You have taken a position on the first part.
You said similar things about the Kavenaugh nomination. In a thread about Franken, you raised this issue of “innocent until proven guilty” as though it has something to do with what’s being discussed; so one can fairly conclude that you’re implying that the same standard should apply to Franken.
If you don’t think “innocent until proven guilty” should apply to Kavenaugh and Franken, just say so.
Show me anywhere in my post where I defended what Franken did.
Sunny Daze, how about directing your outrage at people who actually say something outrageous.
Fair enough. I don’t think there needs to be a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for a firing or a loss of an opportunity, but there still should be a presumption of innocence. Why should any accuser have a presumption in his or her favor?
And I further have a problem with convicting, firing, or otherwise taking action against someone based upon uncorroborated allegations. Why believe person X instead of person Y? I understand that means that some sexual assaults will go unpunished, but what is the alternative? Having a society where I can get you fired or put you in prison by finding a single person who can tell a story which does not defy the laws of physics and is therefore “credible”?
I think that is simply an astounding proposition in any country that values freedom.
Did I insist that? I don’t remember that and think you might be mistaken.
Strongly agree. And we did find one, by the name of Tina Smith. I think a lot of this discussion is a bit disrespectful to her.
Whoa, strongly disagree with you on that one.
Falsely reported rapes are much more common than false reporting of other violent crimes. One such false report ruined the life of my best friend.
I would disagree somewhat with your premise regardless, but I am wondering why you are placing me in a different category than “the voters in MN”. Maybe you missed the first post I made in this thread?
In case that’s not crystal clear, I am a Minnesota voter. Furthermore, in fact, I am a “DFLer”, and I contacted officials of the state party—who know me as a dedicated door knocker—to express the same opinion and ask that they pass it up the line. Maybe it was a drop in the bucket, but I at least attempted to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
So even if you don’t think it’s up to other people in this thread (maybe), or up to his fellow Democratic senators (hard disagree with you about that), you have to admit that it is at least in some small part up to me.
I agree that Louis CK got a raw deal. Am I the only one who sees that this is totally different? If Al Franken were canceled from doing comedy anymore, I would be defending him right along with others. The US Senate is just so dramatically different from the comedy world. But if you want to move from the latter to the former, you have to be judged by the standards of the former, not the latter. There are very few comics I can think of who would be suitable for the US Senate.
You make statements along these lines quite frequently, such as the idea that possible victims of sexual abuse are most always treated poorly and that the alleged/convicted abusers are usually let off easy. Would you say that is accurate? If so, on what do you base this? Thanks. 
Yes – based on my understanding of the statistics of sexual assault and rape, and based on discussions and the words of victims and survivors.
Oh you voted him out of office? This was a voters’ choice? In lieu of losing an election there were mass protests of Minnesotans demanding he leave? Even a large majority of voters wanting him to resign in their Minnesotan quiet way?
No.
There was no majority of voters wanting him to resign. In fact more thought his resignation was a bad choice than supported it. http://m.startribune.com/majority-of-minnesotans-believe-franken-accusations-but-fewer-think-he-should-have-quit/469451383/ This was a decision made by others than those who elected him for … reasons.
Whatever. You were clearly telling me I’m not a MN voter, when I am.
He probably doesn’t give a shit whether you’re a Minnesota voter. His point was that Franken wasn’t voted out and polls showed that the majority wanted him to stay.
I can’t read the article as I am past my monthly limit, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Republicans wanted him to stay and act as a millstone around DFLers’ necks (or just don’t want to lay down the precedent that this kind of thing should be punished). I would be more impressed by a strong show of support from the DFL.
Real people don’t do that, in fact they do the opposite. Just because Franken hanging around would have been delightful for Republican national strategists is not a reason a regular person would answer the poll so strategically. Real people would generally be more disposed to an opposing member resigning, not less.
I really give not that shit, but I do readily admit that I had not recalled Slacker was a Minnesotan voter
So to the point regarding IF he ever runs again (again, please not now) then it will be up to the voters in MN to decide, including Slacker’s one vote input, if they, in aggregate, think his baggage is disqualifying or not.
I don’t give a shit about it but clearly Slacker gives so much shit about it that we need a plunger, so my apologies, I guess.
So virtually all Minnesota Republicans said he should resign, and virtually all DFLers that he should not? I am almost the only DFLer who saw it as Schumer, Gillibrand, et al did? I rather doubt that.
ETA: As an active DFLer, my input should be more than “one vote”. Particularly since I would not vote for a Republican opponent and would not wish to see a divisive DFL primary.
Furthermore, everyone who opines about presidential candidates also only has “one vote”, and if they don’t live in a swing state it doesn’t count for much. That should not be the standard for weighing in.
Wtf? Is that a response to me? I said “generally more disposed” not “you are all partisan zombies”.
Your input should be as much as any other member of the Minnesota DFL, which is one vote. And the only way to avoid a “divisive” primary is for a candidate to be unopposed.
So let’s say that you are looking for a babysitter, and there a rumors that the teenager down the street has smacked a few kids for no reason whatsoever. No hard evidence, just some people saying what they heard.
You still hire that babysitter in the name of “valuing freedom?”
That’s a poor analogy: the job of babysitter is to be alone with vulnerable persons who would be helpless to defend themselves from attack.
The job of Senator is to be in the company of a bunch of other Senators who are, by law, adults.
A better analogy: would you hire the teenager about whom rumors have been floated to a road-cleaning crew made up of adults? …Well, you might, since you might suspect that the rumors were invented and spread by malicious persons. And after all, the teen won’t be alone with vulnerable persons at any point. So why not let the teen demonstrate good character, if he or she can do so?
It wasn’t an analogy. Ravenman was just challenging how far he was willing to go for “freedom” when it was actually a personal decision.