Franken gone
I guess your perspective on this depends on what you believe the problem is. If you think the problem is assault, then sure, equating Franken and Moore makes no sense. If, OTOH, you think the problem is entrenched misogyny that sees women as first and foremost objects to be acted upon by men, then Franken and Moore are just different places on the same spectrum.
How ambitious are we trying to be here? Simply trying to prevent assault, or challenging societal misogyny?
Don't know what "we" you mean. Reject any "we" that nullifies citizens' votes.
The issue with Brealer's argument is that new information came to light but Franken would not face the voters until November 2020, a long time away. Franken remains free to run in the special election in November if he so chooses to regain his seat as Adam Clayton Powell did in a far more egregious (and ultimately determined to be unconstitutional) exclusion. In any event Franken could have stayed and dared the Senate to expel him with a 2/3 vote. And had they done that, again he could have run again if he so chose.
brealer said:
edited my post to reference our fine Senator Menendez. Is he on the "ethics" committee that will be "investigating" Al Franken? Bleccccccch.
Who did he molest? How old was he/her?
conandrob240 said:
he has 7 accusers.
Now, how and whether he should have resigned is a different story. But we certainly can’t demand Republican resignations yet see Democrats resigning for the same behavior as unjust. Pure hypocrisy
Who are the accusers? He admitted the allegation of the first one and absolutely denied the last one. Are the others credible? Does the number of the accusers matter or does crediblity matter and does what the actual thing the accused is accused of matter?
EricBurbank said:
Agree 100 percent. We are cleaning the party before the 2018 and 2020 elections. We don't lose the seats and will not have to defend the accusations later. The Republicans will have to answer for Moore and whoever else gets caught after this.
Franken's list of accusers is growing, cut the ties before its too late.
unicorn_and_rainbows said:
Yes, the Democrats can say "we got rid of Franken!, we got rid of Conyers! but the Republicans stick with Moore!", except that the seats of Franken and Conyers will remain loyally Democratic while the only way currently to get rid of Moore is to let the seat go Democratic. It is absolutely reasonable for the Republicans to say no to that and prefer a pedophile to a Democrat. Once Moore is elected the Republicans can find a way to get rid of him and the seat will remain Republican.
The Republicans haven't answered for Trump. They are all in. They haven't answered for Farenthold. The RNC is supporting Moore. That's their answer.
It is "reasonable" to prefer a pedophile? Once Moore is elected they will not find a way to get rid of him. They should have done that already.
Doesn't brealer have a point? Every accusation against Moore is known. If the voters choose him what right do the other Senators have to look for a way to get rid of him.
brealer said:
globally, I object to the concept of senators deciding who should be a senator. so, so, so wrong. Stealing.
Republicans don’t have the balls to go for the Torricelli option, which was an utter travesty anyway (if your candidate is polling badly, switch him for someone else right before the election! Not legal- oh wait, the NJSC said it is! Senator Lautenberg!)
My guess- assuming that the accusations are true- it goes like this:
Repubs win seat
Repubs turn on Moore
Moore resigns
New special election
Senator Strange
Remember, establishment repubs hate Moore. He primary’d Strange, who was the establishment guy. However, Moore CANNOT be replaced on the ballot by anyone. Unlike Franken’s seat, which will be filled competitively in 2018- chips fall where they may, etc- forcing Moore out would flat out hand the seat to Democrats till 2021. Jones would run unopposed.
If Moore did what he’s accused of- he’s a creep. But to expect the Repubs to eat a bullet in Alabama to give away a seat because of a guy who they didn’t even want, who is a pig,and possibly lose their very thin majority would be essentially asking them to give up, for example, future SCOTUS picks that would impact the country for decades... and not because voters voted Moore out but because no one ran. Not gonna happen, and if the situations were reversed, no way Dems would pull the guy.
Nothing in the way the supposed "establishment" Republicans have dealt with Trump suggests to me that they would turn on Moore. They would not want to spend the energy and upset the base that voted him in. They would turn to, "The people of Alabama elected him" and move forward.
