Political Randomness

[El Guapo]

Seems like a timely moment to post Jonathan Chait's column from yesterday, What Would Democrats Do If Their Senate Majority Hinged on a Child Molester?

Sort of a defense of Republicans being willing to vote for Moore after the allegations. Not that the Franken allegations thus far are anywhere near what Moore is accused of, but it's entirely possible that a democratic senator may wind up being accused of Moore-ian things before 2018.

[Captain Caveman]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/931215736927899648

This new statement by Franken is a lot better.

[El Guapo]

Light on the kissing part, which is the more troubling part for me. I assume from the "I remember it differently" part that he wouldn't deny kissing her (as I would *assume* that he would say that if it were so), but that he remembers the kiss or kiss practicing being consensual.

The statement is better, though.

[Captain Caveman]

It is amazing how Trump has kind of skirted on the allegations against him. Is it because they occurred prior to the election when the cultural shift on this issue had fully happened yet? I mean, not only are there many, many allegations against him, and not only is he on record saying he does it, but he even has the creepy under-aged girl component too: walking in on Ms. Teen USA dressing rooms while girls were undressed and telling 14 year-olds he was going to date them when they were older.

Sometimes I think he skates because everyone acknowledges that he's a garbage human being, and with low expectations come lower consequences. Or maybe it's just his position of power that inoculates him, but it's amazing that the spotlight hasn't turned brightly on him again. It's probably why he's hanging low and not commenting on the Moore situation.

[pr0ner]

At least one Democrat is circling the wagons around Franken.

[GreenGoo]

It's a good statement, but does it change anything? Does the victim feel he's sincere? Does it matter to her? If she forgives him, should we? Does her opinion matter with the facts at hand?

Waiting to hear from other victims.

[Skinypupy]

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/931215736927899648

This new statement by Franken is a lot better.

That's an excellent response, especially compared to what we've seen from others in similar situations.

[Captain Caveman]

Not sure what purpose an investigation serves when someone cops to the alleged actions. Unless of course there's more out there about Franken, in which case he should preemptively step down before this gets even uglier.

Edit: I guess an "investigation" now is a nice dodge to prevent, or at least delay, any actual action being taken now. McConnell asking for an investigation saves Franken from having to decide whether or not to step down.

[Skinypupy]

I actually can't tell which side you come down on, skiny. Mind clarifying?

My question is legit. Trying to learn here, since my view seems to be wildly different from many.

Which is frustrating, since I grew up in an incredibly PC environment, with an education system that spent many hours on harassment and sexual harassment, and I don't think I've got a misogynist bone in my body.

To find out what I was taught is not nearly sensitive enough seems...surreal.

Edit: oh, an equality. Enormous amount of time spent on equality.

Sorry, should have clarified. Grabbing someones breasts without their consent is assault (at worst) and harassment (at best), regardless of what they happened to be wearing at the time.

[pr0ner]

It is amazing how Trump has kind of skirted on the allegations against him. Is it because they occurred prior to the election when the cultural shift on this issue had fully happened yet? I mean, not only are there many, many allegations against him, and not only is he on record saying he does it, but he even has the creepy under-aged girl component too: walking in on Ms. Teen USA dressing rooms while girls were undressed and telling 14 year-olds he was going to date them when they were older.

Sometimes I think he skates because everyone acknowledges that he's a garbage human being, and with low expectations come lower consequences. Or maybe it's just his position of power that inoculates him, but it's amazing that the spotlight hasn't turned brightly on him again. It's probably why he's hanging low and not commenting on the Moore situation.

This should answer a lot of your post.

[Captain Caveman]

That's fucked up, and just what Trump's incessant cries of "fake news" is designed to accomplish. Inoculation from accountability.

[GreenGoo]

It is amazing how Trump has kind of skirted on the allegations against him. Is it because they occurred prior to the election when the cultural shift on this issue had fully happened yet?

I think he skates for several reasons.

