Al Franken accused of kissing and groping radio host. Will resign.

[bshole]

Yeah, and Al Franken can say it didn't happen. By the way, that's exactly what I'd do if I was in Franken's shoes because my memory is good enough to say with 100% certainty that I've never used a photo op to grab a woman's ass. Weird that Franken doesn't remember. Seems like he has Jeff Sessions's memory.

I think Maxima might have flipped me on this one....

 

[Puffnstuff]

alleged picture....

Dammit she's so traumatized.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's pretty funny that the 'moral values' party is banking their political strategy on the hopes that Democrats aren't the same sort of shameless liars and hypocrites that they are. Pretty gross.

Maybe Democrats should stop opening Pandora boxes, because Republicans always manage to take those same boxes to beat them over the head

 

[FIVR]

Who is telling you how you should have felt?

How will you feel when Franken is no longer a senator and Roy Moore is? Will you wonder if your endless quest to purge all sexual harassers is doing the country good? Or will you just pat yourself on the back and feel happy that you were able to do what little you could to make the country a "better place" and throw up your hands at Moore's appointment saying "I did what I could"?


I often wonder if people like you know they are tools. Useful idiots as lenin would say. Roger stone would be nowhere without you.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think Maxima might have flipped me on this one....

An allegation doesn't mean that someone is guilty, but I think it's good to keep in mind that most of these women have very little to gain, and a lot to lose by making them, and when someone says "I don't remember", that's a huge red flag.

 

[FIVR]

I will just say this: If Donald Trump is thrown out of office then Franken should go too. BUT NOT ONE MOMENT BEFORE.


The rest of you calling for Franken's head should know by now that you're being played. Roger stone is playing you. If you don't mind, then that's on you.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe Democrats should stop opening Pandora boxes, because Republicans always manage to take those same boxes to beat them over the head

No, I think Democrats should continue to condemn people who molest 14 year old children. Call me old fashioned, haha.

 

[Blackjack200]

How will you feel when Franken is no longer a senator and Roy Moore is? Will you wonder if your endless quest to purge all sexual harassers is doing the country good? Or will you just pat yourself on the back and feel happy that you were able to do what little you could to make the country a "better place" and throw up your hands at Moore's appointment saying "I did what I could"?

I often wonder if people like you know they are tools. Useful idiots as lenin would say. Roger stone would be nowhere without you.

Well, I'm not a voter in Alabama or Minnesota, and I haven't called for anyone's resignation, so I don't know what your problem with me is, except that I'm not as willing as you want me to be to excuse Franken's shitty behavior.

 

[BigDH01]

No, I think Democrats should continue to condemn people who molest 14 year old children. Call me old fashioned, haha.

I don't think anyone is going to attack democrats for criticizing such a gross violation of the law. Where democrats go wrong is extending this righteous cause into a larger social justice movement and attempting to ruin careers based on rumor, accusations, and innuendo. This is the real problem with the current movement (and others like it), they've taken something good and just and transformed it into an exemplification of those vices they are claiming to battle. It's like a permanent witch hunt for those that don't pass virtue signaling tests. And while they're distracted, Republicans end up passing tax cuts and sneaking in healthcare repeal. We're stuck with two pathetic political parties.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think anyone is going to attack democrats for criticizing such a gross violation of the law. Where democrats go wrong is extending this righteous cause into a larger social justice movement and attempting to ruin careers based on rumor, accusations, and innuendo. This is the real problem with the current movement (and others like it), they've taken something good and just and transformed it into an exemplification of those vices they are claiming to battle. It's like a permanent witch hunt for those that don't pass virtue signaling tests. And while they're distracted, Republicans end up passing tax cuts and sneaking in healthcare repeal. We're stuck with two pathetic political parties.

'Virtue signaling'? Give me a break. First of all, any reasonable person should agree that social justice is a great ideal that we should all work towards. Anyone who views that as a pejorative term has some serious rethinking to do. Second, can you provide me some examples of the current outing of people who have gotten away with grossly inappropriate conduct for years that you think show this has transformed into an 'exemplification of those vices they are claiming to battle'? It's not unreasonable to expect elected officials not to grope people. It's not unreasonable to expect powerful people not to attempt to coerce subordinates into having sex with them. The fact that this even needs to be said is insane.

