News Miscellany

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I've seen a few Trump supporters implying or outright saying that liberals would change their minds about it as soon as Democrats start getting implicated. Like they're assuming people are just pretending to care about the crimes because it would benefit their political party.

Every accusation implicit assumption about the opposition is a confession.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Al Franken booted for far, faaaar less.

And every time Giuliani opens his pie hole he manages to shove both feet in.

So. Much. Projection.

There are Democrats who really want to defend the legacy of Franken.

Democrats have the same instinct to protect party members, but seem to be more willing overall to dump the really bad people.

I mean, if prosecuting Epstein means Bill Clinton might be exposed as an even worse person, so be it.

[Ari]

‘Ahaha now I shall finally prove liberals are just as hypocritical, small minded and desperate to win as I am!’

Many conservatives and Trump worshipers seem to see rules as things to be ignored except as means to punish the other team. Cheating and trying to get away with as much as possible is how they expect everyone ‘smart’ should act. Trump has outright stated this in the past, and it’s no surprise he’s also a sexual abusers. There are plenty that seem to think ‘boundaries’ are just things to be constantly pushed and challenged, and only when the person (or more likely a person of equal or higher authority than them) finally snaps and maybe literally punches them in the nose, do they decide it’s a real boundary. Assuming that any boundary that can be threatened, coaxed, pattered or otherwise blown through was never a ‘real’ boundary to begin with.

So of course the team that cheats all over the place but only cares that the ref didn’t see expects the other team to do the same. I especially say team here as while dems are tribal too, it really does seem like one side at least cares a bit about running the country and the other just wants to see their team logo in lights on the score board.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

These white teens wore masks so they wouldn't get caught committing a hate crime.

Little did they know: When they snuck on campus to paint swastikas and slurs, their phones auto-connected to the school’s WiFi. Under their individual usernames.https://t.co/Vs9uwXyrzW pic.twitter.com/WM6cU1b29Y

— Jessica Contrera (@mjcontrera) July 9, 2019

That didn’t happen at UGA though the picture looks like it could with red paint and the Georgia G.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

There are Democrats who really want to defend the legacy of Franken.

Democrats have the same instinct to protect party members, but seem to be more willing overall to dump the really bad people.

I mean, if prosecuting Epstein means Bill Clinton might be exposed as an even worse person, so be it.

I don’t think Franken should have been forced out and I don’t think I’m protecting him because he is a Democrat.

I would strenuously argue that while many people may defend Franken for different reasons, there is a real case to be made that he shouldn’t have been forced out.

The initial claim was almost certainly a hit job. She lied about several key points. No other claim was nearly as bad. Without that first claim, Franken is still a Senator.

“The lawyer Debra Katz, who has represented Christine Blasey Ford and other sexual-harassment victims, remains troubled by Franken’s case. She contends, “The allegations levelled against Senator Franken did not warrant his forced expulsion from the Senate, particularly given the context in which most of the behavior occurred, which was in his capacity as a comedian.” She adds, “All offensive behavior should be addressed, but not all offensive behavior warrants the most severe sanction.” Katz sees Franken as a cautionary tale for the #MeToo movement. “To treat all allegations the same is not only inappropriate,” she warns. “It feeds into a backlash narrative that men are vulnerable to even frivolous allegations by women.”

The Case of Al Franken | The New Yorker

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

That didn’t happen at UGA though the picture looks like it could with red paint and the Georgia G.

..

Originally Posted by article

This was the last day of the year for the Class of 2018 at Glenelg High School.

snip

This was Howard County, after all: a Maryland suburb between Washington and Baltimore

[lisarea]

Pre having read that story (I will), the accusations against Franken were bad, but not expulsion bad, and not even a single digit fraction as bad as those against plenty of still-working Republicans and CEOs and others. He's been in the public eye a long long time, so the only really remarkable thing about a lot of that is that there's more of it on record.

