Should Al Franken Resign?

[carpedm9587]

No, not like Trump does - instead, he weaponized the Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS, and boasted of his "pen and phone"... He was much more subtle.

Umm... weaponized? How on earth did he do THAT? And the "pen" and "phone" comment, IIRC, was in response to the Republican assertion that they were going to do everything they could to block anything he tried to achieve. That statement was made before he even took office in 2008, and they followed through with a vengeance - much as the Democrats are doing now. So Obama elected to proceed with executive orders to achieve some of his agenda. Statistically, he issued fewer of them than any President since Hoover. And now, with the Democrats doing exactly the same thing and the Republicans unable to align on policy - Trump is doing the exact same thing - but is being praised for it?

Where is the consistency in that?

You gotta be kidding...

OK - you want me to take you seriously but you give me a link to a an 1) opinion piece, on 2) a right-wing website, that 3) is full or rumor and he-said/she-said from 4) mostly right wing people with a reason to dislike Obama?

And you think I'm going to find evidence in this? I loook to situations like a member of the Republican party calling him a liar publicly during a state of the union speech, and aside from an irritated look, Obama made no (to my knowledge) public issue of it. I consider the on going birther travesty that, while he was clearly irritated with it, he largely shrugged it off and moved on. And I consider the input of the people who worked with him most closely throughout his career.

Do I think he's never gotten testy? Of course not. Do I think he's never been irritated at things said to and about him? Of course not. But the man had public class - whatever he may have thought and/or said privately. Personally - I doubt I would have been able to be as calm/cool about most of what he dealt with.

Obama was more reserved in this respect.

WOW!!!! I had to look to make sure this was YOU posting this. This sounds more like JimL level stuff!

This is supposed to be his "vote for Hillary" speech -- what does he do? It's ALL about Obama!

OK - have you even LISTENED to that post? Yes, he references his family, and tells anecdotes about himself. Many of the 119 were exactly the "we" kinds of statements I was referencing. And many more were statements like "I couldn't have been more proud of...X" - and these statements are seen as "self-centered?" CP - you're better than this kind of obvious ... rectal effluence.

Did Obama NEVER praise himself? Of course not. Every candidate promotes themselves. And every political person points to their achievements. Obama was no different. But he tended to cast a wider, more inclusive net. Trump is all about Trump - not 100% of the time mind you - you'll find the occasional place were he actually steps out of himself and expresses sympathy, empathy, or concern. But they are the exception to the rule. With Obama - it was the opposite.

Do you REALLY think someone who hacked up a video by extracting every "I" and "me" and "we" from a speech, divorced of context, is saying anything? Really? CP - come ON. SOME part of you must see this for the "anti-Obama echo chamber" it is designed to be. You're just too smart for that small part of you NOT to exist.

He could certainly be eloquent in his "meisms".

Yes- and his "weisms" and his "youisms." Trump is significantly deficient in the latter two.

I'm not defending Trump. I frequently cringe at the things he says, and most of the tweets he tweets.

I'm not accusing you of defending Trump. I am raising a significant concern for your party. Right now, the Republican party is in the process of being Trumpified and Bannonified. Childishness is being celebrated. Crudeness is being applauded. A lack of political accumen is being rejoiced in. A lack of statesmanship is being encouraged.

Down that path lies some pretty ugly end-games. Today's young people are increasingly rejecting these things. They are not doing it in ways I approve of (i.e., shutting down discourse on college campuses, ANTIFA, etc.), but the fact that these things are happening at a pace sufficient to raise the ire of the right is an indication of the threat this attitude fosters.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I do not admire the tactics of ANTIFA. In fact, I soundly reject them. But I understand them. And ANTIFA is a reaction. ANTIFA exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to prevent a repeat of the evolution that took the NAZI party for fewer than 50 people in the 1920s to the dominant political party in Germany by the mid 1930s. If we did not have an "alt-right" and NAZI party and KKK in the U.S., there would be no ANTIFA. So as the Republican party slips increasingly right - the Democratic party will likely slip increasingly left.

