Democrats Missed A Chance To Draw A Line In The Sand On Sexual Misconduct with Franken

[lurchadams]

No one's going to be under oath. Moore is going to lose the election and we'l never hear anything else about it.

I would not bet on Moore losing the election.

 

[apdst]

I would not bet on Moore losing the election.

Jones is up by 12 points. I can't see Moore winning.

 

[lurchadams]

Jones is up by 12 points. I can't see Moore winning.

And Hillary was ahead in the polls before the 2016 election. Some people lie when being polled, IMO.

 

[apdst]

And Hillary was ahead in the polls before the 2016 election. Some people lie when being polled, IMO.

Why weren't they lying a month ago when Jones was down 11 points?

 

[Absentglare]

From 538's Nate Silver:




He describes how the Democrats wouldn't have lost a seat (the Governor who would appoint a replacement is a Dem, the seat is likely to go to a Dem in a special election), but then, I think, really hits on something:




Ah.

I don't really get the title. They got a chance to draw a line on the sand, and they put Franken on one side of it.

Another way of looking at this is that they don't want every democratic candidate to have their character immediately assassinated in response to a single allegation of groping.

Republicans drew a line in the sand, too, it's just a more partisan, double standard line.

 

[cpwill]

I don't really get the title. They got a chance to draw a line on the sand, and they put Franken on one side of it.

Another way of looking at this is that they don't want every democratic candidate to have their character immediately assassinated in response to a single allegation of groping.

Republicans drew a line in the sand, too, it's just a more partisan, double standard line.

Four accusations. And counting. I don't see Democrats being any less historical as Republicans, here, except that at least the national GOP is rejecting Moore, while the national DNC is protecting Franken and Conyers.

 

[lurchadams]

Why weren't they lying a month ago when Jones was down 11 points?

Because they weren't yet certain Moore was a pedophile.

 

[Perotista]

From 538's Nate Silver:




He describes how the Democrats wouldn't have lost a seat (the Governor who would appoint a replacement is a Dem, the seat is likely to go to a Dem in a special election), but then, I think, really hits on something:




Ah.

It seems Nate Silver hits the nail right on the head.

 

[eohrnberger]

Multiple women have now come forward to say that Franken sexually harassed or groped them.

Democrats reacted (appropriately) to Moore being discovered to be a sexual predator by declaring him unfit to hold the office. Their immediate pivot to "well, you have to think of the greater good, etc." once it was Franken and Conyers in the hot seat, however, demonstrates they didn't actually care about abuse of women; they just wanted partisan advantage. That's why discussion of the two is often paired.

We could have had a real house-cleaning, had Democratic leadership decided to put their money where their mouth is. Instead, we now have the precedent that once you are already in Congress, you're protected; and the GOP will absolutely use the same standard to protect their own abusers. So instead of turning on the predators, we're going to double down on going after the women. Well done, everyone. (Slow Clap)

Indeed. Part and parcel of the problem with the political elite embedded and protecting each other, regardless of party, in the congress such as they are. It's really quite disgusting, and puts more credence and possibly support for congressional term limits. Public service isn't supposed to be a long term / permanent career choice, else it becomes, what we have, which is self service at the public's expense.

 

[eohrnberger]

When was the last time the Ethics Committee took actual action that cost a member something?

Franken didn't want to lose his seat, so he kicked it to Ethics. Indicating he was confident they would protect his position.

Statistically that's zero times out of a great many. The congressional Ethics Committees are little more than a red herring, to make a show, and little else of consequence, based on their history. An appeasement joke for the electorate and little else.

 

[Absentglare]

Four accusations. And counting. I don't see Democrats being any less historical as Republicans, here, except that at least the national GOP is rejecting Moore, while the national DNC is protecting Franken and Conyers.

Are all accusations equal in your eyes...?

 

[cpwill]

Statistically that's zero times out of a great many. The congressional Ethics Committees are little more than a red herring, to make a show, and little else of consequence, based on their history. An appeasement joke for the electorate and little else.

As I recall Charlie Rangel's "big punishment" for fraud and tax evasion was an official note in the record that That Was Not Very Nice, followed by a standing ovation.

