Al Franken

[geonuc]

If we are to build a better society it has to start with NOT seeing a giant blot where only a bit of dust exists.We are heading in a direction where everyone will wonder if it's ok to sit or stand next to anyone at the office, or worry that someone misconstrues a statement as harassment. Damn, common sense is not common

Yes. And I'll continue this post in private.

[squ1d]

Wether or not this is the moment (I make no hypothesis), at some point, any furore, no matter how righteous, will step over its bounds. When it does, how will the masses react to a wrongful accusation? There is a reason we have a legal system and the rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

I think that it is fantastic that light is being shone on dark areas, but I'm mindful of the fact we can't abandon our (good and lawful) institutions that deal with these things.

I'm not defending anyone, including Al Franken, but we're getting close to the point where someone could be wrongly crucified.

[squ1d]

Yes, as politicians go, Reagan was an honorable man. I, and many like-minded folk, simply disagreed with his policies.

I'm gonna just put this out there.

To me, if I look at what I know (as limited as that may be) about the history of the US, Ronald Reagan was the beginning of a disturbing trend in US politics.

A trend that involved, to various degrees of failure and success, the appointment of, amongst others, Jessie Ventura, Arnold Schwarznegger and Donald Trump.

[squ1d]

While I'm thinking about this, perhaps this is something you can explain to me.

Last election the choices you guys had .. or maybe reached.. were Donald Trump, a moron with a TV show and a rich daddy, and the wife of a previous president. This is out of the millions of US citizens.

Recently, you had two presidents from the same immediate family, George and George W. Then there was the prospect of Hillary following Bill.

All of your candidates come from a very small part of society, and an alarming number of them seem to be related.

This is something I'd typically associate more with a type of government that was more corrupt and less democratic.

[SciFi Chick]

While I'm thinking about this, perhaps this is something you can explain to me.

Last election the choices you guys had .. or maybe reached.. were Donald Trump, a moron with a TV show and a rich daddy, and the wife of a previous president. This is out of the millions of US citizens.

Recently, you had two presidents from the same immediate family, George and George W. Then there was the prospect of Hillary following Bill.

All of your candidates come from a very small part of society, and an alarming number of them seem to be related.

This is something I'd typically associate more with a type of government that was more corrupt and less democratic.

Yes. Our government is corrupt. There is no good time to start a third party just like there's no good time to discuss guns. The Princeton Study explains this well.

[SciFiFisher]

While I'm thinking about this, perhaps this is something you can explain to me.

Last election the choices you guys had .. or maybe reached.. were Donald Trump, a moron with a TV show and a rich daddy, and the wife of a previous president. This is out of the millions of US citizens.

Recently, you had two presidents from the same immediate family, George and George W. Then there was the prospect of Hillary following Bill.

All of your candidates come from a very small part of society, and an alarming number of them seem to be related.

This is something I'd typically associate more with a type of government that was more corrupt and less democratic.

Part of the problem is that it is so expensive to get elected these days that a smaller pool of people wind up participating. To win a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives it will cost you an average cost of $1.2 million U.S. dollars. A senate seat is $6.5 million. To get elected president will run hundreds of millions. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php

With that kind of an obstacle in the way you get people like Trump who received an ungodly amount of free campaign support from the media. Why, I have no fucking clue. It totally boggled my mind that the media helped him win and then got all righteous and ethical after the fact. Except for Faux News. They are still scum.

Or the people we get presented with have worked their way up through the political systems and have become really good at fund raising. I.e. the Clintons or Obama. Obama had some tailwind support from a vast appeal to those who wanted to see a minority president too. But, it would be wrong to presume all of his oompf came from being a minority candidate. He actually did a great job of fund raising and other things.

Another factor that winds up occurring is what I call the "dynasty effect". We saw it with the Kennedy's, the Bush family, and in some small way the Clinton's. It's sort of a pseudo nobility that occurs here in the U.S. Apparently, even though we kicked out a monarchy to establish the country we still like having royal families.

And finally, to address the idea of corruption. Why, yes. We do have some of that. How big of a factor is it in winning or losing elections? It depends on who you ask and which election you consider. For example, if you look at the presidential election in 2000 you might believe that corruption played a big part. Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush won the electoral college vote. But, in a little state called Florida there was the allegation of voting chicanery and democratic votes that were not counted. A Florida state election official who certified the vote counts were valid and proper was also the Republican Chair for the Florida State Republican Party Election Committee to elect Bush for president. She swore she had no conflict of interest and that it was perfectly legal for her to make a decision about the very contentious election results.

There is certainly some evidence to support the claim that Gore would have won the presidential election if ALL of the democrat voters had been counted properly.