• The left is promoting inclusion - of gays, transgender, minority rights, etc.
• The right is promoting exclusion - of gays, transgender, and arguing that "white privilege" doesn't exist.

• The left is advocating for reasonable controls to the guns that are used to kill 30K+ people a year.
• The right is advocating for more guns and no controls.

• The left is advocating for a narrower divide between rich and poor, and more support for the deeply poor
• The right is pushing for "don't steal from the rich."

These are not MY words - they are the messages I hear the young people I see and work with talk about. So they are increasingly shifting to the left. We can see that in the numbers: 55 million registered Republicans - 72 million registered Democrats - and the gap keeps widening. The right is reduced, today, to Operation Red Map to gerrymander states, VoterID laws to try to suppress Democrat votes, leveraging the anger of populism/nationalism, and other "tricks" to maintain strength - and despite ALL of these efforts, the house is likely to shift back to Democratic control in 2018 - and the Senate is possibly in play (though much less likely).

If the Republican party continues to allow itself to be Trumpified and Bannonified, and continues to emphasize the message of disunity, incivility, and anger - it will render itself irrelevant. That leaves us with one dominant party in the American political system - which isn't good for anyone. A healthy republic requires opposition - requires debate - requires discourse.

The Republican party HAS to return to its roots: fiscal responsibility, fiscal accountability, a government that is "right-sized" to its responsibilities, a strong (but accountable) defense.

In all honesty - I align with MANY of the things the Republican party used to stand for. Sometimes my friends ask me, "why aren't you a registered Republican?" My answer is always the same: I cannot affiliate myself with a political party that stands for things I do not find to be moral.

No one is asking my advice - but I'm going to give it anyway. Drop the "Clinton" schtick. Drop the Obama attacks. Stop defending the "freedom of speech" rights of dispicable people and ideologies - let them defend themselves. Defend the freedom of speech rights of Colin Powell, Condalisa Rice, George Bush, and other Republicans of which you can be proud. Stop the agenda of "my way or the highway" and elect people willing to debate, and reach across the aisle to arrive at reasonable compromises.

If not - then Alabama will only be the tip of the iceberg - and our republic will not be the better for it.

Wow - I seriously got pontifical on that one...

P.S. And the left needs to do the same thing with respect to reaching across the aisle. This "stiff front opposition" is freaking pointless.

[Cow Poke]

Umm... weaponized?

Mocking Hillary.

How on earth did he do THAT?

By using government agencies to, for example, to scrutinize certain groups based on profiling.

How bout we limit responses to fewer "back and forths", eh? It's getting too tedious.

OK - have you even LISTENED to that post? Yes, he references his family, and tells anecdotes about himself. Many of the 119 were exactly the "we" kinds of statements I was referencing. And many more were statements like "I couldn't have been more proud of...X" - and these statements are seen as "self-centered?" CP - you're better than this kind of obvious ... rectal effluence.

Yes, I have.... and he drones on and on and on about himself and his accomplishments and what he did, and on and on.... But I understand that, because Hillary really had no record for him to be proud of.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not accusing you of defending Trump. I am raising a significant concern for your party. Right now, the Republican party...

Um, I'm not a Republican, so I'll allow somebody who is to address this for you if they so wish.

[carpedm9587]

I would be surprised to find that those who were advocating something like the elimination of masculine and feminine pronouns would not realize that what they're advocating is, in fact, politically correct. They may simply not see anything wrong with being "politically correct".

When Trump was elected, I turned my facebook page into a political blog of sorts (https://www.facebook.com/mlucagilbert). This issue came up, and I can assure you I was told in no uncertain terms that this is not PC - it's a matter of personal rights that people ought to be sensitive to. From their perspective - there is no significant demand being made - to use "folks" instead of "ladies" or "gentlemen" to allow for the possibility of a person with a different gender identity in the group, and to move away from he, she, her, him, etc. until the genrder identity of the person is known definitively.

