# 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:** 84
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1662 "2019-07-25T19:58:24Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Like I said, lack of nuance. …lack of nuance on your part? Absolutely. My post was about as nuanced as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1663 "2019-07-25T19:59:35Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The New Yorker article was atrocious journalism of the worst sort. How so? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1664 "2019-07-25T20:02:11Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > How so? …I’ve already explained why. Several other people have also posted critiques of the article. Its all in the thread already. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1665 "2019-07-25T20:04:01Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Tweeden thought he was touching her. Franken states he was not. Does that make any difference to how Tweeden feels? We aren’t talking about “the legal” distinction. From the victims point of view its a violation either way. Enough of what Tweeden has said has been shown to be misrepresentations and/or deliberate lies that I have no idea how she genuinely feels. ---
**Author:** ![Helmut\_Doork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e8c25b/32.png) [@Helmut\_Doork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helmut_Doork)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1666 "2019-07-25T20:08:30Z")
Curious what the mass response would be if the photo was of the woman asleep with her mouth open, Al with stupid grin and cock out an inch from her mouth? Or in mouth? Still ok to some? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1667 "2019-07-25T20:18:28Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …LOL. > > Are you really doing this? Yep. > [@](#): > > The context of what she wrote is pretty clear. She didn’t argue, as you claim, that “Franken’s defenders are all delusional”. She stated "“Franken’s defenders are married to the delusional belief that it’s all just a frame-up”. There is no “nope” about it. Its what she actually did. A definition doesn’t change what she actually did. > Ummm, you? Are you sure you’re not a pretzel maker instead of a photographer? Because that is some _serious_ twisting. If you hold a delusional belief, you are delusional. And if you mention a group of people without qualifying them in some way, such as _some_ of Franken’s supporters are married to a delusional belief, the clear implication is that all are such. We aren’t going to convince each other about the “delusional” issue. I have nothing else to say about it. So, apart from that, I’ll ask one more time: who is Marcotte referring to, by name, when she talks about Franken’s defenders. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1668 "2019-07-25T20:28:39Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Enough of what Tweeden has said has been shown to be misrepresentations and/or deliberate lies that I have no idea how she genuinely feels. …this happens to victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault all of the time. Christine Blasey Ford was accused of misrepresentations and/or deliberate lies. But do you know how she “genuinely” felt? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1669 "2019-07-25T20:41:45Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Yep. …LOL. > [@](#): > > Are you sure you’re not a pretzel maker instead of a photographer? Because that is some _serious_ twisting. If you hold a delusional belief, you are delusional. Incorrect. The **belief** is delusional. In this case the belief that there was a “frame-up” is the delusional belief. Lets substitute delusional for another word. “Stupid”. Does believing a \*\*stupid \*\*thing make someone **stupid**? How about **important**. Does having an \*\*important \*\*belief make somebody important? > [@](#): > > And if you mention a group of people without qualifying them in some way, such as _some_ of Franken’s supporters are married to a delusional belief, the clear implication is that all are such. But it was qualified. The statement, even out of context, was as qualified as you can get. The qualification was “a belief that it’s all just a frame-up.” That qualification clearly excludes any beliefs that weren’t contingent on a frame-up. > [@](#): > > We aren’t going to convince each other about the “delusional” issue. **I have nothing else to say about it.** Sure, LOL. I’ll believe that when I see it. > [@](#): > > So, apart from that, I’ll ask one more time: who is Marcotte referring to, by name, when she talks about Franken’s defenders. Are you asking that question of Marcotte or me? Because if you want Marcotte to answer you then asking that question in this thread is the wrong place to be asking it. If you are asking me " who hold beliefs about Franken which are “based on inadequate grounds not amendable to rational argument, etc”, well I’ve already answered that. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1670 "2019-07-25T21:02:46Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But it was qualified. The statement, even out of context, was as qualified as you can get. The qualification was “a belief that it’s all just a frame-up.” That qualification clearly excludes any beliefs that weren’t contingent on a frame-up. Not the beliefs, the defenders. Again, if she had said “some” of his defenders, it would have been clear that she wasn’t talking about all of them. > [@](#): > > Are you asking that question of Marcotte or me? Because if you want Marcotte to answer you then asking that question in this thread is the wrong place to be asking it. If you are asking me " who hold beliefs about Franken which are “based on inadequate grounds not amendable to rational argument, etc”, well I’ve already answered that. Funny. Yes, of course it would be the wrong thread. I ask that of you, and have before, to emphasize that generalizing about Franken’s defenders was wrong. And no, you haven’t answered the question. I asked for specific people, names. You haven’t given those, just like Marcotte didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1671 "2019-07-25T21:09:13Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …lack of nuance on your part? Absolutely. My post was about as nuanced as you can get. No, on your part. Nothing matters but how the victim feels? Not nuanced. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1672 "2019-07-25T21:11:50Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Not the beliefs, the defenders. Again, if she had said “some” of his defenders, it would have been clear that she wasn’t talking about all of them. …a quick question: do you believe there was a frame up? > [@](#): > > Funny. Yes, of course it would be the wrong thread. I ask that of you, and have before, to emphasize that generalizing about Franken’s defenders was wrong. And no, you haven’t answered the question. I asked for specific people, names. You haven’t given those, just like Marcotte didn’t. I linked to thousands of twitter posts from Franken defenders that I think fairly fit the criteria you were looking for. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1673 "2019-07-25T21:12:58Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No, on your part. Nothing matters but how the victim feels? Not nuanced. …who claims that “nothing matters but how the victim feels?” ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1674 "2019-07-25T21:35:36Z")
