Should Al Franken Resign?

[rogue06]

No, no, NO. If you don't have means to impeach either, you assume both are recounting truthfully - and since she did NOT have the access to mall policy that a mall manager would have had, his account is the one that matters. She could have been lied to by a guard wanting a date, she could be remembering wrong or she could simply have been told wrong - it doesn't MATTER. She was a store employee - he was a mall employee. Which one has better access to actual mall policy? The manager.

Especially when you consider that the mall manager would at the very least have to sign off on such an action if he wasn't the one who instigated it. The store employee is essentially repeating gossip.

[Mountain Man]

When faced with people who's motivations I cannot know, who tell opposing stories, my approach is not to select the one I agree with and declare them "true and honest." My approach is to suspedn judgment on something I cannot possible know.



I'm not a "liberal," though I suppose when you are as far to the right as you appear to be, everyone must look pretty "left."

My exception to Brietbart is a combination of a) their false stories, 2) stories that are specifically designed to inflame tensions and are put words in such a way as to do a "wink-wink" "non-nod" to things they are trying to push forward into the media and their readers, and 3) Just repulsive, hate-filled, reporting. Examples of all three include:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8011071.html (false)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-rape-culture/ (false)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...in-the-closet/ (repulsive)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...onesia-hawaii/ (wink-wink, non-nod)

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...-global-chaos/ (false)

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/1...ive-and-crazy/ (repulsive)

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...itewater-clai/ (unethical practices: they issued a correction, but left the story up as written anyway, so if you don't look for the correction... wink-wink, nod-nod).

I could go on - but I suspect you'll have a dismissal for most of these, which you are perfectly free to do. For myself, I give Brietbart exactly as much attention as I give the National Inquirer, the Sun, and the National Examiner. IMO, they are part of the political problem today.

First of all, using Politifact as a source to discredit another news organization is absurd. They are infamous for proving a claim to be true but rating it a "pants on fire" lie anyway. And their recent "correction" of a Breitbart story contained it's own fake news by promoting the lie that 8 women have come forward to accuse Roy Moore of sexual impropriety. But anyway, the story you mention above hardly seems noteworthy seeing how even Politifact acknowledges that Breitbart issued a quick correction and then later deleted the story. Seems pretty above-board to me. Then there's the story referenced by The Independent, but a quick check at Breitbart shows that they updated the story with the new information and note this fact right at the top of the article. Again, that seems pretty above-board.

Regarding stories that you deem "repulsive", that's personal opinion. I notice that two of the editorials you reference were written by Milo who made a name for himself with his intentionally provocative satire (before he made a name for himself by appearing to defend pedophilia, but that's another matter). I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude by your "wink-wink, nod-nod" label. And then you label other stories false without attribution. I guess we're just supposed to take your word for it?

[rogue06]

There have been multiple accusations aimed at Franken. The picture was only one - and was the one he apologized for.

There are IIRC eight accusers now although one of them really doesn't sound all that credible or at least has none of the corroborating evidence that some of the others do.

[Cow Poke]

There are IIRC eight accusers now although one of them really doesn't sound all that credible or at least has none of the corroborating evidence that some of the others do.

If there wasn't hard evidence, his Democrat buddies would never have been so adamant about tossing him overboard. He was, after all, their rising star, and had been sought after for reelection campaign speeches, and so on. They obviously know there's a whole lot of "there" there.

[rogue06]

I cannot argue with any of those observations. I may be guilty of "romancifying the past."

I do know I am tired and sick with the way our political climate has devolved. The greatest risk to our democracy, I believe, is the breakdown in civil discourse, and an uninformed electorate. The willingness of our current electorate to rally to the defense of ANY information from ANY source that defends their existing POV is dangerous in the extreme.

I agree with you about the nature of civil discourse these days being troubling but believe it or not it has been far worse. Look at some of the elections in the early 19th century where they were calling each other everything you can possibly think of -- and a few you couldn't. In fact nearly the whole century was pretty bare knuckles style campaigning.

[Cow Poke]

I agree with you about the nature of civil discourse these days being troubling but believe it or not it has been far worse. Look at some of the elections in the early 19th century where they were calling each other everything you can possibly think of -- and a few you couldn't. In fact nearly the whole century was pretty bare knuckles style campaigning.

Or dueling matches!

While duels had long been fought over a woman's hand, or to defend a man's honor, in America, dueling took on a new importance: It was used to settle political differences. The duel that took place between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr is perhaps the most well-known, but it was not uncommon in politics.

Freedom of speech and politics were cornerstones of the new country. To besmirch a man because of his beliefs was not taken lightly. Political rivals such as senators, governors, mayors were challenged.

Principally duels were held to defend one's honor, but the duelists were also trying to prove themselves as leaders—brave, determined and single-minded. A challenge could not be ignored, or a career would be destroyed.

Dueling was very much a public matter. Insults, and the challenges to duel that followed, traveled via newspaper editorials, word of mouth and plain old gossip. They also reached a widespread public with "postings" at street corners and taverns.

Few men could resist such a public challenge. Even Abraham Lincoln was called to duel: he had referred to one man as a "smelly, foolish liar" in a newspaper editorial. Lincoln chose swords over pistols, in the hope that his long arms would offer an advantage. He eventually apologized and avoided the duel altogether.

[Terraceth]

There was a day, Terr, which I remember because I've been watching elections since the 1960s, when a tape like the Access Hollywood tape, or accusations like the ones that have come out against Moore, or physically attacking a reporter, as occurred in Montana, would have sunk a candidate, primary or main election.

