run for Senate next year, will I be in considered for your vote (setting aside our various political differences, and residencies for a moment)? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2017, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/800 "2017-11-20T23:47:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > **iiandyiiii** : I certainly admire the passion with which you argue your position in the face of relentless opposition from friend and foe. > > I have a question regarding this post: > > When I was a young lad, I went on some dates with lovely young ladies. Sometimes, at the ends of those dates, there were awkward moments on the doorstep that ended with me mashing my lips against hers. I’m reasonably confident that not all of those kisses were welcomed with enthusiasm. While there was never any manifest opposition to them, my understanding of our society’s evolving rules of consent is that some of those clumsy, early interactions with members of the opposite sex were - at least in the opinion of some - non-consensual, although not really sexual in nature. Am I a violator-of-consent? If I run for Senate next year, will I be in considered for your vote (setting aside our various political differences, and residencies for a moment)? If someone comes forward with a credible allegation of sexual assault against you, especially if multiple people do, then I probably won’t support you, and I’ll probably urge others to not support you. If you were a teenager at the time, and someone comes forward and says you tried to kiss them when you were a teenager, then I would consider supporting you. Maybe the line between sexual assault and just awkwardness isn’t clear to some, but it seems pretty clear to me – a teenager leaning in for a kiss with his date is not sexual assault; forcing your tongue into someone’s mouth under the guise of rehearsing a kissing scene (and stage kisses do not involve tongue) is. Deliberately barging into the changing room of a teenage beauty pageant is violating the consent of multiple women; sneaking a peak at the cleavage of a woman bending down to pet a dog is not. Grabbing pussies is sexual assault; touching a girl’s thigh while making out with her is not. Groping a 14 year old in the car while you’re in your 30s is sexual assault; trying to kiss her when you’re also 14 is not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=41)