First, because his flaws were all common knowledge beforehand, yet the American people made him the POTUS. Clearly enough people didn't believe, chose to ignore or didn't care enough about the facts, so why start now.

Second, he's the POTUS. People are in unfamiliar territory. Decades of "respect the office" have left people floundering with how to deal with a truly terrible president, not just one that the other side hates.

[GreenGoo]

Sorry, should have clarified. Grabbing someones breasts without their consent is assault (at worst) and harassment (at best), regardless of what they happened to be wearing at the time.

No, I'm sure most people understood you.

And while I agree with your statement about attire not mattering, I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask you how you grab someone's breasts if there is a piece of steel between you and said breasts? Is this intent driven assault? Is it the general area of the body that matters, and less about actual contact?

You clearly feel strongly about this, and while I agree in theory, there are practical matters that may or may not change the math on the whole thing.

[pr0ner]

That's fucked up, and just what Trump's incessant cries of "fake news" is designed to accomplish. Inoculation from accountability.

Yep.

It's bad enough that when Shep Smith trashed the Uranium One stuff earlier this week, people were calling for him to resign because he dared to report the truth on Fox News airwaves.

[Skinypupy]

From a legal perspective, I have no idea what sort of barrier would invalidate a grope.

From a practical perspective, it seems to me that groping a woman's chest (like Franken appeared to be doing) would fall under one of those categories no matter what. Maybe a suit of armor would move it from assault to harassment...I don't know.

Regardless, it's wildly inappropriate (at best) in any non-consensual context.

[GreenGoo]

That's fucked up, and just what Trump's incessant cries of "fake news" is designed to accomplish. Inoculation from accountability.

Yep.

It's bad enough that when Shep Smith trashed the Uranium One stuff earlier this week, people were calling for him to resign because he dared to report the truth on Fox News airwaves.

I saw that. I felt terrible for him. Yet this is a mess of fox's own making. It's frustrating.

[The Meal]

As near as I could figure it'd take something like a Halloween costume (think cardboard box robot) to invalidate the assault implication. A suit of platemail fails for me, as the victim's personal space is clearly threatened by the presence of someone's hands. YMMV (as would the line for many possible victims, I'm sure).

[GreenGoo]

From a legal perspective, I have no idea what sort of barrier would invalidate a grope.

From a practical perspective, it seems to me that groping a woman's chest (like Franken appeared to be doing) would fall under one of those categories no matter what. Maybe a suit of armor would move it from assault to harassment...I don't know.

Regardless, it's wildly inappropriate (at best) in any non-consensual context.

I'm not really asking for a legal ruling. You said what a woman was wearing shouldn't matter right after I asked about platemail.

For you personally, is there anything a person can wear that would prevent her from being groped?

I think we agree that Frankens pic was wildly inappropriate.

I'm now asking if it's possible to grope a woman wearing an attack dog trainers suit? A hazmat suit? Platemail? Riot gear? A thick sweater? A bikini? Where's the line, if there even is one?

I totally get a zero tolerance outlook, I'm just concerned that this leads to some absurd outcomes. We already see this problem with zero tolerance school policies.

[GreenGoo]

As near as I could figure it'd take something like a Halloween costume (think cardboard box robot) to invalidate the assault implication. A suit of platemail fails for me, as the victim's personal space is clearly threatened by the presence of someone's hands. YMMV (as would the line for many possible victims, I'm sure).

Thanks for answering.

If I understand you correctly, sexual assault only requires a person to feel their personal space is threatened, yes?

That seems counter-intuitive to me. Is there anything like this for regular assault? I have no idea but I assumed contact would have to be made. Is this how the law works or how you'd like to see it work?

Maybe platemail would turn what would otherwise be sexual assault into regular assault when physical contact occurs?

[GreenGoo]

There are degrees of physical assault, so I assume there is for sexual assault as well.

My mother was a fastball umpire. Her chest protector was 3 inches of solid foam. The idea that she could have been sexually assaulted by someone touching her protector seems...crazy.

Is sexual assault based on how a person responds to it? If so, do we have any other laws that are based so strongly about how someone feels?