For a politician, there is actually the larger issue than was the person okay with the joke. The constituents get to decide if they want to be represented by a person who jokes about something like that. At a minimum, he was joking about sexual objectification or even sexual assault. For some people, those subjects are so serious and offensive that they don’t even want it to be joked about. In a similar vein, people might also be offended if he was joking about racism or the Holocaust. Whether or not he was intending it to be a joke and regardless of if his audience was okay with it, many constituents will not be okay with handling those subjects in a joking manner. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1675 "2019-07-25T22:20:42Z")
I read somewhere that all accusations don’t have to be believed, necessarily, but should all be taken seriously. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1676 "2019-07-25T22:37:26Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > Curious what the mass response would be if the photo was of the woman asleep with her mouth open, Al with stupid grin and cock out an inch from her mouth? Or in mouth? Still ok to some? That is just a tad different, wouldn’t you say?? As much as I am enjoying you guys on the left argue with each other, what about this as a proposal. Let’s start from the #metoo movement, say 2017, when anyone should know that something like what was in the picture is not acceptable. We have one standard for acts pre-2017 and a different one for those post-2017. No, I’m not saying rape pre-2017 is okay, but just a different standard. Is that fair? We could argue about the details, but surely someone who did something in 1992 shouldn’t be held to a modern #metoo standard, no? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1677 "2019-07-25T23:04:44Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sherrerd, nothing in your post addresses the photo taken of Tweeden while she was asleep. See the post itself: > [@Sherrerd](#): > > … > Leaving aside for the moment the largely-discredited Tweeden accusations, … ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1678 "2019-07-25T23:51:53Z")
I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s been “largely discredited”. A mistaken date and who else recieved the picture are not much. And if Franken was fucking with her, I could easily see him saying he wrote the skit just for her even if he had performed it before. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1679 "2019-07-26T00:08:25Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > … What the Morning Consult data informs about though is that across the board, especially among Ds, there is huge agreement on need for concern regarding “sexual harassment and assault young women could face throughout their life” … AND that there is also huge concern with agreement across the board regarding that there is need for concern about false accusations, about having due process, about careers being ruined, and about less serious offenses being lumped with same degree of punishment as the more serious. > > There is also a sizable minority (22% of Ds) that isn’t too concerned about the less serious being punished the same degree as the more serious, some (6%) not at all concerned. Some of them are very active in social media. They are the minority but the subject is still very divisive because they are the very active. > > And we really can’t afford too many fracture lines this time. So really Franken should at least lay low until after 2020 if he wants his state’s voters to decide if he is worth another chance. IMHO. I’m not interested in trying to get Franken into office any time soon, but one of the reasons this topic still ignites so much passionate controversy is nothing to do with Franken himself: it’s the question highlighted in your post. It’s about the number of voters concerned about what seems to be a new Democratic Party platform plank: that accusations must be accepted as true without investigation or scrutiny. That’s not an actual party-platform plank. But not only will many Democrats be expected to abide by it, it will be talked up as emblematic of the Dems by cynical/hypocritical Republicans. As you note about your extremely useful article\*, it suggests the disconnect between left-leaning activists and moderates, with the activists being much more likely to embrace the “believe all accusations” position. A major reason for continuing to discuss cases like Franken’s is that we really do need to find a unified message on this. We can’t dislodge Trump or Congressional Republicans or state-office Republicans unless we find a way to reach the people in the middle: the people who don’t want to see anyone get away with sexual misconduct, but who are alarmed by a new orthodoxy that says all accusations should be automatically believed, without investigation or scrutiny. It’s an issue that’s a lot bigger than Franken. \*[https://morningconsult.com/2018/10/11/a-year-into-metoo-public-worried-about-false-allegations/](https://morningconsult.com/2018/10/11/a-year-into-metoo-public-worried-about-false-allegations/) ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1680 "2019-07-26T00:10:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s been “largely discredited”. A mistaken date and who else recieved the picture are not much. And if Franken was fucking with her, I could easily see him saying he wrote the skit just for her even if he had performed it before. You don’t see the right-wing connections as having any relevance to her credibility on this? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2019, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770/1681 "2019-07-26T00:11:01Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …a quick question: do you believe there was a frame up? I’ve only seen the term “frame-up” used by Marcotte, and given that she didn’t explain what that even means, I can’t really answer. I will say that I don’t think there were any conspiratorial machinations going on though. > [@](#): > > I linked to thousands of twitter posts from Franken defenders that I think fairly fit the criteria you were looking for. Okay, fair enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=83) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-al-franken/801770.md?page=85)