Grotewold wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:in that context the photo, which I would still argue is out of bounds (you don't make any kind of sexual anything against someone, particularly a man against a woman, when the object of the action is ASLEEP for heaven's sake - if he were like a kid in college or below, maybe it could be written off, but he was a family man well into his 40s who should have known better), might not seem so bad. But it's a terrible look for a senator.

It being a terrible look and or inappropriate was the joke. It was entirely innocuous then and got swept up in Weinstein today.

So if I stand over you while you are asleep and your mouth happens to be open, and I pantomime dipping my scrotum in your mouth and snap a photo, and it's sent all over the place to your colleagues, it's OK because the gag is "Look at me, I'm pretending to be an asshole!"? You're arguing that somehow the gag is not at your expense, but at mine? Come on.

What if I did that to a woman?

There's a fine line between pretending to be an asshole, and just being an asshole, and it's probably best to stay well clear of the line. Particularly if you want to be a senator.

Wolfgang622 wrote:So if I stand over you while you are asleep and your mouth happens to be open, and I pantomime dipping my scrotum in your mouth and snap a photo, and it's sent all over the place to your colleagues, it's OK because the gag is "Look at me, I'm pretending to be an asshole!"? Your arguing that somehow the gag is not at your expense, but mine? Come on.

What if I did that to a woman?

There's a fine line between pretending to be an asshole, and just being an asshole, and it's probably best to stay well clear of the line. Particularly if you want to be a senator.

That's more extreme than what Franken did, and I probably wouldn't have a flak jacket on my mouth. But even still, I would not spark a public firestorm 12 years later to put you out of work

Grotewold wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:So if I stand over you while you are asleep and your mouth happens to be open, and I pantomime dipping my scrotum in your mouth and snap a photo, and it's sent all over the place to your colleagues, it's OK because the gag is "Look at me, I'm pretending to be an asshole!"? Your arguing that somehow the gag is not at your expense, but mine? Come on.

What if I did that to a woman?

There's a fine line between pretending to be an asshole, and just being an asshole, and it's probably best to stay well clear of the line. Particularly if you want to be a senator.

That's more extreme than what Franken did. But even still, I would not spark a public firestorm 12 years later to put you out of work

And that's your choice, and that may be noble. And her comments didn't put him out of work. His resignation put him out of work.

She said, in fact, that she did not want him to resign. If we take the most cynical possible view of this, as the article basically does, perhaps we could posit that her statement that she didn't want him to resign was disingenuous. Maybe her hope always was to outflank him politically and by artful manipulation of public opinion back him into a corner where his only option was to resign, but in order to effect that result she calculated it would be to her advantage not to say so out loud, at least not publicly, and in fact to say the opposite. But even in that case, it was certainly a strategic error to say she wanted the OPPOSITE of what she secretly, really wanted; if her purpose was to force his resignation or ouster by means outside the normal electoral process, her best play was to make the accusation and then make no further comment, except perhaps to accept his apology without commenting on the question of his resignation or loss of his seat by other means. But if she is as calculated as all of this would have you believe, it's reasonable to assume she would have thought through all of this herself, and reached the same conclusions. Which is to say: the fact that she said she wasn't looking to force him to resign is probably a statement of her actual intent at that time - that she was not seeking his resignation, or looking to force him out of the senate by non-electoral means.

By saying she didn't want him to resign, she essentially provided him with a defense, however meager, that would have likely preserved his job had he decided to go the distance in an official investigation: the victim of his behavior stating outright that she does not seek the remedy of his removal from office would be a powerful piece of evidence in the prevention of that very outcome.

This is to say if he'd gone the distance he probably could have stuck it out, at least until he faced the voters. And then they would re-elect him or not based on whatever they were concerned about, be it to do with that one incident or something else, and if he'd been re-elected, that would have been the end of it, no matter how much else came to light about the incident. See Kennedy, Edward.

Wolfgang622 wrote:And her comments didn't put him out of work. His resignation put him out of work.

That's a massive cop out

Due process in the court of law is different from due process for your seat, that you willingly rescinded, as a United States Senator. Yes, it was under duress, and yes maybe he would not have made the same decision today. But at the time that it happened, the fact that there was photographic 'evidence' of some level of misconduct, and a few other accusations trickling out then it is not surprising he gave up his seat.

JUburton wrote:Due process in the court of law is different from due process for your seat, that you willingly rescinded, as a United States Senator. Yes, it was under duress, and yes maybe he would not have made the same decision today. But at the time that it happened, the fact that there was photographic 'evidence' of some level of misconduct, and a few other accusations trickling out then it is not surprising he gave up his seat.

I'm saying there shouldn't have been such a fast and loud public shaming. Not that he was wronged from a legal standpoint.

think you guys are pretty naive if you think he willingly resigned.

Grotewold wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:And her comments didn't put him out of work. His resignation put him out of work.

That's a massive cop out

I don't think so.

CalvinBall wrote:think you guys are pretty naive if you think he willingly resigned.

Define "willingly." I'm sure he got hundreds of phone calls, threats of donors refusing to donate, threats of a primary challenge, the works.

But no one could actually MAKE him resign.

im sure the party and leadership told him privately to gtfo.

just such a weird technicality that a lot of you keep bringing up-- like well he could have just have dug in his heels in the face of immense pressure for his colleagues and many many others. no one held a gun to his head! completely ignores everything else imo.

