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.

pacino 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.

Ask Daylin Leach or Tom Caltagirone if you can be made to resign. Jh brought up a good point about the VA gov crew.

pacino 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.

Ask Daylin Leach or Tom Caltagirone if you can be made to resign. Jh brought up a good point about the VA gov crew.

TenuredVulture wrote:So no one cares about the budget deal compromise? A few people on both sides are unhappy, (Dems don't like it because it allows Trump to keep siphoning defense money for the wall, Reps are unhappy because of spending increases) but I guess everyone else is getting in line. And, yes, it's probably dumb to keep using Redstate as my go to for insight into the RWNJ mindset, but not a word about the budget deal over there, and I'm not seeing much in the few lefty blogs I look at.

Anyway, it looks like a win for Pelosi, really, unless you believe that the Dems "win" if there is another government shut down. But what I really think has happened is that Pelosi simply took advantage of Trump's utter incompetence.

I suppose it's too much to hope for some RWNJ to start going on about how Trump caved, but that's what it looks like to me.
Found one article along those lines:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... ell-swoop/

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:So no one cares about the budget deal compromise? A few people on both sides are unhappy, (Dems don't like it because it allows Trump to keep siphoning defense money for the wall, Reps are unhappy because of spending increases) but I guess everyone else is getting in line. And, yes, it's probably dumb to keep using Redstate as my go to for insight into the RWNJ mindset, but not a word about the budget deal over there, and I'm not seeing much in the few lefty blogs I look at.

Anyway, it looks like a win for Pelosi, really, unless you believe that the Dems "win" if there is another government shut down. But what I really think has happened is that Pelosi simply took advantage of Trump's utter incompetence.

I suppose it's too much to hope for some RWNJ to start going on about how Trump caved, but that's what it looks like to me.
Found one article along those lines:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... ell-swoop/

i guess i'm wondering how it's a good thing to give the Trump administration and our defense more money except that we broke the stupid caps before the next president.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:So no one cares about the budget deal compromise? A few people on both sides are unhappy, (Dems don't like it because it allows Trump to keep siphoning defense money for the wall, Reps are unhappy because of spending increases) but I guess everyone else is getting in line. And, yes, it's probably dumb to keep using Redstate as my go to for insight into the RWNJ mindset, but not a word about the budget deal over there, and I'm not seeing much in the few lefty blogs I look at.

Anyway, it looks like a win for Pelosi, really, unless you believe that the Dems "win" if there is another government shut down. But what I really think has happened is that Pelosi simply took advantage of Trump's utter incompetence.

I suppose it's too much to hope for some RWNJ to start going on about how Trump caved, but that's what it looks like to me.
Found one article along those lines:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... ell-swoop/

i guess i'm wondering how it's a good thing to give the Trump administration and our defense more money except that we broke the stupid caps before the next president.

You do know that Congress sets the budget, right?

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Bucky wrote:what is humorous about that article

Well, for one thing, it goes on and on and on about how Tweeden’s memory is faulty and how after all she participated in bawdy sketches, the implication of which seems to be, “so it’s perfectly understandable that Franken would pretend to grab her boobs while she is asleep.” This is deeply ironic considering much of the point of #MeToo is to combat exactly those sorts of retrograde notions, that somehow if a woman, for example, consents to participate in an off-color sketch then of course she consents to be part of an off-color photograph while she sleeps. Or maybe, if we don’t want to go as far as that, that the former should somehow mitigate how we approach the latter. Kind of like a much less consequential version of the idea that some people have that a prostitute can’t be raped, or that her rape shouldn’t “count” in the same way.