I don't know how you can look at everything the Republican party has done over the last year and imagine a different outcome.
Jackson_Fusion said:
Republicans don’t have the balls to go for the Torricelli option, which was an utter travesty anyway (if your candidate is polling badly, switch him for someone else right before the election! Not legal- oh wait, the NJSC said it is! Senator Lautenberg!)
That's not what happened. Torricelli agreed to it. He said that he did not intend to take his seat. Something isn't illegal if the Supreme Court of the State says it isn't illegal and I remember studying the NJ Supreme Court decision and it was based on sound precedent.
But that is not analogous to the Moore case. I have no idea what Alabama Law says about replacing someone on the ballot, but Moore is not pulling out.
As to the topic at hand, guess who had to put his two cents in:
Meanwhile, on Thursday morning, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sounded out an argument on Franken that meshed with what many Republican leaders have been saying about Moore: Calling on him to step aside but saying it’s up the voters of Alabama to decide.
Gingrich noted that more than a million Minnesota voters pulled the lever for Franken in 2014, but "30 self appointed 'pure' senators want him out."
"What happened to popular vote,” Gingrich tweeted.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/07/al-franken-sexual-harassment-democrats-response-285959
LOST said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
Republicans don’t have the balls to go for the Torricelli option, which was an utter travesty anyway (if your candidate is polling badly, switch him for someone else right before the election! Not legal- oh wait, the NJSC said it is! Senator Lautenberg!)
That's not what happened. Torricelli agreed to it. He said that he did not intend to take his seat. Something isn't illegal if the Supreme Court of the State says it isn't illegal and I remember studying the NJ Supreme Court decision and it was based on sound precedent.
But that is not analogous to the Moore case. I have no idea what Alabama Law says about replacing someone on the ballot, but Moore is not pulling out.
As to the topic at hand, guess who had to put his two cents in:
Meanwhile, on Thursday morning, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sounded out an argument on Franken that meshed with what many Republican leaders have been saying about Moore: Calling on him to step aside but saying it’s up the voters of Alabama to decide.
Gingrich noted that more than a million Minnesota voters pulled the lever for Franken in 2014, but "30 self appointed 'pure' senators want him out."
"What happened to popular vote,” Gingrich tweeted.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/07/al-franken-sexual-harassment-democrats-response-285959
It’s exactly what happened. NJSC essentially re-wrote the statute to address what happens with less than 51 days to an election.... which is apparently what happens as proscribed by statute when it happens more than 51 days. Which leads one to question what purpose the 51 days statute was anyway, since things are the same before and after that deadline.
I do recall a lot of jibbah jabbah in the decision about how “it’s not fair to voters to not give them a choice”. So the only thing to do, since the statute didn’t address what happens inside 51 days, only what happens outside 51 days, is put him on the ballot.
In any case- Torch dropped because he was losing and the Senate had 51 dems. Mortal combat.
Unsurprisingly, the statute has been changed since to close that particular door. Now you have until 56 days before and when someone punched out you have 2 days to pick the new someone- if you don’t pick someone before 54 days pre election you’re sunk.
Onion headline:
RNC: 'We Warned You Gay Marriage Would Be A Slippery Slope Toward Accepting Pedophilia'
Jackson_Fusion said:
It’s exactly what happened. NJSC essentially re-wrote the statute to address what happens with less than 51 days to an election.... which is apparently what happens as proscribed by statute when it happens more than 51 days. Which leads one to question what purpose the 51 days statute was anyway, since things are the same before and after that deadline.
they didn't re-write anything. it's right there in the article you linked to: there was NO provision in the law for what should happen within 51 days. So the court was tasked with trying to determine what to do when there was no statute that specified what should be done.