 

[cpwill]

Are all accusations equal in your eyes...?

If you have multiple, credible accounts, then you have multiple credible accounts. Franken, for his part, admits it, but in a kind of I'm-sorry-you-responded-that-way method of putting the on us back on the victim, which paired neatly by his non-denial of ass-grabbing, based on his inability to remember that particular incident (which begs the question; how regularly was this an occurrence that you can't remember).

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Trump, the LEADER of the GOP basically endorsed Moore. Trump seldom if ever takes the high moral ground.

Yet the same people who excuse TRUMP AND MOORE now want the Dems to take the high ground?

F' that. Clean your own house and criticize the current leader of the GOP, then you can point fingers. Until then? No deal.

 

[eohrnberger]

As I recall Charlie Rangel's "big punishment" for fraud and tax evasion was an official note in the record that That Was Not Very Nice, followed by a standing ovation.

Funny, these Democrats in congress, standing ovations for their own when caught doing 'bad' things. I recall the standing ovation Bill Clinton got after his short speech at the White House after the house impeached him. Makes one wonder what sort of morals and ethics these characters have, if any at all; whom they represent and whom keeps voting them into office.

 

[cpwill]

Trump, the LEADER of the GOP basically endorsed Moore. Trump seldom if ever takes the high moral ground.

Yet the same people who excuse TRUMP AND MOORE now want the Dems to take the high ground?

F' that. Clean your own house and criticize the current leader of the GOP, then you can point fingers. Until then? No deal.

The RNC and NRSC have washed their hands of Moore. Senior Republican Senators have called for him to bow out, and threatened to refuse to seat him, should he win. Where have Democrats done likewise?


But congratulations. You've picked up on the exact logic used by the Trump fans whenever I brought up his many (many) moral failings, to whit: Why should we do the right thing when others refuse to do so?

We'll, maybe because it's the right thing to do? Moore doesn't excuse Frankin or Conyers any more than Clinton excuses Moore.

See, if you have moral principles (like, "abuse of women is unacceptable, and disqualifying for office") only up until they might prove a short-term partisan disadvantage, then you don't really have moral principles. You have preferences.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

The RNC and NRSC have washed their hands of Moore. Senior Republican Senators have called for him to bow out, and threatened to refuse to seat him, should he win. Where have Democrats done likewise?


But congratulations. You've picked up on the exact logic used by the Trump fans whenever I brought up his many (many) moral failings, to whit: Why should we do the right thing when others refuse to do so?

We'll, maybe because it's the right thing to do? Moore doesn't excuse Frankin or Conyers any more than Clinton excuses Moore.

See, if you have moral principles (like, "abuse of women is unacceptable, and disqualifying for office") only up until they might prove a short-term partisan disadvantage, then you don't really have moral principles. You have preferences.

There's different levels. A man in power who trolls for 13-14 YO girls in Malls is on a whole new level of disgusting. AND the LEADER of the GOP did NOT wash his hands of Moore, he endorsed him. And Moore will probably win in Alabama because in Ala. electing a pedophile is better than electing a Dem. So I don't want to hear about the DNC, or anyone. When you are dealing with people who are that vile, and vicious, and have no morals I really don't want to hear about the other side 'taking the high road' anymore. Bannon, another leader in the GOP called it a 'war'. In a war you have to be just as mean and fight just as dirty as the other side. And Bannon and Trump are about as dirty and vile as you can get.

You are right, I am using the same logic because it works for the Trumpsters, and the Alt right, so I'm all for fighting fire with fire. 2 years ago I would have screamed for ALL of them to GTFO, or get thrown out. Now? After YEARS of the GOP winking and allowing the lies and propaganda about Obama and any Dem from their allies in the Con media. And now Trump? A man who lies daily? Who attacks POW's, and Gold Star families? Makes fun of the Handicapped? With NO consequences? There's hardly as peep about Trump from the same GOP that you want to pat on the back because of Moore? Nope! All bets are off.

 

[apdst]

Because they weren't yet certain Moore was a pedophile.