Reading Mr. Fed, I've really come around to his principled approach to free speech. Well, this is the US's approach, not just his. He specifically argues against rulings based on someone's feelings. Does that idea translate to other areas of law? Lots of countries have laws that are essentially protecting someone's feelings. Fed argues this is a bad idea.

[Zarathud]

How about that Whataboutism? The Republican propaganda machine is grasping at straws.

Minnesota voters will one day judge Sen. Franken on his conduct.

Moore is still essentially a pedophile up for election to the Senate. Alabama voters should reject him.

[PLW]

How about that Whataboutism? The Republican propaganda machine is grasping at straws.

Minnesota voters will one day judge Sen. Franken on his conduct.

Moore is still essentially a pedophile up for election to the Senate. Alabama voters should reject him.

I agree with this. Neither should resign/withdraw. We have a system for selecting Senators and for expelling them. Let's use it.

[GreenGoo]

There's a difference between selecting or not selecting someone based on their policies versus having to wait for the next election cycle to get rid of someone who has victimized others and brought shame on themselves and the office.

[Holman]

If she were wearing platemail, would that change anything? Honest question.

Seriously. I've read multiple comments this morning claiming it's "impossible" to be groped while wearing body armor. Really? Really??

I'm curious (because I've been looking): have you seen any recognizable pundits or public figures defending Franken, or is it just anonymous internet denizens?

I've been pleased to see an immediate and unqualified consensus among Dems and liberal commentators against Franken's behavior. There's no attempt to disguise it or play whataboutism except to add that others (like the POTUS) should *also* be held accountable.

[Moliere]

I'm curious (because I've been looking): have you seen any recognizable pundits or public figures defending Franken, or is it just anonymous internet denizens?

This tweet seems to have disappeared. Anyone remember what it said?

At least one Democrat is circling the wagons around Franken.

[Skinypupy]

I'm not really asking for a legal ruling. You said what a woman was wearing shouldn't matter right after I asked about platemail.

For you personally, is there anything a person can wear that would prevent her from being groped?

Nothing comes to mind. If you're reaching up to "honk someone's boobs" in a work setting (like Franken did in this situation), I don't see how the attire would matter. It's the action that matters, not the degree to which the receiver did or didn't feel it.

Let's reverse the scenario. You're wearing a cup at the office (for some reason) and your boss walks up and randomly grabs your your junk. I'm guessing you'd take issue with that, even though it's unlikely you felt it much.

I totally get a zero tolerance outlook, I'm just concerned that this leads to some absurd outcomes. We already see this problem with zero tolerance school policies.

When it comes to groping women's genitals without consent? Yes, I think there should be a pretty clear zero tolerance policy. Why wouldn't there be?

It gets far murkier when determining what the consequence should be (legal or otherwise), but there should absolutely be no tolerance for the act itself. Just my opinion...

[GreenGoo]

I saw some angry repubs shouting if Moore has to step aside, Franken should have to, too. This was before it blew up completely, so there hadn't been time for anyone to respond at that point.

Another honest question. Are the two equivalent? Equivalent can mean whatever you want it to mean. Under the law, in your eyes, in the political system's eyes, in the nation's eyes, in the victim's eyes. Whatever. Just clarify which, if you respond, please.

[Skinypupy]

If she were wearing platemail, would that change anything? Honest question.

Seriously. I've read multiple comments this morning claiming it's "impossible" to be groped while wearing body armor. Really? Really??

I'm curious (because I've been looking): have you seen any recognizable pundits or public figures defending Franken, or is it just anonymous internet denizens?

No, just random social media and website commentary.

[Moliere]

A pattern of groping boobs?

[pr0ner]

I'm curious (because I've been looking): have you seen any recognizable pundits or public figures defending Franken, or is it just anonymous internet denizens?

This tweet seems to have disappeared. Anyone remember what it said?