The Democratic Party in NJ took advantage of that anomaly in how the law was crafted. And why shouldn't they have?
ml1 said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
It’s exactly what happened. NJSC essentially re-wrote the statute to address what happens with less than 51 days to an election.... which is apparently what happens as proscribed by statute when it happens more than 51 days. Which leads one to question what purpose the 51 days statute was anyway, since things are the same before and after that deadline.
they didn't re-write anything. it's right there in the article you linked to: there was NO provision in the law for what should happen within 51 days. So the court was tasked with trying to determine what to do when there was no statute that specified what should be done.
The Democratic Party in NJ took advantage of that anomaly in how the law was crafted. And why shouldn't they have?
Nobody said they shouldn’t have. Legislative intent, as I am sure you are aware, is a lodestone of judicial review. I’m not interested in re-litigating he case, so I’ll ask, and no need to answer:
If the process for putting a new candidate on the ballot is the same before and after 51 days, what purpose did the legislature intend by including 51 days at all?
What do you think the fact that the legislator subsequently made explicitly the purpose of the limit through statute?
As I said- mortal combat. Torricelli was done; by his own hand. A federal Democratic majority in the upper house hung in the balance. So hell yeah they were right to fight for that seat.
Now do you understand why the Republicans are fighting for Alabama?
Neither Conyers or Franken were removed, they chose to resign (admittedly under pressure from the party) and not drag the party down with the accusations lingering around till their and other democrats elections.
Moore continues to run for his seat with the Republicans support. If the accusations are proven to be true they will have to defend their decisions.
Two topics for further discussion are:
1) Should the respective parties either remove or put pressue on an elected member of their party to resign, or should it be left to the voters? Arguments can be made for both sides.
2) When should an elected or campaigning member be asked to step down or stop running? Meaning - are they entitled to being presumed innocent until proven guilty or does an accusation/s justify it?
In some cases you have women saying things happened but can't prove it, in other cases there is evidence. I will admit that I tend to believe the accusations even though evidence has not been shown. I don't believe a woman would put herself through the embarrassment and scrutiny (that unfortunately happens too often) unless it happened. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of someone being found guilty without a fair hearing. And are there degrees of the accusations/actions and penalties? Should a person accused of giving unwanted kisses and groping be held to the same standard as a guy who dated and inappropriately touched minors? They are both reprehensible but one is obviously more disturbing. I am not talking criminal penalties, the law does allow for that.
What in recent memory possibly leads you to believe that these things might happen?
Senate Republicans will love Sen. Moore as long as he votes the agenda. And there's no reason to think that he won't.
ETA: And what would lead you to believe that Moore would resign? He was kicked of the AL Supreme Court TWICE, and he still doesn't get the hint. He thinks he's truly doing God's work.
Cause he's a true wacko.
Jackson_Fusion said:
Republicans don’t have the balls to go for the Torricelli option, which was an utter travesty anyway (if your candidate is polling badly, switch him for someone else right before the election! Not legal- oh wait, the NJSC said it is! Senator Lautenberg!)
My guess- assuming that the accusations are true- it goes like this:
Repubs win seat
Repubs turn on Moore
Moore resigns
New special election
Senator Strange
EricBurbank said:
Two topics for further discussion are:
1) Should the respective parties either remove or put pressue on an elected member of their party to resign, or should it be left to the voters? Arguments can be made for both sides.
2) When should an elected or campaigning member be asked to step down or stop running? Meaning - are they entitled to being presumed innocent until proven guilty or does an accusation/s justify it?
On #1, pretty sure everyone on this thread already agrees in principle that elected officials can be removed through means other than voting. Or am I wrong in thinking there would be celebration were Trump forced to resign under threat of impeachment? (And don't give me the whole "he received fewer votes." He is the duly elected president of the United States, to our country's great shame, but nonetheless by our own rules).
So sure, parties can put pressure on members of their party to resign -- the real question here is, "when is that appropriate"? Which is your question #2.
On that one, I'd say it should happen when the a party believes a member is not representing it. The pressured member is under no obligation to resign, of course, but a party is certainly within its rights to make that demand.
