That’s an unreasonable assumption. Yes, it’s wikipedia. Feel free to disparage it. If we are to treat all “credible” (as determined by whom) accusations as true, what then is the point of courts and juries and judges? Or are they only always credible if they can’t be adjudicated?
I’m still trying to get an answer. Are folk advocating that ANY public official is unfit for office, whatever their politics, if they have been accused of:
-unwanted kissing/groping?
-consensual sex with a subordinate?
-some type of inappropriate remarks?
In the sense of “no further action against him, in the absence of genuinely new information”? Yeppers.
That was actually my starting point - Josh Marshall’s essay to the effect that Alabama voters know what Moore is, and if they want to elect a theocrat with a creepy habit of hitting on high school girls, then that’s their business, and the Senate shouldn’t undo their choice. (Even if more stories of Moore hitting on 15 year olds come to light after the election, which they probably will. That’s not really new info, it just confirms what’s already known.)
Minnesota voters didn’t really know what they were choosing in voting for Franken, so give 'em another choice in 2018, enabled by Franken’s resignation now. Alabama voters DO know what they’re choosing, so the Senate should acknowledge that it’s their choice to make, and leave it at that, whatever the outcome.
The subject of your interlocution is a big old briar patch. He’s presenting a bad faith version of a philosophy that he’s consistently ridiculed.
The point of courts and juries and judges is to determine truth for the purpose of assigning responsibility. No one has ever advocated that we should replace them with accepting all accusations as proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
None of the context you claim I’m leaving out is relevant, at all. What’s relevant is:
that he has admitted in writing that he’s willing to issue false apologies for wildly inappropriate behavior towards women, like rape jokes, if issuing the false apology gets him votes. And he doesn’t consider his lack of remorse and lying about the apology to be anything bad, he just calls it a “white lie”. His history of rape jokes was costing him votes with women, so he said “I’m so sorry about that” but was insincere, and went on to document his insincerity in writing. Now he has a documented history of posing sexual assault jokes with an unconscious woman, which is clearly damaging to his political career, so he offers an apology. Since he’s already shows that he’s willing to lie in apologies for political gain, why should we believe that this instance shows sincere regret and not just political acumen? I mean, he was a comedian at the time he posed the picture, so he can justify it with the “it was my job then, I wasn’t a Senator so it doesn’t count” defense too, and you can add the ‘out of context’ bit onto it for his sake.
Taken to its extreme, this means that every time we learn anything new about any politician currently in office, voters should get a chance to decide whether that politician remains in office.
I’m having a hard time deciding where you draw the line between what does and what does not warrant such a step.
I agree with you, to the extent that AL voters should get to elect whom they wish. And the rest of the Senate and the rest of the nation should freely comment on that individual’s fitness for office, and what such a choice says about the voters.
But I don’t get why Franken should reign. Aren’t there regularly seated officials under investigation - even trial - for various crimes. Those don’t warrant immediate resignation, but what Franken did DOES? That strikes me a crazy.
I do not believe Franken’s misdeeds (as reported to date) come close to suggesting that he is unfit to continue in his office. Clinton’s consensual sex is more problematic, as ML was a subordinate and the actions occurred while in office. Even Jones/Flowers, at least occurred while holding office. But - as I recall - the stated reasons for impeachment were not the act, but the supposed lying about it.
Do each of the people advocating that Franken step down immediately, urge Trump to do the same? How about Clarence Thomas?
-
Kenneth Starr looked at the Jones case in some depth. He came to the conclusion the contradictory statements made shredded her credibility, especially her rather bizarre description of Clinton’s penis as well as the fact that she had told different stories at different times.
-
Willey is perhaps the most credible accuser, she has no sordid tales of bent or discoloured dicks or hairbrush spankings. Here is a straightforward claim that he copped a feel. Yeah, I can believe it. Except i) another interpretation is that it was an accident, or she misinterpreted his actions and ii) her husband committed suicide literally the same day, which means that her recollection is almost certainly coloured by that; she has also accused Clinton of killing her late husband.
-
Juanita Broaddrick, is in contrast probably the least credible claim. She signed an affidavit under oath stating that Clinton did not rape her, an affidavit she recanted.
I agree that social mores have changed. However, the reason for the current scandals is not necessarily the changing mores. Clinton, Weinstein, Ailes each have seen their influence degrade recently and befoe the start of their current preductaments. Few of Weinsteins recent films have made much headway, Murdoch’s retirement means that Ailes had to deal with his sons, who did not like him.
The more cynical part of me says that the lesson powerful men will take away from this is not “don’t harass” but “make sure you retain enough power and influence to make things go away”.
Your absolutist approach is dangerous. Franken can be a perfectly fine senator for his constituents even with flaws. Demanding absolute moral perfection to be eligible for service or employment is ridiculous and slightly scary.
Yeah, drunk driving and leaving someone to die is in a different category. A far worse category. This is what Ramira is rightfully critiquing as a pathology of Puritanism. Don’t you find it odd that you admit that given the choice between a hard punch to the face and a forced kiss you choose the punch?
OK, I think I get your objection. The question is whether sending a message by punishing past misdeeds deters present and future misconduct by (presumably) someone else. Whether or not it is, is a question not addressed by how much legislation Franken supported.
Besides, whether or not a given legislator is pro-women or not is inescapably a partisan question. Which I think you already pointed out.
Regards,
Shodan
You want a society of courts and police and lawsuits? Or a society of kangaroo courts, the professionally morally outraged!, and mob justice? Wait til fancies change and you find your past puts you in grave physical or financial danger.
Again, what point are you making? Do you think that Richard Parker was saying that we should abandon police and courts?
Glad you continue to get so much joy from this, while continuing to support someone who bragged about groping and has multiple credible allegations of sexual assault against him.
Agreed. However, having standards is not ridiculous, and having a standard that says “no sexual assaulters/gropers/violators-of-consent” seems pretty damn reasonable to me.
I’ve been punched before. Not that big a deal. I haven’t had a forced kiss, but it sounds a lot worse.
I’m now very curious: did you vote for Bill Clinton?
Nope, though I was not yet 18 for either of his elections. That, at the time, I didn’t consider his allegations serious is a source of shame for me. I think I’m a much better person now, and wouldn’t support him or make excuses for him in the future.
I’m suggesting and trying to justify an ad hoc solution to an action that seems to deserve some tangible sanction, but for which getting kicked out of the Senate permanently seems a bit extreme.
How does this generalize? The answer is, it’s an option that could be used in other situations where censure seems insufficient, but expulsion seems over the top. Which is to say, the universe of situations it generalizes to is very, very small, and each future Senate would sort through things as best as they can.
Going back to just this one situation, obviously if you think nothing beyond a censure vote should happen to Franken, then you don’t need to consider this. And similarly if you think he should resign even if lesser but tangible sanctions are available, then you don’t need to consider this either. But there seem to be a number of us in this discussion who think some in-between sanction is the way to go, if one exists. I’ve produced one.
You can think that all you’d like, but since this standard doesn’t serve me, it’s a ridiculous thing to think.
Why kick out men who assault women, if not to make an example of them? Why make an example of them, if not to reduce the damage caused by sexual assault?
So if our standard is reducing the damage caused by sexual assault, why not consider whether kicking a particular guy out of office will actually reduce the damage caused by sexual assault?
If that’s not the standard you’re using–if you’re not actually interested in results–you’d do well to define your standard. But if you’re interested in results, it’s worth considering the overall results.
Again, I am not advocating retaining Franken in office; I don’t have a clear answer on that. But I think it’s consistent with reducing sexual violence to consider all effects of a decision, not just some.