I just want to object to the idea (stated by Hurricaine Ditka in post #432 that Democrats belief Moore should not be a Senator is somehow weakened if they don’t also believe Franken should resign. That’s a blatant false equivalence; the only commonality between the two incidents is that they were sexual in nature. Other than that, they are completely different. There have been multiple accusations against Moore. Moore’s conduct involved touching of genitalia in some cases. Moore was a Deputy District Attorney in his 30s at the time and most of his victims were 18 or younger. Circumstances matter. What Franken did was wrong, but it does not compare to Moore’s situation. That said, if the voters of Alabama elect him with eyes wide open then I don’t think the Senate should expel him unless new information comes to light. I hope they enjoy the stench.
Something I want to bring up is that, in some ways, I find Franken’s actions with Melanie Morgan to be far more troubling. Taking her story at face value, Franken comes across as unhinged. There’s passion and then there’s obsession. Not many people (in general) seem to be talking about that though. I don’t think it’s a sufficient reason for him to resign over, but I do think it should be discussed.
I did, twice. And I’m kinda curious about what process of alchemy got us to the point of having already known that Clinton’s committed sexual assault or harassment. The point at which we, the general public, first came to know this seems to be missing from the chronology.
I would note that the hunters of the President during the 1990s were aware of Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, because so was everyone else. But even they didn’t think their claims belonged front and center, instead choosing to focus on Bill Clinton’s quite consensual (if sleazy) relationship with Monica Lewinsky once that story broke. And they basically did nothing with Juanita Broaddrick’s allegations once they became known.
So I think where we left it at the end of the 1990s was that there was probably no ‘there’ there, since even the Clinton-haters (who were legion, and well-funded too) more or less let them drop.
But now there seems to be a prevailing assumption that yes, we knew there was substance to one or more of these women’s claims. And I want to know: when and how did this happen? What deep dive into the forgotten details of the 1990s led to this change of assumptions? Or did the hive mind just decide it one day?
The point is obvious. Crime and punishment are best reserved, when possible, for the proper institutions. Not social media fueled vigilante mobs. If the victim desires she can go to the police or sue for damages. Secondly, the punishment needs to fit the actual crime.
Doesn’t seem reasonable to me. I’m even for felons being able to run after they’ve completed their sentence. I believe in redemption and forgiveness.
A punch can kill you. As I’ve said earlier in this thread, I’ve been both sucker punched and groped. I’m heterosexual and male. The man who groped me was a man. I sure the hell didn’t consent because nothing was asked.
Out of the two experiences if I had to endure them daily I’d take the groping. Out of the two experiences if I could have one of the people go to jail for a few years it would be the person who punched me when I was unaware.
Why? The groping, even though I was underage, I understood to be sort of a sexual advance that while undesired was meant as a proposition. I didn’t feel threatened I was surprised and then I left the situation. The sucker punch actually hurt and left my face marked for awhile. I had no idea what was happening and I was really worried about how I was going to extricate myself from the situation.
Furthermore the potential damage was far greater. If I fell and hit my head on the concrete that can be brain damage or worse. Having my genitals touched through my shorts didn’t result in any damage.
I am on the fence. 1. Who cares is the victim is a right winger? She is obviously not just inventing all this. 2. This does not strike me as the greatest of ethical violations. Perhaps a censure would be appropriate? 3. Gotta wait and see if it turns out this is a pattern. If so, forget it. 4. Holy crap, that photo makes him look awful and disgusting!! He might as well be warming his hands at a bonfire he set of his career. Get used to that awful picture, it is going to be coming up forever. Way to fuck up, Franken! :mad:
If he does get run out for this, I will be more “you should not be this kind of dumbass” than railing against the injustice of it all.
There is - and I think most people know it, but we’re in a state of tension right now that I don’t necessarily think is a bad thing - a sliding scale of sexual crime, just as there is a sliding scale of assault or theft. What Franken is alleged to have done is not nearly as bad as what Bill O’Reilly is alleged to have done, and in turn Harvey Weinstein has O’Reilly beaten by a mile.
One or two offenses of a relatively misdemeaor-kind-variety are on thing. Being a serial rapist is quite something else.
I for one can’t tell what the hell you’re calling for, or against.
Legal consequences should be decided by legal mechanisms, of course. But we’re not talking about legal consequences, we’re talking about political consequences and social consequences. And those should be decided by political and social mechanisms, of course. Do you object to that?
When it comes to politics can anyone trust anything?
Al Franken might be the worst person on earth and guilty as charged, but when the sole accuser is an attention-seeking, tea-party shithead like Leann Tweeden, I’m extremely skeptical. I was aware of Tweeden long before this accusation. Her credibility is sorely lacking and coming smack in the middle of the Moore scandal…let’s just say a shout out for Hannity isn’t beyond the pale.
For all the republicans bleating about Franken: acknowledge that your so-called president is a serial sexual-harasser and apologize to Anita Hill, and then I’ll take your “concerns” seriously.
You haven’t said why it’s not reasonable, unless you think any standards of behavior are unreasonable. Is there any past behavior that you would find disqualifying for political office (for your own vote, I mean)? If so, then the only thing we disagree on is what behavior should be disqualifying.
I’d prefer to be assaulted than killed, if that’s the choice. But this is a rather silly argument. People are going to feel differently based on their own experiences.
Indeed. One of the first people I ever talked with about when she was raped told me quite matter-of-factly that she’d decided if she were ever attacked again that she’d fight to the death, not because she expected to win such a fight, but because she’d rather die that go through that experience again.
Mileage obviously varies, but I don’t think her feelings are unique.
To some degree yes I do. At some point people need to mind their own business and not jump on the “oh I’m so outraged” Internet bandwagon which unnecessarily and dangerously amplifies things.
Also, whether or not there’s some kind of imbalance between the way assaults and sexual assaults are treated because of puritanical views about chastity, that’s not the reason one’s a bigger deal in the news than the other.
Punching someone in the face out of nowhere: you get in big trouble for that. If Franken had hit some radio host with a two-piece suckerpunch combo for no reason 11 years ago, that would be a big problem. It would be unhinged behavior, and probably charged criminally.
It’s not a helpful comparison to demonstrate that we should care less about whether he kissed somebody without consent 11 years ago. That was actually the point of the post octopus originally responded to when he made the point that he refuses to explain.
Roy Moore has multiple accusers; many of their accounts are supported by the fact that they spoke or wrote about the alleged abuse at the time it happened; the accusations vary but some (as the poster quoted above noted) include touching of genitalia.
Donald Trump has multiple accusers; many of their accounts are supported by the fact that they spoke or wrote about the alleged abuse at the time it happened; the accusations vary but some include touching of genitalia.*
Al Franken has, so far, one accuser. She has not claimed to have spoken or written about the alleged abuse at the time it happened. The accusations are: groping (which apparently consisted of a photo taken in the presence of at least one third party, in which it’s not clear that physical touching took place) and an agreed-to kiss that allegedly included not-agreed-to elements such as a tongue.
Those accusations against Franken should be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. If the accuser’s account is borne out in every detail, Franken should, at the least, be censured.
However, it seems safe to say that anyone advocating for the resignation of Franken without also calling for the resignation of Trump and the withdrawal from candidacy of Moore, is a partisan hypocrite.
*This list of Trump’s accusers is more than a year old, but it lays out the cases that had come forward by that time quite clearly. Several include Trump groping genital areas.
Nicely put.