MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Senator Al Franken Says He Will Resign In the Coming Weeks

He went on deny some of the allegations and to insist he remembered others "very differently."

C-SPANC-SPANAl Franken actually did it. After yesterday disputing reports that he had decided he would announce his resignation today, the senior Democratic senator from Minnesota announced today from the Senate floor that he would resign "in the coming weeks."

Franken said he was "excited" about the conversation about the way men mistreat women when it first started, saying it was "long overdue."

"Then it came back to me," he said, saying he was shocked and upset to hear how women perceived his actions. He went on to insist he denied some of the allegations and remembered others "very differently."

Franken claimed he used his power "to be a champion of women" and knew he was "someone who respects the women I work alongside every day," and insisted an Ethics Committee would've cleared him.

Franken also said he saw the "irony" in him leaving the Senate while President Trump, who he pointed out bragged on tape about sexual assault, remains in office, and Roy Moore, accused of preying on young girls, continues to run for Senate with the support of the Republican party.

"But it's not about me," Franken continued, but about constituents, who he said he could not serve effectively while dealing with an Ethics investigation.

Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton will now appoint a replacement to serve in the Senate until a special election can be called for next year. Dayton is expected to replace Franken with Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, who is not expected to seek election to the remainder of the term next year.

The calls for Franken to resign snowballed and yesterday an eighth woman accused him of putting his hand on her waist, "grabbing a handful of flesh," after she asked to take a photo with him.

The trouble for Franken began on November 16, when KABC radio anchor Leann Tweeden publicly accused him of trying to forcibly kiss her and having this photo snapped during a USO Tour in 2006:

via Leann Tweedenvia Leann Tweeden

The story broke just a day after Franken, a former comedian and writer for Saturday Night Live, insisted obvious jokes made on Twitter by Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett of Texas undercut his possible appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

This morning, he voted no (by proxy) on sending the Willett nomination to the full Senate. The committee voted on party lines.

Tweeden said she was motivated in part to come forward by a radio interview she conducted with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who told her that when she was a young Congressional aide, a powerful man in her office tried to forcibly kiss her.

"At that moment, I thought to myself, Al Franken did that exact same thing to me," Tweeden wrote, saying she decided to share her story because "there may be others."

In the exactly three weeks since then, seven other women came forward with stories of harassment at the hands of Franken. Calls for his resignation came from 33 Democrats yesterday, followed by reports of an eighth accuser.

The timing of pressure from his own party to resign may have most been informed by the embrace by Republicans of Moore, the Alabama Senate candidate accused of inappropriate relations with underage girls in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Franken was first elected to the Senate in 2008 in a nail-biter against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), but he didn't take office until July 7, 2009 because of months of recounts and legal battles. He was re-elected in 2014 with 53 percent of the vote.

As recently as August he was seen as a "reluctant 2020 candidate" for president.

In the Senate, Franken has been a reliable progressive vote but a lightweight lawmaker. He received a 100 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT advocacy group, an 82 percent rating from the American Civil Liberties Union, 14 percent from the Club for Growth, and a 0 percent from FreedomWorks.

In his eight years in the Senate, Franken has sponsored just three bills that became law. One involved permitting a Native American tribe in Minnesota to lease or transfer some of its land, another added the Zika virus to the Food and Drug Administration's priority review voucher program. Hardly the stuff of legislative legend.

The third bill, the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, was a bipartisan effort to try to reduce the criminalization of mental illness.

Franken's voted with Trump about 25 percent of the time this year, mostly on various nominations and spending bills.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    A Democrat resigns while the Republicans dig in their heels? Is this bizarro-world or what?

  • colorblindkid||

    It is 100% solely due to the eventual desire to impeach Trump. It is political posturing. The worst part is that it will absolutely work.

  • Tony||

    So you're admitting that Trump is a serial sexual predator (just as he admits himself)? Or what?

  • Rebel Scum||

    just as he admits himself

    I know you have trouble reading, but in the comment to which you are referring, Trump said "they let you" when referring to pussy-grabbing. This implies consent. Get over it. Move on.

  • Tony||

    Ha, fat chance.

    I suspect his rapidly developing dementia will overtake all other stories though, so at least you have that.

  • Rebel Scum||

    rapidly developing dementia

    But enough about Hillary Clinton.

    Also, does this fall within the realm of good band names?

  • Gozer the Gozarian||

    I actually think "Rapidly Developing Dementia" is an excellent band name.

  • L.G. Balzac||

    The Swinging Johnsons

  • Zeb||

    He may well be full of shit. But what he said was not an admission of sexual assault. Depending on how you define "sexual predator" it may or may not be an admission of being that.

  • Tony||

    He's got plenty of accusers. Some of them were little girls of about Roy Moore's preferred age. Also, how likely is it that he's not a creeper? I mean come on.

  • Zeb||

    Sure. He seems like the type. I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

    I was narrowly discussing the notion that he admitted to sexual assaults.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    My football coach used to tell us our rivals let us grab them by the neck and stomp on them. I'm sure he's due for dismissal for assault.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.7.17 @ 1:03PM|#
    "He's got plenty of accusers."

    And despite the fact that idiots like you and most of the press are foaming-at-the-mouth in your hatred of him, none of it seems to stick.
    Let's see. 13 months of investigation, and you're got a guy who laundered money long before he had any connection to Trump and two guys who lied to the FBI.
    Big whoop, scumbag.

  • Tony||

    Stop defending Trump. It makes me nauseated.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Who? We here are they? Other than in your head and the pages of progressive fan fiction.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Trump has never committed any of these acts while president.....Moore is accused of stuff over 40 years ago.....But, FrankenGroper committed sexual harassment & assault while a member of the Senate!!....Big Difference to me!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, just because those single digit age kids fight you off at the playground doesn't mean that a billionaire like Trump doesn't have gold digger s ready to throw themselves at him. He doesn't have to force himself on anyone

    Not like you.

  • Tony||

    Did you seriously just refer to Trump as a catch.

    Why did he use his power to go backstage at teen beauty pageants while they were changing clothes?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You mean the beauty pageant he owned? And yes, to a career climbing gold digger, Trump is a catch. Just because he isn't the sort you like tearing your worm rectum apart doesn't mean a female won't want him.

  • Libertarian Newbie||

    If Mr. Fakaname a libertaraian, I'm out.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I know you have trouble reading, but in the comment to which you are referring, Trump said "they let you" when referring to pussy-grabbing. This implies consent

    Only to his cult ... who (he says) would even support him for murder in broad daylight. As you've just confirmed

    I'll be linking this comment from my blog. Thanks!

