Posted on 11/17/2017 6:47:52 AM PST by Kid Shelleen
Wow! I never thought I would agree with Valerie Jarrett.
She knows Franken had his sites on running for higher office. Obviously, team obama don’t want him.
Libs protecting libs.
Liberals define morality as YOUR POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES,
not your personal behavior.
So it’s not about sex abuse but political power. Will the Republicans ever figure it out?
The consequences of a US Senator commiting sexual assault is resignation. Period.
Rape “culture”?
So let me get this straight. There are “communities” of rapists and they get together, compare notes, critique techniques, devise strategies, brag about “conquests”, host back yard barbeques & reunions, have a lingo they all share, hand their rape ambitions & values intentionally to their children and have all the other accoutrements of a “culture”??? I doubt it.
Some Leftist academic had no professional future so they wrote a PhD thesis entitled “Rape Culture” and bingo were hired afterwards to be a “professor” on “Rape Culture”. Who says academia does not take care of their own, even more so than their students?
Or Bill Clinton
Or Menendez
Or Anthongy Weiner...
But I bet you want Moore to step aside, right?
That’s called hypocricy
Al Franken thinks that it’s funny to touch females on their private places as they sleep.
He is a sicko.
Anybody who defends him is a sicko.
Hey I don’t want Franken to resign either well not until Dec 13 with Roy Moore safely elected. :-)
How does she feel about Roy Moore? :-)
Kate is crazier than a **** house rat.
L
Owning up to bad behavior does not excuse it.
Post of the day! :)
Good! Then Roy Moore does not have to step down.
I’m dam sick of these glib gullible femiNazis........
They should just come out and admit it....
Getting a cheap feel, a lewinsky, a rape or getting weinsteined...... is considered a “reward to scumbags like Bill Clinton, Al Franken.
FemiNazis viscerally despise the male gender.
But those who protect their so-called “abortion rights” get an entitlement.......a free pass to sexually assault a woman.
Consider my eyebrows raised
Gloria Steinem gave Bill Clinton the “one free grope rule” and more.
I’m not sure most of the poster read her column. It’s actually much worse than the headline. The thread is charging her with having a double-standard.
She actually spells out that is exactly right, she does. If it is a D (she actually thinks they are better for women, but then she is a rape culture feminist so her mind is already not working) it’s better.
Here’s the money section:
“It would feel good, momentarily, to see Franken resign and the Democratic governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, appoint a senator who has not (as far as we know) harmed women. If I believed for one second that Franken is the only Democrat in the Senate who has done something like this, with or without photographic evidence, I would see that as the best and most appropriate option. But in the world we actually live in, I’m betting that there will be more. And more after that. And they won’t all come from states with Democratic governors and a deep bench of progressive replacements. Some will, if ousted, have their successors chosen by Republicans.
In other words, if we set this precedent in the interest of demonstrating our party’s solidarity with harassed and abused women, we’re only going to drain the swamp of people who, however flawed, still regularly vote to protect women’s rights and freedoms. The legislative branch will remain chockablock with old, white Republican men who regard women chiefly as sex objects and unpaid housekeepers, and we’ll show them how staunchly Democrats oppose their misogynistic attitudes by handing them more power.”
She basically is giving the Democrats a green light do abuse however they want as long as they protect “women’s rights” — by which I can only assume she mean unlimited abortion and contraceptives.
It’s quite amazing and revealing.
I have to admit to being quite uncomfortable with some of the discussion about Franken which seems way over the top and in the end, I think a lot of it will backfire. First…can it be agreed that sexual harassment has many degrees of seriousness to it that are essentially in the eye of the beholder and in the context of the particular situation? Yes there needs to be some common understanding of what is important and what is not but as has been discussed many times here on FR, society is quickly lumbering along down a path of political correctness where someone can take offense at anything. Obviously not all such claims are reasonable and most are downright stupid. Therefore, it is incumbent on everyone (especially here on FR) to be sure that if you are going to go after someone, it needs to be for both legitimate and the right reasons. If it is not, any comments on sexual harassment issues will be deeply eroded and weakened……and if it involves going after something that has been conflated to be something that it really isn’t, it just makes it that much more difficult to go after what are real and legitimate situations.
Here are some basic questions with the Franken case….
1. Did he actually physically touch her what the picture was taken? I think the answer to that is no because I don’t think that anyone has said she woke up…. but I’d be willing to be corrected on that.
2. Did she even know what was going on when that picture was being taken? I think again the answer is no….she was asleep and only found out after the fact but I’d be willing to be corrected on that.
3. Were there other things that Franken did to the reporter that she found objectionable? I believe the answer to that is yes…. she said something about how his kissing her was way over the top with his tongue down her throat when they were rehearsing for a skit. However, a ‘skit’ sounds like something that was preplanned and that she agreed to it beforehand. If she quickly found out that Franklin’s actions during the rehearsal to the skit were not what she was anticipating and not what she was approving of, did she tell him to “knock it off” forcefully at the time? Others here may know the answer to that…. I do not.
4. Since this story has become known, has Franken apologized? I think the answer to that is yes…. and it even sounded like he was reasonably contrite when he made it.
5. Has the reporter accepted Franken’s apology? I think the answer to that is yes……
Franken may have done other things that fall under the banner of ‘sexual harassment’ but I don’t think that this particular case is any kind of example of one. You can say Franken acted disgustingly, boorishly, foolishly, childishly and in a totally reprehensible way with what he did and he needs to raked royally over the coals for it….. the idea of using a sleeping person in what ultimately is a sick joke is way beyond stupid, it’s egregious behaviour. I just don’t consider this case to be sexual harassment…. and to do so, it downgrades the seriousness of sexual harassment for those cases where it really should apply. If it is, what do we call what Bill Clinton did to Kathleen Willey? Or the more recent allegations Spacey, Weinstein and Stallone? Now if you want to say that Franken committed the grievous act of ‘objectifying a woman’, fine…. but I think the definition of that is a something quite different from sexual harassment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.