Another interesting example of possible chicanery occurs in the 2008 primary elections. Again, Florida, decides to try to be a more decisive factor in the elections and changes their primary date to an earlier date. Rumor has it they are tired of Iowa always getting the attention. The Democratic National Committee rules that the primary votes for Clinton aren't valid because Florida violated party rules about the primary dates. The delegates from Florida who would have cast their votes for Clinton weren't allowed to do so.

Some folks saw that as a maneuver by the powerful men in the DNC and the Democratic party to steal the nomination from Clinton and give it to Obama.

One thing we do know about U.S. politics is that it has always been a very personal and emotional event in the U.S.

[squ1d]

Thank you for that articulate response

[geonuc]

Yes, as politicians go, Reagan was an honorable man. I, and many like-minded folk, simply disagreed with his policies.

I'm gonna just put this out there.

To me, if I look at what I know (as limited as that may be) about the history of the US, Ronald Reagan was the beginning of a disturbing trend in US politics.

A trend that involved, to various degrees of failure and success, the appointment of, amongst others, Jessie Ventura, Arnold Schwarznegger and Donald Trump.

Perhaps the Reagan administration was the start of the madness. Some would say it was Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America'. Whatever. My point was Reagan - as compared to other politicians - was honorable. I think he believed he was doing the right thing for the country, which is what I mean by honorable. I disagreed with his policies. Contrast that with the current scum in power. No way McConnell, Ryan, Pence and Trump (and Boehner and Cheney for that matter), ever have the country's interests in mind.

Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be lumped with those others. I recall being quite incredulous that California would kick a decent governor out of office and install an actor with zero political background but Arnie turned out to be not half bad (which is not the same as good). And since leaving office, he has been a shining beacon of reasonableness in today's toxic political climate.

[SciFiFisher]

Perhaps the Reagan administration was the start of the madness. Some would say it was Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America'. Whatever. My point was Reagan - as compared to other politicians - was honorable. I think he believed he was doing the right thing for the country, which is what I mean by honorable. I disagreed with his policies. Contrast that with the current scum in power. No way McConnell, Ryan, Pence and Trump (and Boehner and Cheney for that matter), ever have the country's interests in mind.

I think the point was driven home for me when Republican congress critters openly stated that their donors told them to pass the tax bill they are working on or they could stop asking them for money. They openly admitted that they work for the people who give them the most money. And hardly anyone blinked an eye or even acted surprised. It was stunning. Openly admitting influence peddling and not even being shy about it.

[grapes]

GJ you do know that people can change? They do sometimes. Hell he even called an ethics review ON HIMSELF. You don't see 45 doing that...or Roy Moore. IMO there are huge differences here. I am an advocate of finding some balance in this. Men and women BOTH need to be responsible.

Weirdly, I read the above and the below as arguing the two sides of the issue.

A friend mentioned to me today a woman complaining about people leering at her boobs. Her shirt was just shy of her nipples. What the hell is the thought process? Humans are sexual beings and it would be hard to miss those jugs even for a child (who thinks "got milk?").

Well, you did use the word "leering" instead of "glancing" or "looking". What kind of behavior do you mean by "leering"?

[Loresinger]

leering I guess is in the eye of the beholder but honestly with that shirt ANYONE would have to be blind NOT to notice her breasts. I am not asking anyone to dress like nuns - but if you don't LIKE attention of that sort, don't flaunt the assets so much.

[grapes]

The complaint you reported was about leering, not noticing. Are you thinking that she interpreted noticing as leering?

Another factor that winds up occurring is what I call the "dynasty effect". We saw it with the Kennedy's, the Bush family, and in some small way the Clinton's. It's sort of a pseudo nobility that occurs here in the U.S. Apparently, even though we kicked out a monarchy to establish the country we still like having royal families.

Interesting that you mention Al Gore in the post but don't include the Gores in the list.

Romneys could be there too, or Simpsons or Harrison's in my home state of Wyoming. The list could be endless.

[Loresinger]

her words not mine but I had a very hard time focusing on her face during that conversation simply because.... well... everything was out there and distracting. But I am female, so apparently that distraction was ok

[code monkey]

Yes, as politicians go, Reagan was an honorable man. I, and many like-minded folk, simply disagreed with his policies.

honorable men do not put flowers on the graves of Nazis.

[geonuc]

Yes, as politicians go, Reagan was an honorable man. I, and many like-minded folk, simply disagreed with his policies.

honorable men do not put flowers on the graves of Nazis.

If you're referring to the Bitburg visit, I'm a little surprised you would distill it to that retort. To say the least, it was complicated, politically and historically.

[Cyborg Girl]

I wasn't aware of the Bitburg controversy, but reading about inclines me to agree with cm.