That being said, I fully expect there to be a case or two that genuinely turn out in a way in which the person accused is innocent or genuinely wronged. Once even one of those happens I fully expect the gamergate nuts and people like that to declare the entire issue a witch hunt and how men are the real victims here. It's already starting.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, I think Democrats should continue to condemn people who molest 14 year old children. Call me old fashioned, haha.

Politically motivated condemnations based off allegations is not the ideal we should strive for.

 

[fskimospy]

Politically motivated condemnations based off allegations is not the ideal we should strive for.

Condemnations based off of well corroborated allegations involving at least eight separate victims, backed up by 30 other people and including contemporaneous accounts of the abuse IS the ideal we should strive for though, and thankfully that's what we have in this case. For something that happened so long ago this is basically the gold standard of evidence.

Let's be honest with ourselves here, the real Pandora's Box would have been to ignore such exceptionally well supported allegations out of political concerns that the Republicans might turn it against them. That would be leaving victims of a child molester out to dry for political concerns, which I think we can all agree would be monstrous. Sometimes it's important to stand up for what's right as well as basic human decency. If you think that's a Pandora's Box that's an awfully sad world to live in.

 

[BigDH01]

'Virtue signaling'? Give me a break. First of all, any reasonable person should agree that social justice is a great ideal that we should all work towards.

In context, obviously referencing modern movements of social equality. While the goal is reasonable, the methodology is often extreme. I'm sure you would agree that equality and modernization were good ideals for Mao and Stalin, how did collectivization work? What about the great leap forward? You have to measure the means.

Anyone who views that as a pejorative term has some serious rethinking to do.

Speaking of "give me a break." Ideologically extremes, no matter their utopian objectives, often lead to infinitely inferior Pareto outcomes.

Second, can you provide me some examples of the current outing of people who have gotten away with grossly inappropriate conduct for years that you think show this has transformed into an 'exemplification of those vices they are claiming to battle'?

I've seen long lists of "outed" people, people I can't be sure are guilty. One of those people, Franken, has been leading a fight to provide healthcare and services to those that can't afford it. Is it a superior outcome for Franken to, say, lose an election to someone who cares about neither because he may have kissed a girl and grabbed a butt?

It's entirely probable that people are about to lose their careers based on nothing more than accusations, even people that provide an aggregate positive to the population.

It's not unreasonable to expect elected officials not to grope people. It's not unreasonable to expect powerful people not to attempt to coerce subordinates into having sex with them. The fact that this even needs to be said is insane.

Never said it wasn't unreasonable. It's also not unreasonable to refuse to participate in a witch hunt based on nothing more than accusations. It's not unreasonable to differentiate between sex and groping and bad humor.

That being said, I fully expect there to be a case or two that genuinely turn out in a way in which the person accused is innocent or genuinely wronged. Once even one of those happens I fully expect the gamergate nuts and people like that to declare the entire issue a witch hunt and how men are the real victims here. It's already starting.

How noble of you to casually disregard the harm you're causing in your ideological causes. You are exactly what I was referring to, desiring equality while making your omelet with broken eggs.

 

[fskimospy]

In context, obviously referencing modern movements of social equality. While the goal is reasonable, the methodology is often extreme. I'm sure you would agree that equality and modernization were good ideals for Mao and Stalin, how did collectivization work? What about the great leap forward? You have to measure the means.

Speaking of "give me a break." Ideologically extremes, no matter their utopian objectives, often lead to infinitely inferior Pareto outcomes.

Look who took an undergrad economics course, haha. Pareto efficiency has basically no bearing on what we're talking about here. You didn't say anything about the means, you complained about 'social justice' and 'virtue signaling' as concepts, not any particular implementation. I imagine you will probably try to argue back that it's the current means of achieving social justice that you have a problem with, which is transparent nonsense as there is no one set of current means for achieving this.

I've seen long lists of "outed" people, people I can't be sure are guilty. One of those people, Franken, has been leading a fight to provide healthcare and services to those that can't afford it. Is it a superior outcome for Franken to, say, lose an election to someone who cares about neither because he may have kissed a girl and grabbed a butt?