It also significantly downplays what #MeToo broad to the forefront recently, the notion of “rape culture.” Frankly, the sketches that are supposed to exonerate Franken are really themselves Exhibit A of what is meant by “rape culture.” The idea that an entire sketch can be made about a man consistently making unwanted sexual advances toward a woman, and it is presented not as problematic behavior but instead something to be laughed at and about - particularly when said sketch is performed in what amounts to a professional setting (USO Shows are not unlike the equivalent of hiring a comedian to do a corporate convention) - is “rape culture” in a nut shell. The man isn’t punished or shunned for his behavior, the incident is presented as trivial and worthy of mocking laughter, all of which degrades women who experience this very unfunny behavior in real life. Presenting this type of behavior for laughs also gives license to men who know about such behavior and are in a position to do something to stop it to instead try to convince the person to whom the behavior is directed that it’s no big deal, that they should just deal with it, etc.

The photograph was in poor taste and a Franken is where he belongs: out of work as a Senator.

This is why no one believes the media. If Trump is the most racist President in American history, what does that say about all of the other Presidents who owned slaves?” Hynes posted.

Three-term State Rep. Werner Horn, R-Franklin quickly responded, “Wait, owning slaves doesn’t make you racist.”

Hynes followed up with, “I guess not. Which is surprising since everything else makes someone a racist. I have been called a racist plenty of times by Democrats.”

Horn concluded, “It shouldn’t be surprising since owning slaves wasn’t a decision predicated on race but on economics. It’s a business decision.”

During a telephone interview Wednesday, the three-term Rep. Horn said people have been enslaved by others since the beginning of time.

“Slavery later on in the American South was not about the color of the skin of the slaves but their value as workers on the plantations,” Horn said.

“The U.S. had abolitionists since the start, people who felt slavery wasn’t moral but they weren’t enslaving black people because they were black. They were bringing in these folks because they were available.”

“What they were looking at was whether they were fit enough to do the demanding work that needed to be done. It was an economic reality.”

pacino wrote:New Hampshire state rep says owning slaves had nothing to do with racism

This is why no one believes the media. If Trump is the most racist President in American history, what does that say about all of the other Presidents who owned slaves?” Hynes posted.

Three-term State Rep. Werner Horn, R-Franklin quickly responded, “Wait, owning slaves doesn’t make you racist.”

Hynes followed up with, “I guess not. Which is surprising since everything else makes someone a racist. I have been called a racist plenty of times by Democrats.”

Horn concluded, “It shouldn’t be surprising since owning slaves wasn’t a decision predicated on race but on economics. It’s a business decision.”

During a telephone interview Wednesday, the three-term Rep. Horn said people have been enslaved by others since the beginning of time.

“Slavery later on in the American South was not about the color of the skin of the slaves but their value as workers on the plantations,” Horn said.

“The U.S. had abolitionists since the start, people who felt slavery wasn’t moral but they weren’t enslaving black people because they were black. They were bringing in these folks because they were available.”

“What they were looking at was whether they were fit enough to do the demanding work that needed to be done. It was an economic reality.”

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:So no one cares about the budget deal compromise? A few people on both sides are unhappy, (Dems don't like it because it allows Trump to keep siphoning defense money for the wall, Reps are unhappy because of spending increases) but I guess everyone else is getting in line. And, yes, it's probably dumb to keep using Redstate as my go to for insight into the RWNJ mindset, but not a word about the budget deal over there, and I'm not seeing much in the few lefty blogs I look at.

Anyway, it looks like a win for Pelosi, really, unless you believe that the Dems "win" if there is another government shut down. But what I really think has happened is that Pelosi simply took advantage of Trump's utter incompetence.

I suppose it's too much to hope for some RWNJ to start going on about how Trump caved, but that's what it looks like to me.
Found one article along those lines:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news ... ell-swoop/

i guess i'm wondering how it's a good thing to give the Trump administration and our defense more money except that we broke the stupid caps before the next president.

You do know that Congress sets the budget, right?

thanks for the lesson, i never knew


Congress has worked with the President on budget matters for years and years

Werthless wrote:Forcing Franken to resign enabled Democrats to maintain the moral high ground. Let's see how good that makes you/them feel when Trump fucking Trump is reelected to the office of President and shits all over everything for another 4 years.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino 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.