It was a comment that Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island made that appeared to be a defense of Franken's actions. It was made before he was actually asked about the Franken issue, hence the reporter deleting her tweet.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not really asking for a legal ruling. You said what a woman was wearing shouldn't matter right after I asked about platemail.

For you personally, is there anything a person can wear that would prevent her from being groped?

Nothing comes to mind. If you're reaching up to "honk someone's boobs" in a work setting (like Franken did in this situation), I don't see how the attire would matter. It's the action that matters, not the degree to which the receiver did or didn't feel it.

Let's reverse the scenario. You're wearing a cup at the office (for some reason) and your boss walks up and randomly grabs your your junk. I'm guessing you'd take issue with that, even though it's unlikely you felt it much.

I totally get a zero tolerance outlook, I'm just concerned that this leads to some absurd outcomes. We already see this problem with zero tolerance school policies.

When it comes to groping women's genitals without consent? Yes, I think there should be a pretty clear zero tolerance policy. Why wouldn't there be?

It gets far murkier when determining what the consequence should be (legal or otherwise), but there should absolutely be no tolerance for the act itself. Just my opinion...

Ok, thanks for your responses Skiny. I think you (and many others) have a firm grasp on the term "grope women's genitals" so it's very clear for you, but when you say that when combined with your attire comment, I can't help but think of scenarios where a victim would not know they had been assaulted if their eyes were closed, or they were looking the other way. That seems counter to the term assault. Obviously in every day clothing, there is nothing to question, although even there, some heavy winter coats might change things a bit (note I said "some", not all. I also said "might").

As for me and a cup, I think you're right. Would I feel the same with a codpiece? Maybe. I'm not sure to be honest. If he grabbed my ass while I was in body armour? How would I even know? So even if I witnessed it, probably not. If he got behind me, grabbed my hips and started making hip pumping motions? That's pretty clearly assault to me. If he got behind me and did the same thing without touching me? That seems like harassment.

I should note that both sexual harassment and assault are illegal. Presumably the penalty is significantly different, but I don't know that for a fact.

Thanks for your honest input. I appreciate it.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

A pattern of groping boobs?

The story linked above has nothing to do with sexual harassment/assault. Apparently both were on Bill Maher, she made some comment about budget numbers that Franken disagreed with, and then he called her at home a few times to argue the numbers. Weird and aggressive, but not sexual in any way.

[GreenGoo]

Good lord. This is going to be the death of me. At what point does calling someone become harassment? Obviously if she said stop calling me, that makes it easier. What if she doesn't? 20 calls a day seems extreme. How about 1 call a week? 6 calls a month?

And to be clear, if she said "Listen, I don't want to talk to you, stop calling me" and he kept calling, I have no problem calling that harassment.


Full disclosure, I like Franken (no surprise for those that assumed based on my posts), but also full disclosure, chances are I'd be asking the exact same questions no matter who it was, as long as it wasn't someone I already had a hate on for.

Given Drumpf's past, and my feelings about him, I would have already burned him in effigy if it had been him, for example.

[Skinypupy]

Another honest question. Are the two equivalent? Equivalent can mean whatever you want it to mean. Under the law, in your eyes, in the political system's eyes, in the nation's eyes, in the victim's eyes. Whatever. Just clarify which, if you respond, please.

Well, Franken hasn't been accused of sexually assaulting a minor. That's sort of a league all it's own in terms of awfulness.

[GreenGoo]

MediaEqualizer was extremely uncomfortable for me, based on what I was reading. Mostly because everything was heavily spun. When JamesWoods is on board, it's time to rethink the source.

For example, it has retweets of Hannity asking Keurig why they listened to such a "bad person" when they decided to withdraw their advertising from his show. With absolutely NO irony whatsoever.

I'll wait for it to hit more mainstream sources, thanks. Which is not to say I think it's false, I just want to hear the facts, if possible. Not what the facts are supposed to make me think.

[Pyperkub]

Another honest question. Are the two equivalent? Equivalent can mean whatever you want it to mean. Under the law, in your eyes, in the political system's eyes, in the nation's eyes, in the victim's eyes. Whatever. Just clarify which, if you respond, please.