  • Red Tony||

    You didn't respond to my challenge, Hihn! We're both old, and we both know the rules. Let us battle!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (Boldface in reponse to a lie and aggresssion)

    Red Tony
    You didn't respond to my challenge, Hihn!

    A page seacth for your handle did not find one.

    But I did find another of yours ... which was promptly jammed up your ass, and twisted
    So respond to my ACTUAL challenge. (lol)

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7054728

    Let us battle!

    You've already been crushed, sonny,
    Any more would be like kicking a cripple

  • Red Tony||

    Ooh, good start, Hihn! Now how's about we get it on?

  • Red Tony||

    You know how we old people do things, so I bet I don't have to explain the rules. That correct, Hihn?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Red Tony ,.,... I challenge ... he runs away

  • Michael Hihn||

    Runs away TWICE!!

    so I bet I don't have to explain the rules. That correct, Hihn?

    You were challenged to support your lie.
    Must I explain that you've humiliated yourself by FAILING?
    I also said you were a moral cripple. (lol)

  • Red Tony||

    Aw yeah, here we go...

    I'm hotter than lava poured on a skillet
    There are holes in your argument, you bet I'm gonna fill it
    I got raps and rhymes and an acid touch
    Just go ahead and tell me when it gets to much
    I'm like magic it's tragic how you try and fight
    To give a good retort seems to take you all night
    Take a look in the mirror, you're totally dependent
    I'm owning you like there's no Fourteenth Amendment!
    On the mic I'm amazing and you're just a fool
    I look like a genius and you look like a tool
    It's rap battle time, and you're dying like Custer
    Is this really all the rap you can muster?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Red Tony ... called out as a liar ...
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7054601
    REFUSES to support his shameful lie ... THREE TIMES (so far)

    (Unlike most here, I do NOT believe all liberals are psychotic liars ... but the ones who are ... are morally identical to their equivalent liars on the right.).

  • Red Tony||

    Aw, Michael Hihn knows he can't hang with me
    In this land I'm the man who was born brave and free
    I'm rapping and rhyming all over his ass
    I'm breaking him quickly like a fist through glass
    While he picks up the remnants of his ruined life
    He's too slow to notice I cut like a knife
    I ain't even trying but I'm putting him down
    I pick him back up just to knock him around
    I spit twelve straight lines of fiery ice
    All the other commentators know my words are nice
    I put up, you shut up, here's the news, ain't you heard:
    I own this rap battle and you look like a turd.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Red Tony ... called out as a liar ...
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7054601
    REFUSES to support his shameful lie ... THREE FOUR TIMES (so far)

    (Unlike most here, I do NOT believe all liberals are psychotic liars ... but the ones who are ... are morally identical to their equivalent liars on the right.).

  • Red Tony||

    Sorry Hihn, but I believe it's pretty clear I won this rap battle. Good luck next time! And hey, maybe try taking some poetry classes; that'll help your flow.

  • Libertarian Newbie||

    I'm trying to follow this pissing match, to my sorrow When and how dd it become a rap battle? All I see is the other guy asking you where he did what you accuse him of. I cant find you issuing any challenge to him at all ... except a rap battle long after the fact.

    This site is making me even more wary of libetarianinism. I can see that you and Michael are in a pissing match, without knowing why. Can you tell ME where you challenged him and he refused? Thank you.

  • Red Tony||

    I challenged him a couple of weeks ago on a thread; he never got back to me. So I challenged him again here, and he responded with aggression. I took this as accepting the duel, so rap battle it was.

    As for who Hihn is: he occasionally comes on and angrily rants incoherently on threads, along the way posting the same thing repeatedly and never offering a good-faith argument after his first post (and sometimes not even then). His posts also include a lot of boldface and caps lock. Therefore, since actually arguing doesn't really work with Hihn, I figured we'd rap battle it out, since rumor has it we're both pretty old.

    So welcome to the site; it's a group of weirdos. That's seriously the best way to describe the people on here. Nice to meet you.

  • Libertarian Newbie||

    I vote Hhn. There was no aggression by him that I can see. You never stated what your challenge was, and multiple refusals to do so. Clear as day.

    And you ignored my questions also!

    I agree. You're a bully. Attack me all you want, I'm off this site forever so will never see it..
    And now I need a shower..

  • Procyon Rotor||

    I kinda feel like an asshole now for trying to have a serious argument with him a few days ago. Your rap battling is clearly the superior technique, and your flow is exquisite. Bravo!

  • JoeBlow123||

    Haha this was grand. Your flow was impeccable! I vote you victorious in a first round KO!

  • BYODB||

    Damn, son...

  • Presskh||

    Colorblindkid, you are absolutely correct - it's all a ruse to eventually try and force Trump to resign for past sexual harrassment allegations. Even RINO Ryan is getting in on the charade, convincing Trent Franks, who is a conservative Trump supporter from Arizona, to resign over very thin allegations.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    A well-played political ploy. They're already crowing about how virtuous they are, in contrast to those Evil Republicans! And it costs them nothing; they won't lose the seat.

    And I'm sure the Republicans will reply by fumbling the ball big time. It's what they do; it's all they do.

  • ||

    They're also managing to spin the campus anti-free speech atmosphere they ALONE created as being 'alt-right'.

    They're masters at making trouble and making it stick to others.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They're also managing to spin the campus anti-free speech atmosphere they ALONE created as being 'alt-right'

    (lol) They're BOTH fascists ... both accusing each other of fascism .. and both correct!

    SOME conservatives have been stifling free speech for DECADES before the campus movement. They also have their own politically correct speech, which includes whataboutism and other lame excuses for their own behavior.

    Tribalism running amok.

  • BDBerzerker||

    Enjoy Every Sandwich, I have a leather wrist band that says that. It was given to me by a friend. His friend has throat cancer and wishes he could eat a sandwich. That is his motto, Enjoy Every Sandwich.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I learned only yesterday, that my own throat cancer has been cured. I never had any problem eating anything for seven months.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Too bad the one spreading through your brain the last few years left you incapable of lucid commentary.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You severely insulted Jesus Christ here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7055103

    ... I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.
    Now I'm honored that you rank me with Christ!!

    (deep bow of appreciation)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've always felt honored by your raging hatred

    Clearly, that's why you REEEEEEEE every time, Hihn-sano.

    (long strut of confidence)

  • hello.||

    I learned only yesterday, that my own throat cancer has been cured.

    That's too bad. I hope it comes back.