Well, can you demonstrate specific cases where a district or state was considered extremely safe for either the Republicans or Democrats to the extent Alabama currently is for the Republicans, but then the other candidate won in the main election due to a major scandal affecting the preferred candidate?

[carpedm9587]

Well, can you demonstrate specific cases where a district or state was considered extremely safe for either the Republicans or Democrats to the extent Alabama currently is for the Republicans, but then the other candidate won in the main election due to a major scandal affecting the preferred candidate?

Umm.. no - not if you're going to be that specific. I do not know that an exact match like that does or does not exist.

But to the point that I am probably romanticizing the past, a little digging and I found a lot of scandals that did NOT unseat a candidate:

• Clinton/Flowers
• Cleveland's love child (1884)
• Nixon's campaign funds (leading to the famous "checkers" speech)
• Grant's bribery scandal (1872)
• Jackson's marriage mess (1828)

Indeed - there's an almost amusing list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

So I stand corrected - we have a marvelously long history of scandal.

What we do not have is a long history of the degree of polarization we have today in Congress and the American electorate. Based on the voting history of Congress over the last 20 years, only one other era in American history comes close to this degree of polarization: the Americal Civil War. (https://io9.gizmodo.com/its-been-150...lly-1590076355)

[Starlight]

What we do not have is a long history of the degree of polarization we have today in Congress and the American electorate. Based on the voting history of Congress over the last 20 years, only one other era in American history comes close to this degree of polarization: the Americal Civil War. (https://io9.gizmodo.com/its-been-150...lly-1590076355)

I do wonder whether splitting the country in half (like the confederates tried to do) might be plausible in the present day. Potentially it would let each side enact every single one of the policies they desire in their half of the country / new country, up to and including ground-up constitutional-rewrites and government-redesign. (Of course, how you split up the US military, including nukes and bases, might be problematic... I guess you could simply agree to leave the existing US Military as a joint military existing as an independent organisation controlled by the two allied countries)

A clear downside, of course, is that current Republicans in the Blue states would become very unhappy as would current Democrats in the Red states.

[Teallaura]

I do wonder whether splitting the country in half (like the confederates tried to do) might be plausible in the present day. Potentially it would let each side enact every single one of the policies they desire in their half of the country / new country, up to and including ground-up constitutional-rewrites and government-redesign. (Of course, how you split up the US military, including nukes and bases, might be problematic... I guess you could simply agree to leave the existing US Military as a joint military existing as an independent organisation controlled by the two allied countries)

A clear downside, of course, is that current Republicans in the Blue states would become very unhappy as would current Democrats in the Red states.

Nope, can't be done.

[Cow Poke]

I do wonder whether splitting the country in half (like the confederates tried to do) might be plausible in the present day. Potentially it would let each side enact every single one of the policies they desire in their half of the country / new country, up to and including ground-up constitutional-rewrites and government-redesign. (Of course, how you split up the US military, including nukes and bases, might be problematic)

A clear downside, of course, is that current Republicans in the Blue states would become very unhappy as would current Democrats in the Red states.

So, maybe do it by counties....

map-2016-wide_copy.jpg

[Cow Poke]

So I stand corrected - we have a marvelously long history of scandal.

In American Politics?!?!?! I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I say!

[carpedm9587]

I do wonder whether splitting the country in half (like the confederates tried to do) might be plausible in the present day. Potentially it would let each side enact every single one of the policies they desire in their half of the country / new country, up to and including ground-up constitutional-rewrites and government-redesign. (Of course, how you split up the US military, including nukes and bases, might be problematic)

A clear downside, of course, is that current Republicans in the Blue states would become very unhappy as would current Democrats in the Red states.

And how to slice that duck would be a serious problem. We have solidly red states and solidly blue states and some that are swing. Blue tends to be coastal (East and West) and Red tends to be midwest and southern states. But the divide is deeper than that. Major metro areas are almost universally blue (even in red states), and rural areas are almost universally red (even in blue states). This is why a map of the U.S. by county looks overwhelmingly red - because the most sparsely populated areas are consistently Republican/Conservative and the most densely populated are consistently Democratic/Liberal. Suburban areas are the new swing areas.

So how would you slice up that mess? And what would it gain? The red areas are the areas today that want to focus on national identity and resist "globalization." The blue areas are the reverse. But when you look at the world and see what has happened to countries that have succumb to nationalism, they are the mnore impoverished countries. The ones that are thriving are the ones fully engaged in the global economy. North/South Korea are an object lesson, but the same has happened in many other countries. Time and time again, local "experiments" in slashing government to the bone have proven to be disastrous to the affected economy, but towns and states that fund their governments and support infrastructure and development programs thrive. If the country WAS to split on party lines, history suggests that the "blue" country would thrive, and the "red" country would decline.

Government is not the "answer" to everything - but it IS the "answer" to those things for which government is best suited. This "I hate government" mantra that has become the primary tune of the right is simply self-defeating. What we should ALL be saying is, "government needs to be better held to account." But that would require us to rise up and force term limits, and strip big business from the business of government, and we seem to lack the will.

[Cow Poke]

Government is not the "answer" to everything - but it IS the "answer" to those things for which government is best suited.

Use that list function I taught you.

[carpedm9587]

So, maybe do it by counties....

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25335[/ATTACH]

Exactly what I just noted in my last post. This is party by geography. If you were to rescale it to show party by population, the map would actually favor blue (55 million registered Republicans to 72 million registered Democrats), with independents vascilating between the two parties year by year.