Why is 'can't be sure are guilty' the standard that you would use? This is not a criminal proceeding. As for Franken, I didn't say anything about whether or not it is a superior outcome for him to lose an election, I simply said he should be condemned for his actions. If you are trying to make the argument that if someone stands for progressive causes we can't ever criticize them then I consider that foolish.

It's entirely probable that people are about to lose their careers based on nothing more than accusations, even people that provide an aggregate positive to the population.

'Based on nothing more than accusations' defined how? Operationalize this.

As for if people provide an aggregate positive to the population that's not important. Since we're talking about nationwide issues here the question is if in total it is better to allow powerful men to sexually abuse their subordinates with impunity or not. There will always be individual cases where it's different.

Never said it wasn't unreasonable. It's also not unreasonable to refuse to participate in a witch hunt based on nothing more than accusations. It's not unreasonable to differentiate between sex and groping and bad humor.

First, define 'witch hunt' and how it applies here. Second, where did you get the idea that this is 'nothing more than accusations'? Do you consider testimony at trials 'nothing more than accusations'?

As for differentiating between sex and groping and bad humor, everyone already makes that differentiation.

How noble of you to casually disregard the harm you're causing in your ideological causes. You are exactly what I was referring to, desiring equality while making your omelet with broken eggs.

What sort of babbling nonsense is this? Every person has many ideological causes and sometimes they are in competition with one another. You appear to be arguing that I cannot criticize Franken's behavior because he supports progressive measures and I think that's not only ridiculous but ultimately counterproductive.

Also I don't even know what that metaphor is supposed to mean as every omelet is made with broken eggs, haha.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

At least one more Senator Franken accuser on the way according to this story. Usually happens when this type of serial abuser gets outed.
http://ntknetwork.com/al-franken-ac...me-saying-she-experienced-similar-harassment/


I didn't know that Minnesota was so far in play, no wonder the Democrats are so angry about this.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/660923?unlock=QR9RVR57YOHYDUVU

 

[Jaskalas]

Maybe Democrats should stop opening Pandora boxes, because Republicans always manage to take those same boxes to beat them over the head

Are you equating Moore, a predator of teenage girls, and Franken, a sleaze? One either committed or attempted multiple, serious, crimes. The other has boundary issues which may sometimes escalate to minor crimes. These are fairly different boxes.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Condemnations based off of well corroborated allegations involving at least eight separate victims, backed up by 30 other people and including contemporaneous accounts of the abuse IS the ideal we should strive for though, and thankfully that's what we have in this case. For something that happened so long ago this is basically the gold standard of evidence.

Let's be honest with ourselves here, the real Pandora's Box would have been to ignore such exceptionally well supported allegations out of political concerns that the Republicans might turn it against them. That would be leaving victims of a child molester out to dry for political concerns, which I think we can all agree would be monstrous. Sometimes it's important to stand up for what's right as well as basic human decency. If you think that's a Pandora's Box that's an awfully sad world to live in.

Well corroborated allegations which means Moore, like Weinstein and others, had many many many enablers. I want to live in a society where people like Trump, Weinstein and Moore are never even viable as political candidates or captains of industry.

Social media witch hunts are not the right path to a better society.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Are you equating Moore, a predator of teenage girls, and Franken, a sleaze? One either committed or attempted multiple, serious, crimes. The other has boundary issues which may sometimes escalate to minor crimes. These are fairly different boxes.

It's the same box. Social media is the wrong forum to deal with criminal matters because it ensares and creates equivalence to less serious offenders...case in point Al Franken.

 

[J.Wilkins]

And are you under the impression that Trump's attitudes to women, which were known before the last election, are going to make any difference to how his supporters will vote in the 2018 elections? I just don't see any evidence for that belief.

To liberals, absolutely. Did you note voter participation, that election wouldn't have been legal in England.

I see evidence that there might be people who were not happy about Hillary but who really don't like Trump either.