  • buybuydandavis||

    He hasn't resigned. He announced he would be resigning "in the coming weeks".

    "Resigning not Resigning"

  • Michael Hihn||

    You don't known what "resign" means.

    The most logical assumption -- to anyone not driven by tribal hatred -- is that if he left now his party would lose one vote -- in a closely divided Senate -- facing a 2 week legislative scamper

    If it was you, would YOU wait until your appointed replacement could be seated?
    If not, you'd be pretty stupid, eh?

    What would Jesus do?

    .

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What would Jesus do?

    Give you another tumor.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You insult even JESUS CHRIST?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No, I'm thanking him.

  • Bra Ket||

    Jesus isn't the vengeful one. He probably has a decent sense of humor. If not, he'd forgive you in a second anyway.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Jesus thought bullies and aggression were funny!
    (smirk)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Jesus thought bullies and aggression were funny!
    (smirk)

    "I have come not to bring peace, but a sword"--Matthew 10:34

    (guffaw)

  • John C. Randolph||

    Franken did exactly one worthwhile thing in his thankfully not-too-long career of public disservice: he dislodged that asshole Norm Coleman from the senate seat he just gave up.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    Well, one more: He quit.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I was hoping for a Bud Dwyer moment at his press conference (I REALLY hate Franken).

  • hello.||

    And it only took him 3 rounds of blatant voter fraud. Libertarian hero.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Whoever wrote this was too scared to put their name on it though.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Great . NOW it appears. Now I look like an idiot.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Don't be a sucker! Krayewski is with the Russians too!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "'But it's not about me,' Franken continued, but about constituents, who he said he could not serve effectively while dealing with an Ethics investigation".

    It is, though.

    It's about you, Al Franken.

  • CE||

    Ethics? What's unethical about it? It's either a crime or it's not. Who's pressing charges?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The moral dignity of the Senate must be preserved.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The ghost of Ted Kennedy agrees.

  • Michael Hihn||

    WHAT ABOUT BENGHAZI!!!!

  • Bra Ket||

    Mocking the existence of "the moral dignity of the senate" after someone brought it up is not an example of whataboutism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Did anyone say it was?

  • hello.||

    Good to know you can't keep up with your own delusional fuckwittery any better than the rest of us.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    So many constituents, so little time. I feel neglected, but I guess he doesn't swing my way.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Franken also said he saw the "irony" in him leaving the Senate while President Trump, who he pointed out bragged on tape about sexual assault, remains in office, and Roy Moore, accused of preying on young girls, continues to run for Senate with the support of the Republican party"

    Maybe it's about you, Al Franken.

    Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's about you?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Hey, the first rule of politics is to deflect.

  • Rhywun||

    At least he stayed classy on his way out the door.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's about you?

    Do you ever stop to think ........

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    A lot more than you're inclined to, Hihn-tard.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You severely insulted Jesus Christ here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7055103

    ... I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.
    Now I'm honored that you rank me with Christ!!

    (deep bow of appreciation)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.

    Clearly, that's why you REEEEEEEE every time, Hihn-sano.

    (long strut of confidence)

  • Tony||

    Republicans remain unmoved by any sense of decency, continue to support pedophile for Senate and senile rapist as president.

    Ah Democrats, maybe this one time your virtue signalling won't result in the class bullies shoving your heads in the toilet anyway.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Decency? Are you serious? Are you serious?

  • Rhywun||

    What kind of deplorable would say something like that?

  • Rebel Scum||

    senile rapist as president.

    But enough about Bill Clinton.

  • Tony||

    Bill Clinton is president?

  • Rebel Scum||

    Obvious reference to the rapist pres. in the 90s is obvious.

  • Tony||

    Hey you only had to go a quarter century into the past for your whataboutism. That's child's play. Whatabout Ted Kennedy? Whatabout Attila the Hun?

  • sarcasmic||

    Ted Kennedy was a murderer, not a rapist. And he was never president.

  • Mickey Rat||

    He did apparently enjoy doubleteaming waitresses with Chris Dodd.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Sarc, he was both. Lots of tales of Teddy assaulting all kinds of women during his senatorial antics. In and out of D.C..

  • Presskh||

    Ted Kennedy would have been president if he had been driving a Volkswagen.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Oh yeah but what about Al Franken when we're talking about what about Trump?

  • sarcasmic||

    I can't think of any other serial rapist to have occupied the oval office.

  • Zeb||

    That we know of. Who knows what people were up to back in the days when politicians private lives were more private.

  • sarcasmic||

    I was thinking the same thing. Though I would like to believe that politicians of yesteryear had more class than today's crop.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    There was nothing classier than JFK encouraging his 19-year-old secretary mistress to suck his friend's dick while he watched.

    If walls could talk, am I right?

  • sarcasmic||

    I forgot about JFK.

  • ||

    Though I would like to believe that politicians of yesteryear had more class than today's crop.

    Is having sex with your slaves more or less classy?

  • sarcasmic||

    Is having sex with your slaves more or less classy?

    Historical context. Look it up.

  • ||

    Historical context. Look it up.

    I can look up your opinion in historical context?

  • sarcasmic||

    I can look up your opinion in historical context?

    Someday...

  • ||

    Joining from the thread below, this sounds like a morally relativistic argument and that we should really all just get with the times. Clinton's lack of rape and Franken's serial assault and the concomitant punishments aren't in any way comparable because historical context.

    Otherwise, Franken assaulted a few, Clinton raped a few, Kennedy likely did too, Cleveland's marriage was bizarre, and Jefferson was wrong to fuck his slaves and historical context can fuck off.

  • sarcasmic||

    historical context can fuck off

    I completely disagree. I don't believe it to be fair, just, or logical to judge the past by today's standards. For example the concept of wife-rape is relatively new. Does that mean that every man who forced himself upon his wife before that concept existed was a rapist? By today's standards, yes. However I do not believe that to be a fair judgement. That statement doesn't excuse or condone, it simply recognizes reality. And reality can really suck sometimes.

  • sarcasmic||

    As far as I am concerned, you can only judge based upon what was commonly accepted as right and wrong at the time. Today's standards are meaningless in that respect.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure that there are things that we today consider to be perfectly normal that, centuries from now, will be considered morally repugnant. Does that make us wrong? How can we judge ourselves based upon standards that don't yet exist, and likewise how can we judge historical actors based upon today's standards?

  • Calidissident||

    Sarcasmic,

    Whose standards to we apply? Commonly accepted by whom? I'm pretty sure slaves weren't ok with being raped (or their sisters/wives/daughters/etc for male slaves) back then. Why should we accept the POV of the slaveowner rather than the slave?