And this is why, for instance, I'm glad to see Franken pressured to resign, and that he is doing so. To answer my own question from upthread, I'm in the camp that simply being against assault isn't enough -- I want to see Democrats being firmly in favor of gender equality. And on that measure, Franken fails. And men who buy into the baseline misogyny our culture takes for granted _should_ be scared. They should wonder about their careers and reputations, just as women have had to worry and wonder how rejecting unwanted advances or not being deferential enough might impact their careers and reputations.
As for Republicans? Well maybe they can aim a little lower and at least try to be opposed to physical assault and statutory rape. Not exactly a high moral standard, but somehow they're failing even that one.
EricBurbank said:
The Republicans will have to answer for Moore and whoever else gets caught after this.
If you are going to continue to comment here it would be better if you started paying attention.
#1. I wasn't asking if they "could" be removed or pressured to resign. I was asking "should" they be. And that is not clear even on this thread. Some feel it should be done by voters and others feel as you do. Its a complicated issue or maybe it is a case by case decision.
PVW said:
EricBurbank said:
Two topics for further discussion are:
1) Should the respective parties either remove or put pressue on an elected member of their party to resign, or should it be left to the voters? Arguments can be made for both sides.
2) When should an elected or campaigning member be asked to step down or stop running? Meaning - are they entitled to being presumed innocent until proven guilty or does an accusation/s justify it?
On #1, pretty sure everyone on this thread already agrees in principle that elected officials can be removed through means other than voting. Or am I wrong in thinking there would be celebration were Trump forced to resign under threat of impeachment? (And don't give me the whole "he received fewer votes." He is the duly elected president of the United States, to our country's great shame, but nonetheless by our own rules).
So sure, parties can put pressure on members of their party to resign -- the real question here is, "when is that appropriate"? Which is your question #2.
On that one, I'd say it should happen when the a party believes a member is not representing it. The pressured member is under no obligation to resign, of course, but a party is certainly within its rights to make that demand.
And this is why, for instance, I'm glad to see Franken pressured to resign, and that he is doing so. To answer my own question from upthread, I'm in the camp that simply being against assault isn't enough -- I want to see Democrats being firmly in favor of gender equality. And on that measure, Franken fails. And men who buy into the baseline misogyny our culture takes for granted _should_ be scared. They should wonder about their careers and reputations, just as women have had to worry and wonder how rejecting unwanted advances or not being deferential enough might impact their careers and reputations.
As for Republicans? Well maybe they can aim a little lower and at least try to be opposed to physical assault and statutory rape. Not exactly a high moral standard, but somehow they're failing even that one.
Jackson_Fusion said:
As I said- mortal combat. Torricelli was done; by his own hand. A federal Democratic majority in the upper house hung in the balance. So hell yeah they were right to fight for that seat.
Now do you understand why the Republicans are fighting for Alabama?
Torricelli was a bum so the Dems got rid of him and replaced him so that the people of NJ who favored the D Party over the R Party could be properly represented.
Roy Moore is a bum but rather than get rid of him and replace him so that the citizens of Alabama can be properly represented by a member of the Party they favor, they have gone all in for Moore, not only besmirching themselves but taking a real chance that they will lose.
They should have gotten rid of Moore by any means, including threats, bribery or even stretching the Law.
And there is no way in hell that McConnell, after going the "let the voters decide" route on Moore, would reverse himself to go after him.
False equivalence
Dems resign on misconduct
GOP ignores
If Bible voters
Vote for Pussy Grabber Trump
They only make noise
Say “Clean your own house”
Take a stand against Roy Moore
And then we will talk
LOST said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
As I said- mortal combat. Torricelli was done; by his own hand. A federal Democratic majority in the upper house hung in the balance. So hell yeah they were right to fight for that seat.
Now do you understand why the Republicans are fighting for Alabama?
Torricelli was a bum so the Dems got rid of him and replaced him so that the people of NJ who favored the D Party over the R Party could be properly represented.
Roy Moore is a bum but rather than get rid of him and replace him so that the citizens of Alabama can be properly represented by a member of the Party they favor, they have gone all in for Moore, not only besmirching themselves but taking a real chance that they will lose.