But you said they're probably lying on the poll. What's it going to be?

 

[Absentglare]

If you have multiple, credible accounts, then you have multiple credible accounts. Franken, for his part, admits it, but in a kind of I'm-sorry-you-responded-that-way method of putting the on us back on the victim, which paired neatly by his non-denial of ass-grabbing, based on his inability to remember that particular incident (which begs the question; how regularly was this an occurrence that you can't remember).

I didn't deny anything. My argument is that not all accusations are equivalent. Your desire to disagree with that is a partisan oversimplification.

 

[cpwill]

I didn't deny anything. My argument is that not all accusations are equivalent. Your desire to disagree with that is a partisan oversimplification.

In both cases we have credible accusations. In Franken's, he's even admitted it. So, if anything, there is somewhat more credibility the the accusations against him.

The Democrat Party should do to him what the Republican Party in Congress did to Moore, and cut ties. It seems they will not.

 

[Absentglare]

In both cases we have credible accusations. In Franken's, he's even admitted it. So, if anything, there is somewhat more credibility the the accusations against him.

The Democrat Party should do to him what the Republican Party in Congress did to Moore, and cut ties. It seems they will not.

I'm not saying that the allegations are false. I'm explaining that it's unrealistic to be expected to be infinitely responsive to any accusation.

What Moore allegedly did to underage girls is different than what Franken allegedly did to adult women. Do you agree that there are differences in severity?

 

[lurchadams]

But you said they're probably lying on the poll. What's it going to be?

Two different things could be happening at two different times, my friend. Someone could have been telling the truth before they knew Moore was a child molestor, then lying that they don't support him now that they know he is.

 

[cpwill]

I'm not saying that the allegations are false. I'm explaining that it's unrealistic to be expected to be infinitely responsive to any accusation.

Concur. That's why it's important that both are facing multiple credible accusations and, in Franken's case, an admission.

What Moore allegedly did to underage girls is different than what Franken allegedly did to adult women. Do you agree that there are differences in severity?

Sure. Moore (generally) tried to date them. He wanted consensual sexual access to underage girls. In contrast, Franken groped them; he wanted non-consensual sexual access to adult women. Between the two, Moore's is seen as worse because of the age factor, but that's not a defense of Franken, or a mitigating factor in whether or not he should be removed.

 

[Absentglare]

Concur. That's why it's important that both are facing multiple credible accusations and, in Franken's case, an admission.

So you are eager to use Franken's honesty and remorse against him. Are you sure his party is not interfering with your assessment?

Sure. Moore (generally) tried to date them. He wanted consensual sexual access to underage girls. In contrast, Franken groped them; he wanted non-consensual sexual access to adult women. Between the two, Moore's is seen as worse because of the age factor, but that's not a defense of Franken, or a mitigating factor in whether or not he should be removed.

Now you are defending Moore while also demonstrating a phenomenal degree of ignorance about this issue. 32 year old Roy Moore with a 14 year old girl allegedly "took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes ... touched her over her bra and underpants ... and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear". This sexual contact would have been a felony under Alabama law.

Now, perhaps you'll direct me to the law where members of the armed services aren't allowed to have their picture taken with a comedian as a joke, or where you're not allowed to grab someone's butt when you pose with them for a picture.

 

[cpwill]

So you are eager to use Franken's honesty and remorse against him.

If someone admits to a wrongful act, that rather makes the accusations more credible, does it not?

Are you sure his party is not interfering with your assessment?

Were that so, I'd be acting like the Democrats who want Franken and Conyers to stay, but are pretending to be horrified by Moore.

But no; I think they should all be chased out, along with anyone else who is exposed.

Now you are defending Moore

I've been arguing since the WaPo story broke that A) these accusations were probably true, and B) this should be disqualifying from the Senate. If you read that and think "he's defending Moore", because I say the same thing about Franken, well, one of us seems to be letting the party involved determine their conclusion, but it ain't me.

Now, perhaps you'll direct me to the law where members of the armed services aren't allowed to have their picture taken with a comedian as a joke...

You're not terribly spun up on this case, it seems.