  • sarcasmic||

    Whose standards to we apply? Commonly accepted by whom? I'm pretty sure slaves weren't ok with being raped (or their sisters/wives/daughters/etc for male slaves) back then. Why should we accept the POV of the slaveowner rather than the slave?

    Good point.

  • ||

    However I do not believe that to be a fair judgement. That statement doesn't excuse or condone, it simply recognizes reality. And reality can really suck sometimes.

    The reality being that they were rapists? I mean, the concept that wife-rape is relatively new is only true if you don't believe that 'no means no'. Otherwise, it's as old as the word "No." The judgement can be wrong in or out of historical context but it doesn't change fact that consent was withheld or even dissent given.

    Otherwise, Clinton wasn't convicted of rape even once and the facts don't matter because historical context.

  • sarcasmic||

    The reality being that they were rapists?

    The reality that it was socially acceptable behavior at the time.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't actually go with that.

    There are many things that were known to be wrong, but people were more willing to look the other way previously. Rape was not looked as an okay thing recently, so even from a historical perspective it's questionable.

    But even then, I think it is completely fair to judge people by our standards. That is all we have is our standards that we use. We can engage in complete relativism, but I feel that is equivalent to nihilism.

    I think the bigger problem is that it's hard for us to view people as complex creatures. We all have our failings and our virtues. But that's very difficult for us to do. We manage it with people close to us, our family and closest friends we often develop nuanced opinions of. This is hard for people we really have no connection to, celebrities, politicians, historical figures. And so for them in particular we develop very either/or classifications. When in actuality, they are as human as anyone. And we should be able to talk about the good they did while also not dismissing the bad.

    This historical revisionism is this as well. Just traditionally sanctified figures are becoming devils.

  • sarcasmic||

    But even then, I think it is completely fair to judge people by our standards. That is all we have is our standards that we use. We can engage in complete relativism, but I feel that is equivalent to nihilism.

    I disagree. To me that is lazy thinking. It is quite possible to see something from a point of view that you do not agree with. At least it is to me. However I meet people all the time who consider viewing something from another point of view to equal agreeing with that point of view. More lazy thinking. Lazy emotional thinking.

    As I said in a previous comment, do you think it is right for you to be judged based upon standards that will be developed over the next several centuries? You don't even know what these standards are, and you could be doing things right now that future people would consider to be abhorrent. If you don't think that is right, then it isn't right for you to judge past actors based upon today's standards.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I disagree. To me that is lazy thinking. It is quite possible to see something from a point of view that you do not agree with. At least it is to me. However I meet people all the time who consider viewing something from another point of view to equal agreeing with that point of view. More lazy thinking. Lazy emotional thinking.

    My point is it leads to nothing whatsoever. We can always find someone who had some view about something. We can thus justify anything this way. Maybe that is the ultimate conclusion, but at that point I think saying we should use moral relativism at all is a contrivance for someone unwilling to admit to no morality whatsoever.

    As I said in a previous comment, do you think it is right for you to be judged based upon standards that will be developed over the next several centuries?

    Do I think it's right? What does even mean?

  • sarcasmic||

    We can always find someone who had some view about something. We can thus justify anything this way.

    I'm talking about societal norms of the day. As little as twenty years ago the idea of same sex couples getting married was hard to imagine. Does that mean everyone who was alive twenty years ago was a terrible person?

    Do I think it's right? What does even mean?

    Do you think it is fair for you to be condemned for things that are perfectly acceptable by today's standards, but will not be acceptable in the future? You don't even know what these things are. Neither do I.

    If you don't think it is fair for you to be condemned based upon standards that you know nothing about, how fair is it for you to condemn people of the past based upon standards that they knew nothing about?

  • Zeb||

    Perhaps there is a distinction to be made between bad actions and bad people. Owning slaves was bad. No one is going to disagree with that. Having sex with the slaves you own was even worse. Treating wives as something close to property was bad.

    But I don't think that means that people who did those things when they were more or less socially accepted should be considered bad people. Morality is largely learned.

    I don't have much of a problem by judging people in the past by today's standards. But I do object to using such judgements to discredit the good things people in the past said or did.

    The way I see it, the past largely just sucked. But it's the past and it's done. You learn from it what you can, embrace the good stuff and reject the bad. It's an interesting historical fact that Thomas Jefferson (supposedly) had sex with slaves. But it takes nothing away from teh good contributions he made to humanity.

  • sarcasmic||

    But I don't think that means that people who did those things when they were more or less socially accepted should be considered bad people.

    That's what I was trying to say. Thanks.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And the point I'm trying to make is that everyone is gray. I agree, that someone does bad things does not make them a bad person. But I think we need to get away from the strict classification of Good/Bad. People are complex and have a lot of facets to them.

    I don't think we can break them down so easily, and I think we should resist the urge to.

  • Zeb||

    Absolutely. No one is all good or all bad. But in the current climate where it seems like any accusation of sexual misconduct makes you an unperson not fit to live among civilized people you have to make these distinctions carefully.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And how do we know he 'raped' them? They might very well have been into it. He was a powerful man, and a charming gent I'm sure. I've never heard of him going all Bill Clinton on a slave.

  • Zeb||

    I think the idea is that the slave/slave owner power structure is such that consent isn't really possible. I'm not sure I completely believe that's true in every case. But it seems like a decent rule of thumb.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Not necessarily. Jefferson may very well have been known to not retaliate if a female slave put off his advances. I have no idea either way, but he may have been very benign about it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm talking about societal norms of the day. As little as twenty years ago the idea of same sex couples getting married was hard to imagine. Does that mean everyone who was alive twenty years ago was a terrible person?

    What if someone was advocating for gay rights in the 1900s? They were at that time considered to be bad, corrupting the youth and bringing down the morals of society. Do you believe that they were bad because at the time they were considered bad?

    And no, I don't believe that everyone then was terrible. I might think that wrong, but that doesn't cover the entirety of their personhood.

    Do you think it is fair for you to be condemned for things that are perfectly acceptable by today's standards... (Cut to fit char lim)

    I don't think fairness has anything to do with anything. Fairness is a made up concept people use for post-hoc justification of outcomes. Do I accept that people WILL judge things different in the future? Yes, it's inevitable. This does not change my own morality and what I believe to be the truth of the matter by which I will judge things. I know I'm not perfect, but I will still try my best to come to the morality that I feel is right.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know I'm not perfect, but I will still try my best to come to the morality that I feel is right.