Ask Daylin Leach or Tom Caltagirone if you can be made to resign. Jh brought up a good point about the VA gov crew.

Here's a point of comparison: No doubt, Menendez is "worse" in every way that Franken, both in terms of his level of corruption and in terms of his harm to the Democratic Party (and the nation as a whole.) It would be best if he resigned, even though due process (as in an actual trial) acquitted him. Still, I'd cheer if a twitter mob were able to drive him from office.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino 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.

Ask Daylin Leach or Tom Caltagirone if you can be made to resign. Jh brought up a good point about the VA gov crew.

Here's a point of comparison: No doubt, Menendez is "worse" in every way that Franken, both in terms of his level of corruption and in terms of his harm to the Democratic Party (and the nation as a whole.) It would be best if he resigned, even though due process (as in an actual trial) acquitted him. Still, I'd cheer if a twitter mob were able to drive him from office.

Franken and Menendez were different insofar as Franken had a Democratic governor to replace him and Christie was governor when Menendez was indicted. Calling for Franken's resignation was easy for Senate Democrats because they knew his replacement would be a Democrat. Replacing Menendez with a Republican, even if only for a few months til a special election could be held, would've been more painful. Scaling the path to the moral high ground happens more readily when it isn't costly.

Werthless wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Bucky wrote:what is humorous about that article

Well, for one thing, it goes on and on and on about how Tweeden’s memory is faulty and how after all she participated in bawdy sketches, the implication of which seems to be, “so it’s perfectly understandable that Franken would pretend to grab her boobs while she is asleep.” This is deeply ironic considering much of the point of #MeToo is to combat exactly those sorts of retrograde notions, that somehow if a woman, for example, consents to participate in an off-color sketch then of course she consents to be part of an off-color photograph while she sleeps. Or maybe, if we don’t want to go as far as that, that the former should somehow mitigate how we approach the latter. Kind of like a much less consequential version of the idea that some people have that a prostitute can’t be raped, or that her rape shouldn’t “count” in the same way.

It also significantly downplays what #MeToo broad to the forefront recently, the notion of “rape culture.” Frankly, the sketches that are supposed to exonerate Franken are really themselves Exhibit A of what is meant by “rape culture.” The idea that an entire sketch can be made about a man consistently making unwanted sexual advances toward a woman, and it is presented not as problematic behavior but instead something to be laughed at and about - particularly when said sketch is performed in what amounts to a professional setting (USO Shows are not unlike the equivalent of hiring a comedian to do a corporate convention) - is “rape culture” in a nut shell. The man isn’t punished or shunned for his behavior, the incident is presented as trivial and worthy of mocking laughter, all of which degrades women who experience this very unfunny behavior in real life. Presenting this type of behavior for laughs also gives license to men who know about such behavior and are in a position to do something to stop it to instead try to convince the person to whom the behavior is directed that it’s no big deal, that they should just deal with it, etc.

The photograph was in poor taste and a Franken is where he belongs: out of work as a Senator.

It's not often we disagree, but I disagree. Someone can exercise poor judgment in a comedic setting, where they are employed as a comic, and still be employable in the future. People can do far worse (commit crimes beyond making someone feel uncomfortable), serve time, and deserve a chance for future employment. People change. To this day, I still remember 2 specific instances of off-color jokes I made 20 years ago that I regret. Those jokes are not an indictment of my current character, and I learned from them.

Forcing Franken to resign enabled Democrats to maintain the moral high ground. Let's see how good that makes you/them feel when Trump fucking Trump is reelected to the office of President and shits all over everything for another 4 years.

CalvinBall wrote:My boss was on a panel with Wolfgang's opponent from the fall. Led me down a path of watching some videos of her talking. She seems completely lost.

ashton wrote:

Werthless wrote:Forcing Franken to resign enabled Democrats to maintain the moral high ground. Let's see how good that makes you/them feel when Trump fucking Trump is reelected to the office of President and shits all over everything for another 4 years.

Did forcing Franken to resign help Trump's chances of getting reelected? Please explain.