CNN reporting that Trump wants Coats out, and met with good old David Nunez to talk candidates.

I do hold athletes, politicians, and other public figures to a higher moral standard than the guy/girl next door.

But I believe in context in judging a lot of this stuff. Wolfy, you made a false equivalence back there with your panotime. You see, you're not a professional entertainer who has made a career of playing a character who is obtusely unaware. When people see a picture of you doing that, they have no idea who you are. With Franken, it's a well-entrenched character that mostly everyone is aware of.

And if we're being honest here, I think a lot of his colleagues call for his resignation was theater to portray a 'holier than though' take as opposed to their colleagues who turned a blind eye at Trump's misogynistic idiocy.

And until just now I had no idea that the accuser was a conservative mouthpiece. Oh, that's right, conservatives are well known for playing above the board. Never mind.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:think you guys are pretty naive if you think he willingly resigned.

Define "willingly." I'm sure he got hundreds of phone calls, threats of donors refusing to donate, threats of a primary challenge, the works.

But no one could actually MAKE him resign.

Right. He wasn't expelled or on the brink of being expelled. He could have played for time, said he would respect the findings of the Ethics Committee (which itself is a dodge, but sounds fine), and hoped things died down. He chose to resign, not happily, but willingly.

Northam and Fairfax are both still governor and lt. governor of Virginia. Both faced more unanimity/pressure to resign, and they just stuck their middle finger up at the party actors asking them to leave.

Bucky wrote:But I believe in context in judging a lot of this stuff. Wolfy, you made a false equivalence back there with your panotime. You see, you're not a professional entertainer who has made a career of playing a character who is obtusely unaware. When people see a picture of you doing that, they have no idea who you are. With Franken, it's a well-entrenched character that mostly everyone is aware of.

It is?

Al Franken's Stewart (Stuart?) Smalley is a well-entrenched character. For people who lived through the late 80s and early 90s anyway.

I never heard of the Al Franken "character" who is a fake asshole who doesn't know not to try to grab at sleeping women until I saw this photograph, I don't know about the rest of you.

And even if your argument is, "Well, it was well-known among the producers and perhaps even audience of/at USO shows," he STILL involuntary involved a sleeping woman who was on the tour for the first and only time as I understand it, during a moment that was not part of any show.

He resigned. His choice. Wise choice. Now he's got buyer's remorse.

Go back to comedy writing, or fuck it, run again. Let the voters decide. Nixon did it, Roy Moore is doing it FFS, so can he. But the "oh woe is him" bit is beneath contempt IMHO.

You could definitely lose a teaching job for what Franken did.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:think you guys are pretty naive if you think he willingly resigned.

Define "willingly." I'm sure he got hundreds of phone calls, threats of donors refusing to donate, threats of a primary challenge, the works.

But no one could actually MAKE him resign.

Right. He wasn't expelled or on the brink of being expelled. He could have played for time, said he would respect the findings of the Ethics Committee (which itself is a dodge, but sounds fine), and hoped things died down. He chose to resign, not happily, but willingly.

Northam and Fairfax are both still governor and lt. governor of Virginia. Both faced more unanimity/pressure to resign, and they just stuck their middle finger up at the party actors asking them to leave.

re: northam

there wasnt a hashtag in regard to his offense

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:think you guys are pretty naive if you think he willingly resigned.

Define "willingly." I'm sure he got hundreds of phone calls, threats of donors refusing to donate, threats of a primary challenge, the works.

But no one could actually MAKE him resign.

Northam and Fairfax are both still governor and lt. governor of Virginia. Both faced more unanimity/pressure to resign, and they just stuck their middle finger up at the party actors asking them to leave.

Yep, weather a couple of days, or god forbid, weeks and you leave the news cycle. Fairfax has faced multiple fairly credible sexual assault/rape allegations and he won't leave until the voters make him.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... MzQwMDk3S0

And here is the great great great grandparent of why women (generally) do not report or go through an investigation or get to trial. Even in the most heinous of cases they are often dismissed, not fully believed, belittled along the way. It's a daunting, frightening reliving of the worst moments of your life with the people that are supposed to help you often not even doing the basic work to help bring your case to justice. If this happens in the worst of rape cases, why would anyone want to bring just about any allegation forward, especially publicly?

JUburton wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/an-epidemic-of-disbelief/592807/?utm_source=promotional-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=subscriptions-expires&utm_content=20190723&utm_term=august-19&silverid-ref=MzEwMTU3MzQwMDk3S0

And here is the great great great grandparent of why women (generally) do not report or go through an investigation or get to trial. Even in the most heinous of cases they are often dismissed, not fully believed, belittled along the way. It's a daunting, frightening reliving of the worst moments of your life with the people that are supposed to help you often not even doing the basic work to help bring your case to justice. If this happens in the worst of rape cases, why would anyone want to bring just about any allegation forward, especially publicly?

I take this very seriously, and I saw how the justice system can grind up victims and families back in the day as a crime reporter.

But the response can't be to just accept and move forward with every accusation as quickly and loudly as possible. The public and peer pressure on Franken was absurd, and the pivot now from "he should re-sign!!" to "he didn't need to re-sign!!" telling.

Oh I'm not pointing that at anyone in particular except maybe Brantt who is like 'anonymous accusers are all fake money grubbers Joe Pa did nothing wrong!'