Less Russian influence (what do you think bought us Brexit, Farage has already been linked to Trump and Putin) and more sense might make a world of difference.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Glad to see the adoption of zero tolerance calling for the death penalty for both misdemeanors and serial sexual predators. Oh! Wait! Only for admitted misdemeanors, a free pass for the powerful who can out lawyer their accusers by libeling them liars, sluts and whores. Guess it is who you identify with.

 

[BigDH01]

Look who took an undergrad economics course, haha. Pareto efficiency has basically no bearing on what we're talking about here.

Wow, another belittlement. In speaking in terms of societal outcomes, it absolutely can. After all, it seems attention and effort are scarce (did you want to make fun of me for another economic term?).

You didn't say anything about the means, you complained about 'social justice' and 'virtue signaling' as concepts, not any particular implementation. I imagine you will probably try to argue back that it's the current means of achieving social justice that you have a problem with, which is transparent nonsense as there is no one set of current means for achieving this.

Then consider your current means as taking the brunt of my criticism if it were not clear enough.

Why is 'can't be sure are guilty' the standard that you would use? This is not a criminal proceeding.

I'm tired of rehashing this over and over, and the conclusion ought to be obvious, but there is no 'common' standard we are all using before we are attempting to ruin careers. This is exactly part of the problem I am describing. Left without a coherent definition of guilt, punishment, restitution we are left with virtue signaling. Inevitably, that will go too far.

As for Franken, I didn't say anything about whether or not it is a superior outcome for him to lose an election, I simply said he should be condemned for his actions. If you are trying to make the argument that if someone stands for progressive causes we can't ever criticize them then I consider that foolish.

Not sure how you would conclude that.

'Based on nothing more than accusations' defined how? Operationalize this.

What is there to operationalize? I'm not comfortable with concluding someone is guilty and actively attempting to cause them harm if all I have to go on are accusations. Is that not clear?

As for if people provide an aggregate positive to the population that's not important. Since we're talking about nationwide issues here the question is if in total it is better to allow powerful men to sexually abuse their subordinates with impunity or not. There will always be individual cases where it's different.

In Franken's case, no one was sexually abused and no accuser has been his subordinate. But in these movements, nuance is often overlooked or even actively ignored in the name of utilitarianism.

First, define 'witch hunt' and how it applies here.

Do I have to Google something for you? Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Second, where did you get the idea that this is 'nothing more than accusations'?

Is there anything more than accusations against Franken? Seems like the only physical evidence we have thus far is a picture in which he could be accused of bad humor.

Do you consider testimony at trials 'nothing more than accusations'?

I wasn't aware there's already been a trial for Franken and testimony has made it to the record.

As for differentiating between sex and groping and bad humor, everyone already makes that differentiation.

Yes, and in many instances they have varying differentiators.

What sort of babbling nonsense is this? Every person has many ideological causes and sometimes they are in competition with one another. You appear to be arguing that I cannot criticize Franken's behavior because he supports progressive measures and I think that's not only ridiculous but ultimately counterproductive.

No, I'm saying you are wasting political capital on Franken because it
1) is inconsequential
2) relies on subjective definitions of sexual harassment
3) relies on flimsy evidence
4) distracts from issues currently affecting millions of Americans

Also I don't even know what that metaphor is supposed to mean as every omelet is made with broken eggs, haha.

It's pretty obvious really, maybe this goes back to being intentionally obtuse, but you don't seem to mind if a couple of careers or individuals get sacrificed in your political cause. Presumably because those individuals are not you. And somehow, I'm guessing you suppose this makes you the learned and advanced liberal.

 

[1prophet]

Don't become a gamergate guy. There are expectations put on Men & Women regarding harassment. The two sexes will never be treated equally in this regard. The norm is Women can kiss random men without it being weird, Men cannot kiss random Women and not have it be creepy.

The norm is that guys can brag about their sexual exploits like Judge O'Neil of Ohio and men can take off their tops when it's hot outside, but if a woman does it she is slut shamed or arrested in certain states,

so women should just accept it because of expectations.

 

[J.Wilkins]

The norm is that guys can brag about their sexual exploits like Judge O'Neil of Ohio and men can take off their tops when it's hot outside, but if a woman does it she is slut shamed or arrested in certain states,

so women should just accept it because of expectations.

