2017 Democratic Thread

[Reddy]

Keith Ellison should get his senate seat. Then we one step closer to President Keith Ellison.

The seat is going to Minnesota Lt. Gov Tina Smith. A woman taking his seat is the right call.

[StrangeSox]

That was a really bad, self-important speech by Franken that basically called his accusers liars. Good riddance.

 

 

I have no problem with a Sen. Ellison aside from that it opens up another race for a House seat. Still, it'd be great to have the GOP seating a child molester who doesn't believe that women or Muslims should be allowed to serve in government while the Democrats are seating a Muslim who replaced a guy they forced out over sexual misconduct allegations. Really solid juxtaposition there. e: a woman has an even better effect in that regard.

Edited December 7, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Quin]

Keith Ellison should get his senate seat. Then we one step closer to President Keith Ellison.

 

It's expected to be Tina Smith.

[ptatc]

That was a really bad, self-important speech by Franken that basically called his accusers liars. Good riddance.

 

 

I have no problem with a Sen. Ellison aside from that it opens up another race for a House seat. Still, it'd be great to have the GOP seating a child molester who doesn't believe that women or Muslims should be allowed to serve in government while the Democrats are seating a Muslim who replaced a guy they forced out over sexual misconduct allegations. Really solid juxtaposition there. e: a woman has an even better effect in that regard.

Should anyone really be forced out due to allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue on until either they admit to it or proven guilty in court?

[GoSox05]

I would like to see Keith Ellison as Senator, but Tina Smith is the right call.

 

Keith Ellison doesn't need to be a senator to run for president anyway.

[Quin]

The seat is going to Minnesota Lt. Gov Tina Smith. A woman taking his seat is the right call.

 

Also someone that was part of a ticket that won a statewide election

[Balta1701]

Should anyone really be forced out due to allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue on until either they admit to it or proven guilty in court?

Do you think that there are people who played professional baseball in MLB who used steroids and did not get caught?

[pettie4sox]

Yeah Franken was douche in the end. Just resign and apologize.

[StrangeSox]

Should anyone really be forced out due to allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue on until either they admit to it or proven guilty in court?

 

Resigning because you've disgraced yourself or your office and are facing political pressure is nothing new, whether it's for sexual misconduct (Franken) or abusing government funds (Price, earlier this fall).

 

When a person is facing a litany of unconnected accusers telling similar stories with at least some amount of evidence, they should absolutely be forced out. These women had pictures with Franken and all told similar stories, showing a clear pattern (and there are probably more). Moore's accusers have written notes from him and he was banned from the mall--he should never disgrace the Senate with his presence. Trump's faced numerous accusers and bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women. Farenthold settled a case using public funds, just like Conyers (and, honestly, probably a lot of others.

 

Not everything worthy of a resignation rises to the level of a successful criminal prosecution.

[StrangeSox]

Also someone that was part of a ticket that won a statewide election

 

But she apparently doesn't want to run for the same seat in 2018, which seems like a bad move strategically?

[ptatc]

Do you think that there are people who played professional baseball in MLB who used steroids and did not get caught?

Sure. But you can't go back and prove that they did or didn't take them because they weren't put on trial. These people will go to trial. You will have evidence if they committed a crime.

[Balta1701]

Sure. But you can't go back and prove that they did or didn't take them because they weren't put on trial. These people will go to trial. You will have evidence if they committed a crime.

Al Franken will never go to trial. He'll go home and have to answer to his family at most. Someday he may write another book for all we know. That's the world we live in - the stuff he did is such a small crime that you can do worse and be President of the United States.

[ptatc]

Resigning because you've disgraced yourself or your office and are facing political pressure is nothing new, whether it's for sexual misconduct (Franken) or abusing government funds (Price, earlier this fall).

 

When a person is facing a litany of unconnected accusers telling similar stories with at least some amount of evidence, they should absolutely be forced out. These women had pictures with Franken and all told similar stories, showing a clear pattern (and there are probably more). Moore's accusers have written notes from him and he was banned from the mall--he should never disgrace the Senate with his presence. Trump's faced numerous accusers and bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women. Farenthold settled a case using public funds, just like Conyers (and, honestly, probably a lot of others.

 

Not everything worthy of a resignation rises to the level of a successful criminal prosecution.

I know it's nothing new but that also doesn't mean it's right. If someone is insisting it's a false case, they should have the opportunity to defend themselves. If they admit it or settle, they should resign.

 

If they win the court case they should not have to resign. I'm not should I agree that not everything worthy of resignation rises to the level of a successful prosecution.

[StrangeSox]

It's a political position and if the political tides turn against you and you can no longer effectively serve, you should resign.

 

Look at HHS Sec. Tom Price earlier this year. He abused government travel funds to fly private jets all over the country. I don't think anything he did was technically illegal, but it was a bad look for the administration politically, so he was forced to resign over it. That comes with the territory of holding a political office.

Edited December 7, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Sure. But you can't go back and prove that they did or didn't take them because they weren't put on trial. These people will go to trial. You will have evidence if they committed a crime.

 

 

Al Franken will never go to trial. He'll go home and have to answer to his family at most. Someday he may write another book for all we know. That's the world we live in - the stuff he did is such a small crime that you can do worse and be President of the United States.

 

I think the question is whether we hold elected officials to a higher standard than regular people.

 

Its unlikely Franken ever could have been convicted, I doubt anyone would have been willing to prosecute. But if X amount of people all make similar allegations that are determined to be credible, should we hold our elected officials accountable to those accusers, even though we know that they likely would never face criminal prosecution?

 

 

[ptatc]

Al Franken will never go to trial. He'll go home and have to answer to his family at most. Someday he may write another book for all we know. That's the world we live in - the stuff he did is such a small crime that you can do worse and be President of the United States.