They should have gotten rid of Moore by any means, including threats, bribery or even stretching the Law.
Equals of equals are not always equal
This line from Rounders reminds me of the Republican Party right now:
"We're not playing together. But then again, we're not playing against each other either. It's like the Nature Channel. You don't see piranhas eating each other, do you?"
What is that supposed to mean? What didn't I pay attention to?
Red_Barchetta said:
EricBurbank said:
The Republicans will have to answer for Moore and whoever else gets caught after this.
If you are going to continue to comment here it would be better if you started paying attention.
LOST said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
As I said- mortal combat. Torricelli was done; by his own hand. A federal Democratic majority in the upper house hung in the balance. So hell yeah they were right to fight for that seat.
Now do you understand why the Republicans are fighting for Alabama?
Torricelli was a bum so the Dems got rid of him and replaced him so that the people of NJ who favored the D Party over the R Party could be properly represented.
Roy Moore is a bum but rather than get rid of him and replace him so that the citizens of Alabama can be properly represented by a member of the Party they favor, they have gone all in for Moore, not only besmirching themselves but taking a real chance that they will lose.
They should have gotten rid of Moore by any means, including threats, bribery or even stretching the Law.
That’s the issue we’re discussing. They cannot legally replace him on the ballot. They either run Moore or Jones runs unopposed (unless they run a write in campaign).
EricBurbank said:
What is that supposed to mean? What didn't I pay attention to?
Red_Barchetta said:
EricBurbank said:
The Republicans will have to answer for Moore and whoever else gets caught after this.
If you are going to continue to comment here it would be better if you started paying attention.
Name something that the Republicans have done in the last +/- 9 years for which they had to answer.
They get away with whatever they want because they have fooled their supporters into voting against their own best interest.
"If Moore wins it will be partly because Franken refused to resign for weeks (and is still prevaricating)."
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/939161036904714241
Really?
"Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone appeared to know there were sexual misconduct allegations involving Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) hours before they became public."
Do you really believe the democrats won't throw these cases out there against them? Why do you think they are asking for their own members to resign? Its to clean house and to be able show they weren't the party to look the other way.
And for a party who hasn't been made to answer for anything, the Republicans are still worried about being seen as the party who looked the other way.
The most recent proof of this which also answers your last question is the resignation of Trent Frank's. He resigned because he was going to be investigated, and because Paul Ryan had put pressure on him. If they weren't worried about answering for anything Ryan would have stayed out of it.
Red_Barchetta said:
EricBurbank said:
What is that supposed to mean? What didn't I pay attention to?
Red_Barchetta said:
EricBurbank said:
The Republicans will have to answer for Moore and whoever else gets caught after this.
If you are going to continue to comment here it would be better if you started paying attention.
Name something that the Republicans have done in the last +/- 9 years for which they had to answer.
They get away with whatever they want because they have fooled their supporters into voting against their own best interest.
Rentals
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Amazing Housecleaning available call! (201) 889-5521
Apr 18, 2024 at 12:40pm
-
Apr 18, 2024 at 11:17am
-
Apr 17, 2024 at 6:35pm
-
Administrative Assistant/REMOTE-Part Time
Apr 17, 2024 at 1:19pm
-
Apr 17, 2024 at 12:14pm
-
Apr 16, 2024 at 10:59am
-
Nanny available beginning mid June!
Apr 15, 2024 at 10:21pm
-
Full Spectrum Doula | CPR Instructor
Apr 15, 2024 at 5:11pm
Help Wanted
-
MF519 PT Nanny for 1 (ASAP Start)
Apr 18, 2024 at 5:23pm
-
WF743 Part Time Nanny/Family Assistant for 2 (ASAP Start)
Apr 16, 2024 at 8:17am
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
My point, which I didn't make well, was that Republicans control Alabama. If Moore is forced to resign he will be replaced by another Republican. That's what Franken should trade himself for. It won't change the balance of the Senate, just the class level.