Note that these expectations are not universal and that in the 1980's there was no rule against taking your top off anywhere in the US, it's quite new and made specifically because of a segment of the population that are the biggest voting block.

They are insane...

They are retarded to the fuck....

They are the most hypocritical group known to mankind....

They are the Evangelicals...

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, another belittlement. In speaking in terms of societal outcomes, it absolutely can. After all, it seems attention and effort are scarce (did you want to make fun of me for another economic term?).

Pareto efficiency in terms of human attention span? Give me a break. I have no idea how that could ever possibly be operationalized and measured. It's nonsense.

Then consider your current means as taking the brunt of my criticism if it were not clear enough.

Exactly what do you think my current means are?

I'm tired of rehashing this over and over, and the conclusion ought to be obvious, but there is no 'common' standard we are all using before we are attempting to ruin careers. This is exactly part of the problem I am describing. Left without a coherent definition of guilt, punishment, restitution we are left with virtue signaling. Inevitably, that will go too far.

You have not thought this through. Can you explain how it would ever be possible for humanity to adopt a common standard for when we want to condemn an elected official for misbehavior? We can adopt this for the law precisely because it's a system we created for an express purpose. How you would ever want to adopt common standards for 'I feel like this guy probably did it and therefore don't want to associate with him' is certainly far beyond me.

Not sure how you would conclude that.

The only thing I have done with Franken is criticize him and yet you have explicitly called out my 'means' as being bad. What else should a logical person conclude?

What is there to operationalize? I'm not comfortable with concluding someone is guilty and actively attempting to cause them harm if all I have to go on are accusations. Is that not clear?

No this is not remotely clear. Are you saying that you are unwilling to conclude someone is guilty based on verbal or written testimony from victims and/or witnesses? If not, how do accusations differ from this?

In Franken's case, no one was sexually abused and no accuser has been his subordinate. But in these movements, nuance is often overlooked or even actively ignored in the name of utilitarianism.

I have no idea what this even means.

Do I have to Google something for you? Are you being intentionally obtuse?

No, I'm trying to get you to define the terms you are using because it sure looks like you should google the definition, haha.

Is there anything more than accusations against Franken? Seems like the only physical evidence we have thus far is a picture in which he could be accused of bad humor.

Yes, he admitted to doing it. lol.

I wasn't aware there's already been a trial for Franken and testimony has made it to the record.

Speaking of being intentionally obtuse, statements at trials are nothing more than 'accusations' as well. It's simply a question of if you believe testimony from victims or witnesses. Considering the fact that there's photographic evidence of Franken acting inappropriately and he hasn't meaningfully contested the 'accusations', a logical person concludes they are more likely than not true.



Yes, and in many instances they have varying differentiators.

No, I'm saying you are wasting political capital on Franken because it
1) is inconsequential
2) relies on subjective definitions of sexual harassment
3) relies on flimsy evidence
4) distracts from issues currently affecting millions of Americans

I don't think you're using the word political capital correctly either, but that's a separate issue.

1) I disagree that sitting senators groping people and forced kissing them is inconsequential.
2) Literally all definitions of sexual harassment are subjective so this is a pointless distinction.
3) The facts of the case are largely not in dispute, so this is clearly false.
4) This may shock you but America does not have a national conversation based on who I choose to criticize.

It's pretty obvious really, maybe this goes back to being intentionally obtuse, but you don't seem to mind if a couple of careers or individuals get sacrificed in your political cause. Presumably because those individuals are not you. And somehow, I'm guessing you suppose this makes you the learned and advanced liberal.

You're the guy who made the nonsensical metaphor, not me, haha. Regardless, I find it funny that invariably when people start using terms like 'social justice' and 'virtue signaling' I tell myself "this person is probably one of those gamergate idiots or something like them". I then remind myself not to prejudge someone and yet invariably sure enough, they say something like this. There is no 'sacrifice' of careers or individuals here, there is the simple fact that when someone behaves in an unacceptable way I don't find it necessary to selectively criticize them based on their political ideology. This isn't complicated stuff, this is common sense.

It's sad when people have been so caught up in culture wars and their quest against 'SJWs' or whatever that they have somehow convinced themselves that criticizing a guy for groping women when they didn't want it is bad. Ridiculous nonsense.