But is it worthy of destroying his career and any good he may have done in public service if it's not worthy of a trial? How do you determine this without some sort of measure? It's a slippery slope of doing this based on allegations.

 

He, of course will need to answer to his family.

[StrangeSox]

Shouting "I hate blacks and Jews" is perfectly legal, but I'd hope that any member of Congress caught on tape doing that would be forced out of office. It's a political question, not a legal one.

[bmags]

But is it worthy of destroying his career and any good he may have done in public service if it's not worthy of a trial? How do you determine this without some sort of measure? It's a slippery slope of doing this based on allegations.

 

He, of course will need to answer to his family.

 

I say yes. For one, congress shouldn't be about any one person. It is a house of our government that features, yes, senators and congressmen and congresswomen, but aides and other professional staff. This is a public job and anyone shoud be able to work there without being harrassed. And any person should be able to be on a trip with those people without being harrassed.

 

So when they behave that way, they should lose their job just like anyone at my company that would behave that way should. If there are isolated incidents its one thing, but no one in any position should get to just run roughshod over other people just because they can. The institution is more important than the person.

[ptatc]

It's a political position and if the political tides turn against you and you can no longer effectively serve, you should resign.

 

Look at HHS Sec. Tom Price earlier this year. He abused government travel funds to fly private jets all over the country. I don't think anything he did was technically illegal, but it was a bad look for the administration politically, so he was forced to resign over it. That comes with the territory of holding a political office.

Abuse of government funds would fall under the ethics rules and would set him up for prosecution. However, this is another case where they weren't "allegations." They have proof of what he did and would have grounds against him. He would have no basis to fight the charges. I'm sure he could've fought it but knew he would ose. However, he should have the opportunity to fight it.

 

I know it won't change just based on the public perception of the issues. However, it doesn't mean it's right depending on evidence.

[Balta1701]

But is it worthy of destroying his career and any good he may have done in public service if it's not worthy of a trial? How do you determine this without some sort of measure? It's a slippery slope of doing this based on allegations.

 

He, of course will need to answer to his family.

You're somewhat right - the Congress needs to develop a better way to deal with this and a clear path by which this can be treated as an ethics violation. If that isn't done, it does set up an opportunity for someone to do a James O'Keefe setup where they try to bring down a Congressperson based on false accusations.

 

There are unfortunately, a number of other issues with this though, including the fact that Congress has made it nearly impossible to report harassment by their members, and the fact that you can't really set up something like this that would police Congress without having to deal with the dozen+ credible claims against the President.

 

At some point, Al Franken had to go and yesterday's was the straw that broke the camels back. Even if some of these are invented, there's photographic evidence of a couple of them, and he was not going to be in a position to do his job or represent the people of Minnesota any more.

[ptatc]

I say yes. For one, congress shouldn't be about any one person. It is a house of our government that features, yes, senators and congressmen and congresswomen, but aides and other professional staff. This is a public job and anyone shoud be able to work there without being harrassed. And any person should be able to be on a trip with those people without being harrassed.

 

So when they behave that way, they should lose their job just like anyone at my company that would behave that way should. If there are isolated incidents its one thing, but no one in any position should get to just run roughshod over other people just because they can. The institution is more important than the person.

I agree with all of this.

 

Everyone should their chance to tell their story. however, it appears that once allegations are leveled there is pressure for them to resign without them being able to defend themselves.

 

No doubt that many of them should resign if they are true and many seem to be admitting it. If this is the case the should be forced to resign and prosecuted. However, they should also be afforded the chance to defend themselves and shouldn't be forced to resign, if they deny the allegations and want to fight it.

[Reddy]

Franken's resignation is right.

Moore's refusal to withdraw is wrong.

 

Democrats doing the right thing is not wrong because the Republicans are doing the wrong thing. The right thing is the right thing because it's the right goddamned thing.

[StrangeSox]

You're somewhat right - the Congress needs to develop a better way to deal with this and a clear path by which this can be treated as an ethics violation. If that isn't done, it does set up an opportunity for someone to do a James O'Keefe setup where they try to bring down a Congressperson based on false accusations.

 

There are unfortunately, a number of other issues with this though, including the fact that Congress has made it nearly impossible to report harassment by their members, and the fact that you can't really set up something like this that would police Congress without having to deal with the dozen+ credible claims against the President.

 

At some point, Al Franken had to go and yesterday's was the straw that broke the camels back. Even if some of these are invented, there's photographic evidence of a couple of them, and he was not going to be in a position to do his job or represent the people of Minnesota any more.

 

This is the key part. Even if he maintains his innocence, even if an ethics committee couldn't find hard proof (and what would that even look like in this case beyond what we already know?), he had clearly lost the confidence of his colleagues. This is one of the highest profile political positions in the country, and perception and public/colleague confidence is crucial to your ability to serve.

[Reddy]

I agree with all of this.

 

Everyone should their chance to tell their story. however, it appears that once allegations are leveled there is pressure for them to resign without them being able to defend themselves.

 

No doubt that many of them should resign if they are true and many seem to be admitting it. If this is the case the should be forced to resign and prosecuted. However, they should also be afforded the chance to defend themselves and shouldn't be forced to resign, if they deny the allegations and want to fight it.

Again, it's a political decision mixed with a moral one. Franken remaining hurts Dems from a political perspective. Schumer explained that to Franken, and thus he's resigning. That's literally all there is to it. It's the right thing morally, and it's the right thing politically. The law has honestly nothing to do with it. Politics runs on the court of public opinion. Little else.

[pettie4sox]

Should anyone really be forced out due to allegations? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue on until either they admit to it or proven guilty in court?

 

Normal this is true. Most politicians have skeletons in their closet. That being said, the last thing we need is a a politician with a very suspect history of being a predator with more power.