As noted earlier, if the Democrats boot Franken it’s a little-to-no cost decision, since he’s a senator rather than president and because he would be replaced by another Democrat. It’s not remotely comparable to losing the presidency to the other party over personal failings. The comparison is completely invalid.
ETA: FTR, the reaction of liberals in this thread has been somewhat less partisan than I would have expected.
It’s a start. At the very least the Democrats could say they have absolutely zero tolerance for abuse/harassment/violation-of-consent going forward, and actually mean it. Until the Republicans utterly reject Trump, they can’t/won’t.
Do you mean that you’re surprised that so many liberals have denounced Franken and said he should resign? Or you’re surprised that I’m talking about the political concerns on top of the moral/ethical concerns?
Is that supposed to make it worse? Harvey raped his victims just as much as Cosby did, and they had to be awake through it.
It’s disturbing to me that some people apparently regard Ms. Tweeden as an infant.
She lacks the ability to weigh Franken’s apology and decide for herself if it’s sufficient, it seems. Franken’s fate must be decided by The People.
It should be obvious I am not a fan of Franken’s politics, but this is insane. He did something that was jerkish, and he now recognizes that jerkishness and has apologized. In detail. Not “I’m sorry if anyone was offended,” but a for realsies apology.
There’s some question as to whether badgering people until they agree to something constitutes “consent”.
On a related note, see Dave Chappelle on “grab em by the pussy”: Dave Chappelle defends Donald Trump in bizarre set, according to report
No, it won’t show that. It might show that if they were willing to pay a serious price for this zero tolerance policy - the same price you expect the Republicans to have paid. But having zero tolerance at no cost to yourself is not truly zero tolerance, and doesn’t show anything over someone who is in a very different situation.
The first.
I think her acceptance of the apology is an important factor to consider, but I don’t think it need be determinative. Does it? If so, why?
This is the kind of parsing and glossing I’m talking about. If part of her story, and her perspective, matters to you, why are we doing “analysis” to falsify the thesis of the entire story? Are you saying she’s mistaken when she says it was without her consent?
Editing to add: in case this is where the confusion is coming from, I’m referring to the title of the piece: “Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent…”
I’m not going to argue the general case, as I suppose there are some instances where that might be true. But not this one. She knew she was doing a scene with him where they kiss. There was going to be a kiss as soon as she agreed to do the scene. Rehearsing scenes is not some crazy, unheard of behavior. They were not in some dark alley. No, she had agency to refuse, but she said “OK”.
So in your opinion, the key here is that Miss Tweeden did not consent to having the pictures taken? Consent is “always” to be gained before taking someone’s picture, especially one that may cast them in a bad light or make them the unwitting focus of negative attention, is that what your saying? :dubious:
She may have thought she hadn’t given consent, but from her story Franken reasonably thought he had consent. I’m not going to convict Franken on what she thought she was telling him when her plain words were “OK”.
If this story were told in court, would you say Franken was guilty of kissing her without her consent?
11 states, per footnote #35.
The bolded part is not an accurate rendition of Miss Tweed’s story nor an accurate description of the rendition. I also find it interesting that you declare that you described “what he actually did” and immediately follow it up with “I don’t know what happened, you don’t know what happened”.
Which is it? Did you describe what Mr. Franken did? If you did, how did you describe what he did without knowing what happened?
We are presented with the claim: He kissed me without my consent.
We are given, by her as evidence, an exchange between the two in which she gave consent. The claim is not substantiated. Now, maybe the reporter was sloppy. Maybe something got edited out. But as it is reported there, I think it’s unfair to say that Franken did not reasonably think he had consent, regardless of what might have been going through her mind at the time.
No. Then again, I’m not in court, right? That question hasn’t come up. If somebody has asked you to convict Al Franken, rest assured I’m against that.
What I would do, non-hypothetically, is decide not to attack her motivations or pick away at her story to advance a political agenda, when her story is quite credible and demonstrates at the very least that Franken acted in a disgusting way and should apologize, which he did. Choosing not to attack the victim is an option, even if I’m not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
A stage kiss doesn’t involve tongue, or grabbing the head, etc. She didn’t consent to a tongue in her mouth, and she obviously didn’t consent to her body being used (whether physically touched or not) as an object of sexual derision in the photograph.
Neither of these things are the end of the world. But they are violations of consent, and the Democratic party should have zero tolerance for violation of consent, IMO.
Hypothetically, since you’ve already alluded to a non-zero chance that this is all manufactured, what you expect to hear from a man you think highly of when he is wrongfully accused of this kind of behavior? If he’s a tenth of the person you thought AND he’s innocent of the accusation, what should he do?
This is not saying he is innocent or that she is lying (although I don’t think the picture is evidence of groping), but I’m curious as to what a reasonable response from an innocent man looks like to those decrying the ‘non-apologies.’
Seems despite an absence of evidence of wrong-doing or even an investigation or trial to determine guilt, we are all expected to assume the worst for the sole reason that if it’s true, it is truly objectionable. And anyone accused should lose their jobs. Period.
This is hard stuff. I feel for anyone who is molested, assaulted or made to feel uncomfortable by a person in a position of power, but it seems the power has now shifted and that is also worrisome to me, too.
So you think there’s no difference between booting a violator-of-consent and not booting a violator-of-consent? I think there’s a difference, and a difference in how that looks, especially in the long term. I think this is a big moment either way, and whether Franken stays or goes will be referenced as a major event years from now.
I don’t think it’s determinative either. But I’d weigh it a lot more than remarks by amateur pundits and professional poseurs who opine within 24 hours of the story breaking.
I’d weigh it less than a report by an ethics committee, assuming the report isn’t an obvious whitewash. Or a detailed treatment by a fair observer, made after careful investigation. Which doesn’t happen in 24 hours.
In Fall 2017, I think this asshole behavior should be investigated. It would be a helpful teaching moment. But a sense of proportion is also for the best.
I do have bias. I’d prefer not to lose Franken, as he’s the wonkiest member of Congress since Rush Holt.
Apologies to John, it seems we are in court! And I’m not a juror, I’m on the stand!
What is the point that this sloppy internet cross-examination is in service of, exactly? Do I know what happened? Obviously not, that’s why I said that. How did I describe it? I read what she said then paraphrased it.
I’m not sure, other than as a continuation of this Roy Mooresque “asking questions” defense, where this is taking us. What is your point?
OK. What I’m trying to do, just to be clear, is to note that this could be one of those instances where the two people involved had a different sense of what happened. And from her telling of the story, I believe it’s reasonable for him to think he had her consent. It does sound like Frankel behaved, at best, in a boorish manner. I don’t think he should have to resign for that action.
I’m not attacking the victim.
But I’ll let you have the last word on this exchange if you wish, before I find myself in a re-education camp with elucidator.