It'd be great if the things Franken was accused of were egregious, but they're not. Most men have done things like that at some point, at least. I'd be OK with that, though, if there were some kind of across the board standard at all. Because if the bar is that low, we should just kick all men out of everything. And probably 30% of women too.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

..

Yep, I had also seen the picture somewhere else, which is how I knew it didn’t happen at UGA since I looked it up at that time.

A buddy of mine sent it to me without an article, my first response was “oh shit, do not be Georgia.”

[erimir]

Yes, it's unfair that Franken resigned while VA Gov. Northam decided to ride it out, and especially while people like Trump (accused of many assaults and rape) and VA Lt Gov Justin Fairfax (accused of rape) haven't faced real consequences (Fairfax received many calls to resign from other Democrats, but unlike Franken, he has decided not to heed them).

But at the same time, he announced his resignation before the Senate special election in Alabama, which was won by a quite narrow margin and it might not have been helpful to create opportunities to say that Democrats support their own through sex scandals so why not vote for Moore? And without Doug Jones in the Senate, Republicans could've revived attempts to repeal the ACA after McCain's death. Jones's victory ensured they wouldn't have the votes even with the more loyal Jon Kyl in his seat.

And when the Kavanaugh stuff came out, it wouldn't have been helpful to have Al Franken still on the Judiciary Committee as part of the hearings about Christine Blasey Ford's allegations.

Of course, it's also possible Ford wouldn't have come forward at all after seeing Democrats let Franken ride out accusations from 8 women.

I'd say it was worth it for Franken to resign for the good of the party. If there's a chance it could've swung the Alabama special election, it was worth it. Tina Smith is fine as a replacement, she won her special election handily and she will probably win a full term with no problem in 2020.

Is it fair compared to some other politicians' treatment? No. But if he was such a good progressive Democratic Senator, who would want people not to lose their healthcare, he should be glad that his resignation might've helped us win a Senate seat in fucking blood-red Alabama and kept the ACA safe, instead of whining and letting Gillibrand take all this heat like she personally assassinated him or something.

Senators Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Michael Bennet all called on Franken to resign, some of them within minutes of Gillibrand saying so, yet none of them are being accused of being graspingly ambitious backstabbers just trying to "clear the field" the way Gillibrand is. The fact that Franken has nothing to say about that has only lowered my opinion of him.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by erimir

Is it fair compared to some other politicians' treatment? No. But if he was such a good progressive Democratic Senator, who would want people not to lose their healthcare, he should be glad that his resignation might've helped us win a Senate seat in fucking blood-red Alabama and kept the ACA safe, instead of whining and letting Gillibrand take all this heat like she personally assassinated him or something.

Senators Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Michael Bennet all called on Franken to resign, some of them within minutes of Gillibrand saying so, yet none of them are being accused of being graspingly ambitious backstabbers just trying to "clear the field" the way Gillibrand is. The fact that Franken has nothing to say about that has only lowered my opinion of him.

You are blaming Franken who is out of politics for not defending a person who helped force him out.

That’s quite some logic there.

I really hope that’s just rhetorical flourish on your part, because it just really seems nonsensical to me. I’m not trying to be aggro, I just can’t fathom the logic.

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on this.

[erimir]

There's no "logical" requirement that Franken be bitter towards Gillibrand that I'm violating. I was making the case that it was good that Franken resigned and why he should - if he's such a progressive hero - be glad that his sacrifice might've saved the ACA (without Jones's seat, Jon Kyl takes McCain's seat in 2018 and the GOP has 50 votes + Pence for ACA repeal).

Given that, what's the logic that I think he ought to see Gillibrand being seen as a schemer who single-handedly took him down and say "yes, that's about right" or "fuck that bitch"? And how is the logic affected in any way by the fact that he's out of office? He was talking to the media, I'm sure it came up.

At a minimum, Franken could point out that Sanders, Harris, Warren, Booker, Bennet, Feinstein, Hirono, Schumer and others also "took him down".