Well, Franken hasn't been accused of sexually assaulting a minor. That's sort of a league all it's own in terms of awfulness.

Franken also doesn't/didn't campaign on being a christian saint, though he did campaign on women's rights. I think the hypocrisy is a bit less. Franken is also willing to call out his own behavior and issue a mea culpa.

What he did was obviously rather fucked up, but (as yet) doesn't appear to be a pattern, and (if a pattern doesn't emerge), can conceivably be addressed with a phone call and apology.

I don't think he's anywhere in the same ballpark as Moore (groping underage girls who he took the clothes off, is a bit different from a tasteless joke photo with an adult who probably could have kicked his ass), but still should never have been put in the position where she wishes she had.

[Rip]

Another honest question. Are the two equivalent? Equivalent can mean whatever you want it to mean. Under the law, in your eyes, in the political system's eyes, in the nation's eyes, in the victim's eyes. Whatever. Just clarify which, if you respond, please.

Well, Franken hasn't been accused of sexually assaulting a minor. That's sort of a league all it's own in terms of awfulness.

Franken also doesn't/didn't campaign on being a christian saint, though he did campaign on women's rights. I think the hypocrisy is a bit less. Franken is also willing to call out his own behavior and issue a mea culpa.

What he did was obviously rather fucked up, but (as yet) doesn't appear to be a pattern, and (if a pattern doesn't emerge), can conceivably be addressed with a phone call and apology.

I don't think he's anywhere in the same ballpark as Moore (groping underage girls who he took the clothes off, is a bit different from a tasteless joke photo with an adult who probably could have kicked his ass), but still should never have been put in the position where she wishes she had.

You forgot to mention that one admits to the behavior and the other denies it ever happened.

I am looking forward to what is found out about this yearbook thing. Seems strange that Allred didn't jump all over having it examined by an expert.

So what happens if it turns out to be fake?

[Holman]

Franken also doesn't/didn't campaign on being a christian saint, though he did campaign on women's rights. I think the hypocrisy is a bit less. Franken is also willing to call out his own behavior and issue a mea culpa.

One major difference here is that Franken is blaming himself while Moore and Trump and others blame the accusers.

[Holman]

So what happens if it turns out to be fake?

Suppose it did. (It won't.) Would it invalidate all of the other accusations, none of which Allred had anything to do with?

[Pyperkub]

Another honest question. Are the two equivalent? Equivalent can mean whatever you want it to mean. Under the law, in your eyes, in the political system's eyes, in the nation's eyes, in the victim's eyes. Whatever. Just clarify which, if you respond, please.

Well, Franken hasn't been accused of sexually assaulting a minor. That's sort of a league all it's own in terms of awfulness.

Franken also doesn't/didn't campaign on being a christian saint, though he did campaign on women's rights. I think the hypocrisy is a bit less. Franken is also willing to call out his own behavior and issue a mea culpa.

What he did was obviously rather fucked up, but (as yet) doesn't appear to be a pattern, and (if a pattern doesn't emerge), can conceivably be addressed with a phone call and apology.

I don't think he's anywhere in the same ballpark as Moore (groping underage girls who he took the clothes off, is a bit different from a tasteless joke photo with an adult who probably could have kicked his ass), but still should never have been put in the position where she wishes she had.

You forgot to mention that one admits to the behavior and the other denies it ever happened.

I am looking forward to what is found out about this yearbook thing. Seems strange that Allred didn't jump all over having it examined by an expert.

So what happens if it turns out to be fake?

That's what I meant when I said mea culpa, but it's rather obvious it was him in the photo .

As to Moore, let's throw out the yearbook case. Everything else still paints a damning picture (especially the banning from the mall in the 80's).

I guess the other thing is that Franken isn't even pretending it's a conspiracy to get him. He's trying to have an honest dialog about it, and his behavior and how to address it in the future. He's not being counterproductive and spreading FUD designed to deceive people.