    Likewise those in the past who did things that by today's standards are considered to be immoral probably didn't consider their actions to be immoral at the time. That is why I think it makes no sense to judge them by today's standards.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Likewise those in the past who did things that by today's standards are considered to be immoral probably didn't consider their actions to be immoral at the time.

    Many of them, I don't know. My guess is Kennedy rape was not considered particularly moral at the time, probably the major change there anyway is how we protect those in power. That is, I will admit, besides my entire point though.

    Can we not say the Witch Trials we wrong if we also say the people truly believed in them? What is the standard for "societal standards"? This in general is not a clear cut or obvious thing. Different people could have very different standards, which set do we judge with? Seems most reasonably we fall to an individual level. If we judge a person only by their own interpretation of their actions that might be a logically consistent stance.

    I'm curious though. If we judge people only based on the morality of their time, does that mean your idea that we judge people based on the morality of their time is also fall into that? It is a moral statement after all, to say there is something right or wrong about how judgement works.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm curious though. If we judge people only based on the morality of their time, does that mean your idea that we judge people based on the morality of their time is also fall into that? It is a moral statement after all, to say there is something right or wrong about how judgement works.

    I'm not sure what you are asking. My only point was that I think that judging people of the past based upon today's moral standards makes as much sense we judging ourselves based upon the unknown moral standards of those who will live centuries after we are dead. Totality of the circs and all that.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well you asked me earlier if I thought it was right to be judged by future generations based on their beliefs. That seemed to be a moral statement, 'right'. I'm willing to admit that you might have meant 'right' as logically correct with no moral statement, so feel free to clarify that.

    My point was, if it was 'right' in a moral sense, then that is ALSO a part of the morality of the times, and since we are judging only based on morality of the times then we cannot say that future generations judging us by their morality is wrong, because that contradicts our statement that we can only judge based on morality of the time. It's a self-defeating idea.

    If you are saying it is a logical error than at that point you are making something of an absolutist statement. That this is the correct way to logically reason about morality. In which case we still have the problem of determining a standard common morality, which starts to get us into an empirical view of morality most likely. Which I would still argue is basically a nihilistic moral philosophy as we are left with nothing more than a descriptive view of things. People do what they will do, and that is what is right.

  • hello.||

    Well as of today refusing to fuck a faggot with AIDS is punishable by death. Trannies believe not fucking them is a hate crime and will succeed in getting that enshrined in law within the next few years. Pedophilia is the next big civil rights issue after that. Reason already publishes plenty of pedophile apologia inbetween histrionic shrieking about Roy Moore. People looking back from the next century will be appalled if you never fucked a child or you refused the advances of a chick with a dick. And according to BestUsedCarSales they'll be right.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Yeah, it's about 3 comments up

  • BYODB||

    They did not. If anything it was probably worse, and more tolerated. Especially before little things like women's suffrage.

  • Jordan||

    I don't know if Ted Kennedy ever went full-on rapey, but he was a well-known sexual predator and drunkard.

  • sarcasmic||

    Fat Bastard never occupied the oval office.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Thank Baby Jebuz for that!

  • ||

    Jack was a womanizer. How thin is the line anyway?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    How thin is the line anyway?

    The line has a girth of 4 1/4 inches.

  • ||

    I can't think of any other serial rapist to have occupied the oval office.

    You mean other than all of them prior to 1964, right?

    More seriously or accurately, I don't know how you make the logical leap from whatever you want to imagine Trump did to rape and just assume that it never once occurred to Kennedy to have sex with any of those women until *they* approached *him* and, even then, only after sobering up and thoroughly hammering out all the details of affirmative consent.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who are you talking to?

  • CE||

    The internet.

  • ||

    I was, apparently poorly, making an argument about the fluid definition of rape and the obvious oppressiveness of the patriarchy through American history.

    If your wife is under the legal age of consent and otherwise unable to legally refuse your advances if you're still having sex with her 10, 20, or even 30 yrs. into the marriage does it constitute serial rape?

    IMO, Grover Cleveland's marriage veers well into Woody Allen territory.

  • sarcasmic||

  • Lester224||

    Trump has a lot of credible accusations of sexual misconduct against him over a wide period of time. His supporters don't care and the congressional majority doesn't care. IMO nothing will happen to Trump with respect to these accusations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
    Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

  • ||

    Look at what I said. Credible accusations =/= rape (let alone serial rape) and, if it does, then many, many Presidents are guilty of rape, many more serially and credibly than Trump.

    The single credible accusation of rape against Trump contains an explicit conditional that the word 'rape' isn't meant literally or criminally. The guy may be guilty of sexual harassment or assault but rapist, let alone serial rapist, he is not (alone among Presidents).

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I can't think of any other serial rapist to have occupied the oval office."

    It's been long reported that a woman couldn't get a job in the Johnson White House unless she slept with the President.

    "When people mentioned Kennedy's many affairs, Johnson would bang the table and declare that he had more women by accident than Kennedy ever had on purpose."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ magazine/archive/1998/04/ three-new-revelations-about-lbj/377094/

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The DNC really is the party of predators.

  • Michael Hihn||

    But enough about Bill Clinton

    If you take either partisan side on this issue, you are indeed scum..

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Bob Menendez

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    A career that started with opening a trunk and finding something of questionable integrity, and it ended with opening a can of worms and finding someone of questionable integrity.

    As a Minnesotan I'm ambivalent. Franken was a massive jerk who probably stole the election and only represented the urban areas of the state, but I don't like character assassination (despite the left promoting identity politics to the exclusion of almost everything else) without more proof than was given.

    Strategically appointing Smith is an odd move by Dayton in that it moves a Republican up higher in the state's hierarchy.

    Strange days...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Appearances are more important to progressives than the real thing. That's why they get so upset about what people say in public. They don't care whether Trump deports half as many illegal immigrants as Obama; they care that Obama never bragged about it--but Trump speaks out against illegal immigration on camera.

    You see that photograph of Franken up there jokingly copping a feel?

    That's the appearance and far more important to progressives than reality.

    The moment that photo was published, he was doomed.

    To Republican constituents, appearances are far less important. In fact, to Republican constituents, things not being as they seem is a part of what opposing the progressives is all about.

    Washington Post ran a story yesterday or the day before about why some 40% of women in Alabama support Roy Moore. One of the top reasons was that they don't believe the stories. They don't believe the news.

    There are consequences to selling lefty slanted news stories for a decade--as well there should be.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Obama didn't really deport all that many illegals, like with the unemployment numbers, and just about every other metric used to tout his administration's 'successes', they found a way to distort the numbers so they were no longer compiled using the same method as past administrations.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year."