But anyway, it turns out the only really viable progressives in the presidential race (Sanders, Warren, Harris - as well as some of the less viable progressives like Booker and Gillibrand) all helped to "force him out". If it's only logical that he be a bitter whiner about it, then I guess the "progressive hero" will probably be endorsing Biden or Buttigieg, or Klobuchar before she drops out, or nobody. On the other hand, if he was as valuable and progressive a senator as I'm led to believe, he ought to be endorsing one of the progressives, even though they're supposedly backstabbers. If he's unwilling to put his personal shit aside for the sake of progress... how is it illogical for that to affect my opinion of him?

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Kim resenting the lack of attention shoots some missiles around.

https://in.reuters.com/article/north...-idINKCN1UJ30C

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

After Conrad Black, why not this guy? Madoff asks for sentence commutation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/bern...zi-scheme.html

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by erimir

There's no "logical" requirement that Franken be bitter towards Gillibrand that I'm violating. I was making the case that it was good that Franken resigned and why he should - if he's such a progressive hero - be glad that his sacrifice might've saved the ACA (without Jones's seat, Jon Kyl takes McCain's seat in 2018 and the GOP has 50 votes + Pence for ACA repeal).

Given that, what's the logic that I think he ought to see Gillibrand being seen as a schemer who single-handedly took him down and say "yes, that's about right" or "fuck that bitch"? And how is the logic affected in any way by the fact that he's out of office? He was talking to the media, I'm sure it came up.

At a minimum, Franken could point out that Sanders, Harris, Warren, Booker, Bennet, Feinstein, Hirono, Schumer and others also "took him down".

But anyway, it turns out the only really viable progressives in the presidential race (Sanders, Warren, Harris - as well as some of the less viable progressives like Booker and Gillibrand) all helped to "force him out". If it's only logical that he be a bitter whiner about it, then I guess the "progressive hero" will probably be endorsing Biden or Buttigieg, or Klobuchar before she drops out, or nobody. On the other hand, if he was as valuable and progressive a senator as I'm led to believe, he ought to be endorsing one of the progressives, even though they're supposedly backstabbers. If he's unwilling to put his personal shit aside for the sake of progress... how is it illogical for that to affect my opinion of him?

Well, the idea that if he doesn’t endorse someone in this race he couldn’t have been a valuable or progressive democrat while serving is breathtakingly stupid.

You ignore the fact that he resigned for the good of the party and presumably a a progressive agenda. That resignation clearly carried personal cost.

You are as uncharitable to my own argument as you are to Franken.

You blame Franken for people’s reactions to what happened to him and think he has an obligation to oppose those reactions and that’s frankly silly.

[The Lone Ranger]

So ... Jeffrey Epstein was found unconscious in his jail cell, with injuries to his neck.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find this to be quite ... interesting. After all, there are quite a few people in positions of power who surely have a vested interest in silencing Epstein -- like the sociopath currently squatting in the White House, for example.

Of course, it's possible the wounds were self-inflicted. There's also the possibility that they were inflicted by another inmate for the simple reason that people who've been accused of sex crimes against children generally aren't very popular in prison.


Either way ... very interesting.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Well, the idea that if he doesn’t endorse someone in this race he couldn’t have been a valuable or progressive democrat while serving is breathtakingly stupid.

He's not nearly so valuable if he's damaged goods that undermines Democrats' attempts to combat sexual harassment and assault.

Also, I'm not saying he didn't have a progressive voting record. I'm saying this situation has revealed negative things about him (aside from, you know, the pattern of groping women that was the precipitating scandal, of course). He was a progressive Democrat in his time in the Senate. But that's when the going was good for him. When he resigned, I thought well of the decision. But his behavior since then has been less admirable, therefore it lowers my opinion of him. It doesn't mean I think he voted poorly in the past and I never said that.

Apparently he regrets it and wishes he had stayed on (in the sense of not announcing his resignation - he was still in the Senate at that time, but he had already announced his resignation) through the Alabama election and beyond, and I disapprove of that sentiment.