 

[BigDH01]

Pareto efficiency in terms of human attention span? Give me a break. I have no idea how that could ever possibly be operationalized and measured. It's nonsense.

And effort. And Pareto efficiency is used all the time in economic paradigms, including that of game theory where we try to operationalize utility functions. I suppose that's nonsense too.

Exactly what do you think my current means are?

Trial by social media.

You have not thought this through. Can you explain how it would ever be possible for humanity to adopt a common standard for when we want to condemn an elected official for misbehavior?

Um, law? Code of ethics? Here's a summary of the senate code of conduct: https://www.ethics.senate.gov/publi...?File_id=1aec2c45-aadf-46e3-bb36-c472bcbed20f. We codify these things all the time.

We can adopt this for the law precisely because it's a system we created for an express purpose. How you would ever want to adopt common standards for 'I feel like this guy probably did it and therefore don't want to associate with him' is certainly far beyond me.

Beyond me too, which is my point. I'm not going to head to social media to ostracize someone for a situation I know almost nothing about... unlike some of us.

No this is not remotely clear. Are you saying that you are unwilling to conclude someone is guilty based on verbal or written testimony from victims and/or witnesses? If not, how do accusations differ from this?

I am unwilling to conclude someone is guilty based on accusers alone, especially when the testimony is not actually on record and thus there has been little to no cross-examination.

I have no idea what this even means.

No surprise.

No, I'm trying to get you to define the terms you are using because it sure looks like you should google the definition, haha.

Or you're just being lazy and obtuse.

Yes, he admitted to doing it. lol.

More laziness.

While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.

That doesn't sound like an admission of guilt to me, certainly not to her recalling of events.

Speaking of being intentionally obtuse, statements at trials are nothing more than 'accusations' as well.

Accusations where the accused gets the right to confront their accuser.

It's simply a question of if you believe testimony from victims or witnesses.

It's incredibly difficult to send someone to jail based on an accusation alone.

Considering the fact that there's photographic evidence of Franken acting inappropriately and he hasn't meaningfully contested the 'accusations', a logical person concludes they are more likely than not true.

A logical person might conclude that someone who's been photographed kissing random men consensually might have also kissed Franken consensually. But earlier in this thread, you stated one behavior is not necessarily proof of another. That Franken took a photo in poor humor is not evidence he committed sexual assault.

Does that go both ways? If someone is accused of sexual misconduct and they have a history of lewd comments or public (but consensual) sexual behavior, does that factor into a determination of guilt?

It does! Having consensual sex with a lot of people in no way indicates you would have non-consensual sex with people.

I assume you were responding to my first question. Franken has a history of lewd acts apparently, but that doesn't factor into a determination of guilt of sexual assaulting (forcibly kissing/tonguing) someone. If that was the question you were responding to.

1) I disagree that sitting senators groping people and forced kissing them is inconsequential.

If that even happened, something that is far from conclusive.

2) Literally all definitions of sexual harassment are subjective so this is a pointless distinction.

Although we have codified standards that would help, standards the current movement hasn't elucidated.

3) The facts of the case are largely not in dispute, so this is clearly false.

Reading this thread, I'd say they aren't as uncontested as you believe.

4) This may shock you but America does not have a national conversation based on who I choose to criticize.

Thankfully.

You're the guy who made the nonsensical metaphor, not me, haha. Regardless, I find it funny that invariably when people start using terms like 'social justice' and 'virtue signaling' I tell myself "this person is probably one of those gamergate idiots or something like them". I then remind myself not to prejudge someone and yet invariably sure enough, they say something like this. There is no 'sacrifice' of careers or individuals here, there is the simple fact that when someone behaves in an unacceptable way I don't find it necessary to selectively criticize them based on their political ideology. This isn't complicated stuff, this is common sense.

You and I don't have similar definitions of common sense.

It's sad when people have been so caught up in culture wars and their quest against 'SJWs' or whatever that they have somehow convinced themselves that criticizing a guy for groping women when they didn't want it is bad. Ridiculous nonsense.

It's sad when someone is so engaged in their culture war they aren't even honest about their evidence when crucifying someone.