    ----Gallup, September 14, 2016, "Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low"

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/19.....w-low.aspx

    Trump didn't win in spite of the negative media coverage. Trump probably won because of it.

    Al Franken isn't staying because of the facts. Al Franken is leaving because of the coverage.

    That's a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Good points.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Trump didn't win in spite of the negative media coverage. Trump probably won because of it.

    Impossible. Pay attention.

    Nearly 10 milion voted against him.
    He got the highest number of "negative" votes ever. (Aganst opponent, not for candidate).
    He won the electoral college -- which is irrelevant to your assertion -- by only 80,000 votes in three states

    And now the most untrusted President ever.

    Your false assertion says more about GOP partisans -- like yourself -- than about the candidate.
    Then again, he won the GOP nomnation with 37% of REPUBICAN votes -- solely because there were so many in the field.

    So the shame is actually much greater than generally known.
    And he did brag that you'd defend him from even murder in broad daylight! While campaigning on a 48% tax cut for HIMSELF (and a handful of others). Is YOUR marginal tax rate higher than 20%?

    Appearances are more important to progressives than the real thing

    The ones who just forced out Franken? While YOU say he's INNOCENT? (lol)

    The real problem is the shrinking minority of loyalists to both tribes combined ... whose ONLY power comes from partisan primaries. As a growing majority walks away, the remaining fanatics and zealots get an ever-louder voice ... in both bases. How will this bipartisan tribal death spirall end?. Will your ilk, both sides, destroy America? (While the libertarian establishment sits in an Ivory Tower, masturbating)

  • hello.||

    Michael Hihn has sucked Bill Clinton's cock more times than Monica Lewinsky.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Trump didn't win in spite of the obviously false negative media coverage. Trump probably won because of it.
  • Michael Hihn||

    Liar

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7054306

    On top of your partisan blunder here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7054794

    But your puppetmaster will give you a treat, with a pat on the head and a "good boy!"

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But your puppetmaster will give you a treat, with a pat on the head and a "good boy!"

    Is that what your home-care nurse does after she changes your Depends, Hihn-sano?

  • Michael Hihn||

    You severely insulted Jesus Christ here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7055103

    ... I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.
    Now I'm honored that you rank me with Christ!!

    (deep bow of appreciation)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.

    Clearly, that's why you REEEEEEEE every time, Hihn-sano.

    (long strut of confidence)

  • Jerryskids||

    The Dems have signaled their virtue, they now occupy the moral high ground. Too bad the Party of Trump has taken a lesson from the Dems of old who stood by Bill Clinton and decided winning is all that matters so good luck trying to appeal to the principle of the thing. (Funny enough, CNN has already gotten sanctimonious on the issue - Franken fessed up and did the honorable thing by resigning, that evil bastard Moore not only won't drop out of the race he won't even confess his sins. Pleading "Not Guilty" apparently compounds the crime by adding lying to list of charges.)

  • The Last American Hero||

    Just as it did during the Salem Witch Trials - confess to being a witch, and you receive forgiveness and rehabilitation, especially for naming other witches.

    Deny the accusations and swing from a tree.

    Refuse to acknowledge the accusations and they have a large pile of rocks ready for pressing.

    None of this means I support Moore, who is a man of low moral character and should not hold public office.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    One thing I dislike about the sexual harassment charges against Moore as they have seemingly covered up his many horrible political beliefs.

  • Michael Hihn||

    His many horrible political beliefs.

    The Christin Taliban. Where do we send your YUGE trophy,

  • Jordan||

    Waiting for the Roy Moore defenders to speak up in defense of Franken.

    *crickets*

  • Just Say'n||

    "Hey- at least Franken only molested people that were of age!"

  • Rhywun||

    I have noted many times my belief that this entire panic is a witch-hunt. That is not a "defense" of anybody, BTW. Merely my belief that we shouldn't be tossing due process out the window without considering where that's going to lead.

  • Jordan||

    I don't think it's unjust for somebody who's accused by multiple women of sexual harassment to not be allowed anywhere near the levers of government power.

    Or in Moore's case, a guy who trolled malls for teenagers when he was a law enforcement officer, and has lied multiple times about it.

  • Rhywun||

    Where does it end? The only person you'll let "near the levers of government power" is going to have to be so squeaky-clean that he doesn't exist.

    In any event, "accused by multiple anybody" doesn't mean a goddamn thing without proof.

  • Juice||

    So then, no one gets near the levers of power? Damn.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I know, right? That would be a real fucking shame.

  • Rhywun||

    Touche.

  • Jordan||

    Where does it end? The only person you'll let "near the levers of government power" is going to have to be so squeaky-clean that he doesn't exist.

    We're not even close to that point. There should be a high bar for people who want to wield the coercive power of the state.

    What would constitute proof? How many people have ever been falsely accused by 8 women of harassment?

  • Rhywun||

    There should be a high bar for people who want to wield the coercive power of the state.

    Pass a constitutional amendment, then.

    What would constitute proof?

    That is for a court to decide.

    How many people have ever been falsely accused by 8 women of harassment?

    No idea. Is it really so far outside the realm of possibility, in a time now when every single thing is politics?

  • Rhywun||

    *about politics

  • Jordan||

    Wait. You think that people shouldn't be fired (especially government employees) without a conviction in court? Or that people shouldn't call for a senator or candidate to step down unless the Constitution explicitly calls for it? WTF

  • Jordan||

    Another thing I should add is that courts don't deal in proof. They deal in evidence. And testimony is evidence.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Testimony is testimony.

    Evidence is evidence.

    Two separate words. Two separate meanings. You give testimony, you present evidence.

  • Rhywun||

    Private companies can do whatever they want.

    I honestly don't know what mechanism the gov't already has for these situations but it's probably more rigorous than "people calling for it".

  • ||

    How many people have ever been falsely accused by 8 women of harassment?

    Personally or politically that doesn't sound like much of a challenge. Hell, if Rene Boucher had half a brain in his head he'd have gotten himself a 'live-in girlfriend' and then had her allege that Rand Paul hit on her.

    One million-woman march would probably get several tens of thousands of signatures falsely accusing Trump of harassing them.

  • hello.||

    How many people have ever been falsely accused by 8 women of harassment?

    Roy Moore hasn't been accused by 8 women of harassment, but keep trying to grope for that false equivalence like Al Franken with a passed out woman's tits.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Roy Moore hasn't been accused by 8 women of harassment

    It's simply not true.
    The entire universe DOES NOT DISAPPEAR if you refuse to see it.
    Even while watching Faux News!