But either way, his "value" as a Senator is relative to a replacement, in terms of how they vote and how well they keep the seat in Democratic hands, etc. Tina Smith has a similarly progressive voting record and there's no reason to think she's about to lose the seat. Franken after the scandal was a lot less valuable in terms of his ability to hold the seat and his potential effect on our winning other seats where the Republican was damaged by sexual scandal. The man was not irreplaceable. Maybe he was a little more valuable than Smith since his voting record was slightly more progressive than hers is... but that's before the scandal. Afterwards, I'm not so sure.

You ignore the fact that he resigned for the good of the party and presumably a a progressive agenda. That resignation clearly carried personal cost.

Apparently he regrets doing it though! The whole argument is about whether he should've done it, with Franken and you, I thought, taking the position that he shouldn't have. Is that not the implication of him saying he regrets resigning? And you saying he shouldn't have been "forced out"?

I'm not ignoring it. If he weren't interviewing for a poor-me article and saying he wishes he hadn't done it, I'd be giving him the same amount of credit for it. Saying you wish you hadn't done something will tend to lower the amount of credit people will give you for doing that thing.

You blame Franken for people’s reactions to what happened to him and think he has an obligation to oppose those reactions and that’s frankly silly.

He doesn't have an obligation to say anything.

But I don't have an obligation to think well of him and what he does choose to say either.

I think if he were the progressive hero he's made out to be, he ought to disapprove of some of the narratives around his resignation, some of which undermine attempts to stamp sexual harassment out. If the consequences for a Democrat taking a stand against sexual harassment by another Democrat, even if you think it goes too far, is that you will be smeared as not merely wrong on the issue, but as a nefarious schemer trying to clear the field (a ludicrous claim anyway given the overall shape of the field) and lead to boycotts by big donors, it would certainly make other Democrats more reluctant to hold other Democrats accountable even if the scandal was worse than what Franken did. He appears not to disapprove. This affects my opinion. What is the silly logical fallacy here?

You keep on saying things are silly or illogical. You also keep on not showing where there's any logical contradiction.

[beyelzu]

N/m

[beyelzu]

Oops

[But]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... Jeffrey Epstein was found unconscious in his jail cell, with injuries to his neck.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find this to be quite ... interesting. After all, there are quite a few people in positions of power who surely have a vested interest in silencing Epstein -- like the sociopath currently squatting in the White House, for example.

Of course, it's possible the wounds were self-inflicted. There's also the possibility that they were inflicted by another inmate for the simple reason that people who've been accused of sex crimes against children generally aren't very popular in prison.


Either way ... very interesting.

In a 2011 report, Amnesty International said conditions in the 10 South wing amounted to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” that was “incompatible with the presumption of innocence in the case of untried prisoners whose detention should not be a form of punishment”.

Yes, interesting. Somehow I've never heard of this until this filthy rich guy got thrown in there.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

The MAGA kid and the drum guy aftermath:

Nick Sandmann lawsuit against Washington Post dismissed by judge

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Gig economy, yo.

Tony Xu very sorry he got caught.

1/ After a year of research and conversations with thousands of Dashers, we built a pay model to prioritize transparency, consistency of earnings, and to ensure all customers get their food as fast as possible.

— Tony Xu (@t_xu) July 24, 2019

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Britain still trying to rule the waves.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Britain still trying to rule the waves.

The man and the woman arrested, both from Chigwell, Essex, are in police custody.

It makes so much sense. Not that I would be surprised with people from any region of Britain.

[JoeP]

Leesifer's been on holiday recently. Just sayin'.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

MORE: Capital One discloses information that was compromised, including 140K social security numbers, 80K linked bank account numbers, and “personal information” from credit card applications from 2005 through early 2019. https://t.co/vpyWbVRRy9 pic.twitter.com/PtTBbzjH5U

— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) July 29, 2019