[code monkey]

Yes, as politicians go, Reagan was an honorable man. I, and many like-minded folk, simply disagreed with his policies.

honorable men do not put flowers on the graves of Nazis.

If you're referring to the Bitburg visit, I'm a little surprised you would distill it to that retort. To say the least, it was complicated, politically and historically.

sorry to have disappointed you with my lack of subtlety and completeness. there are other things but not tonight.

[geonuc]

Surprised, not disappointed.

[squ1d]

Yes, as politicians go, Reagan was an honorable man. I, and many like-minded folk, simply disagreed with his policies.

honorable men do not put flowers on the graves of Nazis.

If you're referring to the Bitburg visit, I'm a little surprised you would distill it to that retort. To say the least, it was complicated, politically and historically.

Was it though?

[geonuc]

Yes, as politicians go, Reagan was an honorable man. I, and many like-minded folk, simply disagreed with his policies.

honorable men do not put flowers on the graves of Nazis.

If you're referring to the Bitburg visit, I'm a little surprised you would distill it to that retort. To say the least, it was complicated, politically and historically.

Was it though?

Sure it was, given the time (Cold War, pre-German reunification, etc.). And I'm not saying Reagan should or shouldn't have gone to Bitburg, just that it was complicated and shouldn't be reduced to "putting flowers on the graves of Nazis".

It also is not relevant to my point about the man. Even if you conclude that the Bitburg thing was a bad move, it says nothing about the intentions of the president with respect to trying to do the right thing. No one believes Reagan went to Bitburg because he secretly admired Nazis and wanted to honor them, or for any other nefarious reason.

I specifically brought up Reagan in this thread precisely because he was a president whose policies were adverse to my values. It would be easy to compare current GOP leaders with Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Obama, etc., if I wanted to emphasize their lack of honor. But Reagan makes my point - even though I disagreed with the man on so much, I believe he had the country's best interest at heart. Today, I look at current GOP leadership and I very much believe they do not have this country's interest at heart. They are shamelessly exploiting their positions of power to enrich their already rich supporters and to keep themselves in office, the bulk of the American people be damned. They are evil.

[Rommie]

Back to the topic at hand, Franken is making a statement tomorrow after 12 Senate Democrats have called for him to resign.

I didn't post at the time, but for what it's worth geonuc, I disagree with your assessment that it's all about the policies. Or rather, if it is, I find it a bit dumb to assume that only Franken is able to do so out of all the people in the state of Minnesota. Specifically, Minnesota has a deeply qualified progressive branch, with many people capable of carrying out those policies, so I don't see why the Democrats are terribly obliged to keep on someone who gropes women to achieve them.

[pumpkinpi]

Back to the topic at hand, Franken is making a statement tomorrow after 12 Senate Democrats have called for him to resign.

I didn't post at the time, but for what it's worth geonuc, I disagree with your assessment that it's all about the policies. Or rather, if it is, I find it a bit dumb to assume that only Franken is able to do so out of all the people in the state of Minnesota. Specifically, Minnesota has a deeply qualified progressive branch, with many people capable of carrying out those policies, so I don't see why the Democrats are terribly obliged to keep on someone who gropes women to achieve them.

I'm torn. When I first read about his statement tomorrow, I thought yes, he should resign. I'm disappointed in him, particularly because he has been a strong STEM advocate since even before his term. (Right before the picture I posted earlier in the thread, he talked about how Sputnik inspired both him and his brother.) But you are right, Rommie, we can fill his seat with a qualified candidate.

On the other hand, I would also love to hear him say, "I'll resign when our president resigns, and when Roy Moore pulls out of the race in Alabama." Sure, he'd be taking the high road by resigning, but it's not going to result in others following suit. So why let them win?

But yes, overall, I would support his resignation.

[Loresinger]

you should be his writer

I too am torn here. My gut doesn't feel yucky when I read about him. Moore makes me want to throw up repeatedly

[geonuc]

If Franken resigns, the Republicans currently destroying our country win and the rest of us lose. And by win, I mean they will have succeeded in targeting him for removal. Consider two things.

1. We know Republicans will stoop to anything to get their way, so with the current climate of outing men who abuse women, do you not think they wouldn't be thinking of ways to weaponize that climate to their own benefit?

2. The allegations against Franken started with the woman who was on the USO trip with him and who is now a GOP operative. The initial photo which was purported to be evidence of 'groping' was clearly just a gag. Perhaps one in bad taste, but a gag, not 'groping'. We have plenty of evidence that the woman was not only OK with it but was an instigator of such gaggery herself. Subsequently, we get more women alleging some pretty low level 'abuse'.

This is a political assassination of Senator Franken and I'm dismayed that Democrats are going along with it. It is more evidence that Democrats have no hope of regaining control of this country. We are truly and seriously fucked.

[Rommie]

Source?