  • MarkLastname||

    Not to mention some of what he's being accused of isn't sexual assault or harassment. Putting your arm around someone's waste while taking a picture with them isn't assault.

    I loathe Franken, but some of this is clearly bullshit. What next, you have to resign because you tapped someone on the shoulder once?

  • Rhywun||

    He's guilty of something, most likely.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Tapping someone on the shoulder with your penis is inappropriate, even if you only do it once.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Franken's behavior would have seen him fired in much of private America. If you want to argue that's because laws regarding sexual impropriety in the workplace are too strict and should be reformed, OK, but I don't see why the people who make those laws shouldn't be pressured into following the same standards.

  • Lester224||

    ^^ Ditto. Losing your job is not the same as being put in jail. There is no need for "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof when it comes to losing your job.

  • Tony||

    It's a little different when it comes to elected officials because their boss is the people. Being hounded out by the mob defies the currently expressed will of the people.

  • chemjeff||

    I agree with you in general, but in the context of an election, "due process" *is* the court of public opinion. It really is a case study on why so much power should not be concentrated in the hands of fickle mobs.

  • Rhywun||

    The good people of Minnesota are free to vote for someone else next time.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Keillor for Senate!

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    Those days are long Wobegone!

  • Zeb||

    Maybe not the entire panic. There certainly are some people who deserve what they are getting. But it has definitely become a witch hunt.

    I think that what Franken and many others did was not so far outside of the normal range of human behavior. That's not to say it is just fine, or that people who get too grabby shouldn't be called out on it. But I'm not sure I buy the idea that anyone who has ever gotten a little feely with a woman who didn't want it should be driven from public life, or have their carreers ended.

    If there was a Senator who was doing lots to really shrink government and guarantee people's rights, I wouldn't want him to resign over something like this. I'd think less of him as a person, but I care a lot more about what people in government do in government than what they do in their personal lives. If they use their position to help silence or cover up accusations, that would be a different matter.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'm not sure I buy the idea that anyone who has ever gotten a little feely with a woman who didn't want it should be driven from public life, or have their carreers ended.

    That's because you're a patriarchal shitlord.

  • Zeb||

    I guess. Though I've been molested by more women than I have molested myself.

  • BYODB||

    ^ This.

    And, notably, in my time I've probably done things that could be considered 'molestation' as well. College is a weird time, and no one really has much clue about how those things work.

  • Michael Hihn||

    we shouldn't be tossing due process out the window

    Moore admited to dating underge girls ... in his 30s ... claims he had parental consent. (snort)

    How many southern parents would consent to their underage daughters dating a man in his 30s?
    And precisely HOW flat is Planet Earth?

    Trump BOASDTED of sexual; abuse BECAUSE of his fame.
    And Trump has publicly CONFESSED to obstructing justice, firing Comey over the Russian probe. At this pont, Mueller is just seeking MORE violations, for a LARGER case. DUH.

    Like why did a Russian-affilated bank loan Trump Organization hundreds of millions of dollars (A KNOWN FACT), when US banks REFUSED to (after his multiple bankruptcies)? Does Trump owe his ENTIRE current busines to Russia? .Yep. On the facts.

    He sold his soul. Now he wants ours.

  • BYODB||

    If Trump is owned by the Russians than why would the Kremlin hand over information to the Clinton campaign via Steele to destroy Trump? Unless...they bought both candidates?


    Uranium One was obviously a deal championed by Trump as well, I'm sure.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That you swallow the the Uranium One bullshit, says all we need to know..

    And (laughing) the Steel dossier was created by a REPUBLICAN to stop Trump in the primaries. ... and then sold to the Clinton campaign ... while you claim Russia conspired to prove Russia had conspired with Trump.

    And anyone who defends Moore ..... is gonna get this totally bass ackwards also!

  • BYODB||

    Yes, sold to the DNC and Clinton who furthered the research and tracked it to the FBI as a potential source of justification for a FISA warrant used against the Trump campaign using Russian material at least in part. Note I'm not saying the Democrats (and yes, the DNC itself was involved) didn't have help from outside of their camp. That serves to make it all the more sinister if it turns out that was the only justification (And we don't know one way or the other, yet).

    What's your point, again? To date I haven't defended Moore, either, merely the lack of any evidence to back up any claims. Still waiting on that yearbook signature, as it would be damning.

  • hello.||

    Yes we should ignore the verifiable fact that Clinton accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian interests to grease the wheels for Uranium One and focus on the fact that Trump said women will voluntarily let famous men grab their pussy.

    Go suck Bill Clinton's cock some more you retarded partisan shill.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Yes we should ignore the verifiable fact that Clinton accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian interests to grease the wheels for Uranium One Your "verifiable fact" is a psycho lie. The sale had to be approved by a committee.of nine senior officials. Hillary was not in the room. Reported widely. But not Faux News, Breitbart or Infowars.

    Go suck Bill Clinton's cock some more you retarded partisan shill.

    Says the FOULMOUTH parrisan shill.
    And why does the wacky right have such a raging obsession with cock sucking?

  • hello.||

    Learn how to spell you sad piece of human shit.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    hmmm spelling errors vs being a foulmouth bully, scampering down the page yelling "shit" (and probably giggling)

    I'll take the spelling erors!

    This is what a Roy Moore supporter is.

  • chemjeff||

    The Roy Moore defenders say, alternatingly:

    1. Roy Moore says he's innocent so that settles that!
    2. The women are damaged goods and therefore can't be believed (a truly disgusting defense IMO)
    3. He was never convicted in a court of law! Innocent until proven guilty! We must apply legal standards of proof to a senatorial election! (like they ever do such a thing when it's Team Blue on the hot seat)
    4. Just drag Roy Moore across the finish line and then the Senate will totes really expel him for being icky! (like a Republican Senate would expel a Republican Senator when their majority is so thin)
    5. All that matters is his vote against abortion! Nothing else matters! And if you point out that this defense excuses any and all horrible behavior whatsoever, suddenly they change the subject.

    In other words, situational ethics and moral relativism from the Party of Biblical Morality

  • chemjeff||

    Oh I forgot:

    6. It's all a conspiracy by librul media to tear down a decent man!

  • Sevo||

    Good.
    Go find some Moore supporters.

  • Jordan||

    I've encountered plenty here in the comments at Reason.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Have you encountered anyone on here who thinks they all suck?