So no - as pest I can tell - they do not consider this "PC." They consider it "common politeness."

I think you're going too far in thinking that the concept of PC is completely arbitrary and meaningless. Most people know PC when they see PC. Sure, there's always going to be a remnant of people who resist a label for whatever reason, that doesn't mean that label is undefined or has absolutely no significance. Trump is both rude/boorish and not PC. The two are not exclusionary.

I didn't say it was arbitrary and meaningless. I said it translates to "what I don't want to hear/do/say." Each person's "politically correct" boundary differs. Some think it is "politically correct" of you to want people to not use the name of Jesus of Nazareth as an oath, or to swear using the name of god. I'm fairly sure you do not see that as "PC."

My point stands, Adrift. I am not redefining anything - I am pointing to the way PC is being used today - as a convenient way to dismiss someone else's concerns.

[Cow Poke]

When Trump was elected, I turned my facebook page into a political blog of sorts (https://www.facebook.com/mlucagilbert). This issue came up, and I can assure you I was told in no uncertain terms that this is not PC - it's a matter of personal rights that people ought to be sensitive to. From their perspective - there is no significant demand being made - to use "folks" instead of "ladies" or "gentlemen" to allow for the possibility of a person with a different gender identity in the group, and to move away from he, she, her, him, etc. until the genrder identity of the person is known definitively.

Your facebook page? Wow - I didn't realize you had such powerful proof!

So no - as pest I can tell - they do not consider this "PC." They consider it "common politeness."

Aw, come on, I don't think you're that much of a pest!

[rogue06]

As far as I can recall, I have never in my life considered someone who self-described as "socialist" to be a right-winger. I would think anyone who self-describes as "socialist" is left of center on any Western political spectrum.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say that Bernie Sanders was, while better than Hillary, still somewhat conservative?

[Sparko]

Um, I'm not a Republican, so I'll allow somebody who is to address this for you if they so wish.

But you support Trump!!! JimL says so!

[Cow Poke]

But you support Trump!!! JimL says so!

Yeah, well, he supports pedophilia*, so....






*he more actively "supported" NAMBLA than I supported Trump

[carpedm9587]

Mocking Hillary.

I have no idea what this is in reference to...?

By using government agencies to, for example, to scrutinize certain groups based on profiling.

Umm...every government I have ever encountered has had a few people take inappropriate steps. Yes - I beleive the responsibility ultimately falls on the leadership - and Obama said as much. But there is no evidence that Obama caused the IRS thing to happen. All evidence I know of shows it was an internal decision and, when it was brought to light, steps were taken to address it.

It's like what is going on with Meuller today. Someone on Meuller's team posts anti-Trump language in texts - and is immediately fired when it comes to light. But the emphasis is not on the action taken when the information was revealed - it is on the fact this person texted these things to begin with.

When the "priest scandal" broke out a few years ago - I was not one of those who went gaga over the fact that some priests abused children. Yes - it's horrific. Yes, it needs to be addressed. But the incidence of pedophelia within the clewrgy, as best I could tell, was not significantly different than the rest of the world. Yes - we expect more from "men of god," but they are men/human and humans are flawed. They need to be held accountable, punished, and whatever that can be done to amend the harm needs to be done. I did not fault the catholic church as a whole for the bad actions of a few of its members. I DID fault the catholic church for the persistent choice to hide the truth, shuffle these men around, and expose even MORE children to harm. THAT was FAR more reprehensible than the moral failings of several men. THAT, to me, indicated an institutional malevolence that was unacceptable for an organization making a claim to moral leadership.

How bout we limit responses to fewer "back and forths", eh? It's getting too tedious.

Lightweight...

Yes, I have.... and he drones on and on and on about himself and his accomplishments and what he did, and on and on.... But I understand that, because Hillary really had no record for him to be proud of.

CP - you watched a hacked-up video. Did you actually go back to the ENTIRE speech, and see what he actually was saying?

[Adrift]

When Trump was elected, I turned my facebook page into a political blog of sorts (https://www.facebook.com/mlucagilbert). This issue came up, and I can assure you I was told in no uncertain terms that this is not PC - it's a matter of personal rights that people ought to be sensitive to. From their perspective - there is no significant demand being made - to use "folks" instead of "ladies" or "gentlemen" to allow for the possibility of a person with a different gender identity in the group, and to move away from he, she, her, him, etc. until the genrder identity of the person is known definitively.

So no - as pest I can tell - they do not consider this "PC." They consider it "common politeness."

Can you cite the post where they told you that it was not "politically correct"? I find that...amazing. I mean, like I said, there will always be outliers, and those on the fringe who reject any label they find offensive. That doesn't mean the label is arbitrary or meaningless.

I didn't say it was arbitrary and meaningless. I said it translates to "what I don't want to hear/do/say." Each person's "politically correct" boundary differs.

How is that significantly different from saying that the phrase is arbitrary and meaningless? How could arbitrariness not be the end result of anything "I don't want to hear/do/say"?

Some think it is "politically correct" of you to want people to not use the name of Jesus of Nazareth as an oath, or to swear using the name of god. I'm fairly sure you do not see that as "PC."

Who?

My point stands, Adrift. I am not redefining anything - I am pointing to the way PC is being used today - as a convenient way to dismiss someone else's concerns.

Yes, you are redefining things, carpe. The term "politically correct" actually has a real meaning, and while people may use it as way to dismiss someone else's concern, that's not the only or even the primary reason it's used.

[Sparko]

from my experience people who are politically correct don't think they are. They think they are just being normal and accommodating equality and tolerance in all of it's forms and will burn anyone at the stake who disagrees.

[carpedm9587]

Um, I'm not a Republican, so I'll allow somebody who is to address this for you if they so wish.

You know what they say about assuming...

So you're independent? I HAVE to assume you're not a Democrat.

I am independent (also?).

[Adrift]

from my experience people who are politically correct don't think they are. They think they are just being normal and accommodating equality and tolerance in all of it's forms and will burn anyone at the stake who disagrees.

My experience is that it's sort of mixed. Some people don't realize it. Some people realize it, but don't want to be labeled it. Some people realize it, don't mind the label, and think their point still stands. Reddit is usually my test bed for things that are super liberal or super PC, and they constantly show cognizance about PC things in their own camp.

[carpedm9587]

Your facebook page? Wow - I didn't realize you had such powerful proof!

Umm...not proof. Just anecdotal evidence from a reasonably wide sampling. If a poll can assess the preferences of a nation with 1500 sample points, my 500 followers are a reasonable fraction of that - enough for me to come to some conclusions.

Aw, come on, I don't think you're that much of a pest!

OK - I resemble that...

[rogue06]

Yes, she is. It's one of the reasons I think it's time for her to bow out and let the party move on. There is nothing she can do about the degree to which she is hated by the right - and nothing she will do will ever change it.

I have to admit, however, that I am flummoxed when someone on the right then expresses surprise at the level of hatred the left has for Trump. The situation, from my perspective, is essentially identical. Trump represents pretty much everything the left hates - and continually makes his disdain for the left known. If the right is having a hard time understanding the left's hatred for Trump, perhaps they should like internally to see their hatred for Clinton and recognize themselves in the dynamic?

But Trump does not represent the "right" (he actually holds many liberal views and many of his other ones are populist). He actually left the Republican Party because he thought that their opposition to partial-birth abortion was too extreme. And prior to running for president he had a lot, and I mean a lot, of fans and support in Hollywood (hardly a conservative bastion by any sane measure).