    I'm hard pressed to find anything non-negative about any sitting politician. The people who run for office are all the worst sorts. You get to choose from lying abusers, thieves and fraudsters, or clueless dolts who don't understand economics and want to dictate what beand of deodorants people buy.

    It is disgusting and depressing when an un-funny comedian who harasses women comes off as one of the best of the lot and was apparently being considered as a presidential candidate.

    Open your eyes and realize rooting for dog shit to win over cat vomit is not a good strategy.

  • Jordan||

    Have you encountered anyone on here who thinks they all suck?

    Certainly. Plenty of them as well.

  • Sevo||

    "I've encountered plenty here in the comments at Reason."
    Names, please

  • BYODB||

    What he means is that anyone who doesn't automatically believe the accusers clearly is a Moore supporter.

    Once you take that as a given, the rest makes sense.

  • DesigNate||

    Name them.

  • hello.||

    Well considering that you lied and said there are 8 women accusing Roy Moore of sexual harassment when in reality there is one who has publicly admitted to fabricating the only evidence she's presented that she even knew Roy Moore, let alone that he sexually assaulted her, we can pretty safely assume you're lying again here. Because that's what you do, you're a liar and piece of shit.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Liar. She added the date and location under his signature.No more.

    And her attorney has DARED Moore to allow a forensics expert to analyze the handwriting ...; IN a congressional investigation, (oops) .
    Why did he chicken out?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I don't know about chemjeff in particular, but some people regard anyone who has so much as a sliver of doubt about the accusations or anyone who questions the motive and integrity of the press as a full-throated Moore supporter.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing)

  • hello.||

    Did you shit your pants again?

  • creech||

    #4 does not compute. Isn't the governor of Ala. a Republican who would appoint another Republican to Moore's seat until the next special election?

  • chemjeff||

    The Trumpists already despise Mitch McConnell. If he engineers an expulsion of Roy Moore, then their majority in 2018 is toast.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's already toast.

  • Karen24||

    Thank you. You could add "Moore makes the libtards really mad!!" Yeah, guys who troll malls for teenaged dates and also think women shouldn't vote or hold office do piss me off. I would hope conservatives have other policy positions, though.

  • Red Tony||

    Killing babies is wrong?

    Because seriously that's one of the things that makes Alabama Republicans support Moore: maybe he's a creepy dude with a thing for young meat, but he doesn't want to kill babies.

  • Eric||

    At least not before they're born.

  • BYODB||

    Question:

    Is it worse to kill a baby, or molest one? Now, vote for the lesser of those two evils.

  • Red Tony||

    I say it's worse to do 2 and then 1 than it is to do 1 and then 2.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Killing babies is wrong?

    Only the brainwashed victims of fhe Christian Taliban are so ignorant.

    Pay attention.

    1) Find a dictionay. Learnb what "unalienable" means.
    2) NO unalienable right ay be denied or disparaged ... for any reason.
    3) That means they are all precisely equal, if in conflic!!! (Am I going too fast?)
    4) Yes, equal to even Right To Life.
    5) These rights include Life, Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness ... and several others (Your ilk as NO CLUE what those other rights are!!!)

    Ready?

    That means the fetal child's Right toi Life is preciselty equal to the woman's Right to Liberty.
    Disagree? Tell that to the Founders and Jefferson ... who ALSO erected Separation

    Do you recall what we were taught in high school? We have over 200 years of histiory, on how to resolve conflcting rights. Common examples are
    1) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
    2) Your rightr to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

    NO fundamental right can possibly are absolute, except unto itself. .
    So tell us ..., what is the ONLY proper way to resolve rights in conflict.
    I didn't think so.

    .
    .

  • BYODB||


    2) NO unalienable right ay be denied or disparaged ... for any reason.

    So natural rights never come into conflict, eh? That would be news to me.

    3) That means they are all precisely equal, if in conflic!!! (Am I going too fast?)

    No one believes this, not even the guys who invented the concept. You're not 'going too fast' you're simply wrong. If you're breaking into my house, I wouldn't be allowed to shoot you because your right to life is precisely as equal as my right to my property. You are truly going senile, since conflicts of natural rights is virtually the entire unpinning of our entire criminal justice system.

    Do you recall what we were taught in high school? We have over 200 years of histiory, on how to resolve conflcting rights. Common examples are
    1) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    #1 on your list is a fallacy.

  • Red Tony||

    Also I wasn't trying to make an argument about the ethicality of abortion, but was rather trying to point out why abortion might sway voters towards Roy Moore despite Moore kinda sucking ass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I wasn't trying to make an argument about the ethicality of abortion,

    I am sincerely sorry for having misread you.

    When will you apologize for your INTENTIONALLY false and malicious claim that I had ignored some make-believe challenge by you?

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7054906

    You have REFUSED to support your shameful lie .... three times (so far)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hysterical?

    2) NO unalienable right May be denied or disparaged ... for any reason.

    So natural rights never come into conflict, eh?

    I said the exact opposite ... and you IMMEDIATELY quote me doing so! (OMG).

    3) That means they are all precisely equal, if in conflict!!! (Am I going too fast?)

    I went too fast for him!

    One more time for the morally disadvantaged.

    1) Find a dictionary. Learn what "unalienable" means.
    2) NO unalienable right ay be denied or disparaged ... for any reason.
    3) That means they are all precisely equal, if in conflic!!! (Am I going too fast?)
    4) Yes, equal to even Right To Life.
    5) These rights include Life, Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness ... and several others (Your ilk as NO CLUE what those other rights are!!!)

    I'll TRY to dumb it down.
    Assume only two unalienable rights (each being absolute)
    If they conflict WHICH ONE PREVAILS?
    Which one is absolute and NOT-absolute AT THE SAME TIME?

    No one believes this, not even the guys who invented the concept.

    You've defended BOTH sides of the same issue.
    Get back to us IF you can 'make up your mind.

    I'm yelling (boldface) because he can't hear me

  • BYODB||

    Posting the same thing twice does not an argument make. It simply means they can not be surrendered. That doesn't imply they don't come into conflict.

    Place cite any philosopher that thought that inalienable, or natural, rights can not be in conflict with one another. I can't prove a negative, and I'm not saying they aren't equal.

    Abortion, as an example you seem to have chosen, is a conflict between the mothers self ownership and the fetuses right to live. Courts have held that if an abortion is performed before what we conceive to be the fetuses moment of consciousness (an unknowable) is an acceptable in-between resolution because it at least considers the rights of both.

    You might disagree with that resolution, and hold that the fetuses life takes precedence in that particular case but by doing so you are necessarily not respecting the mother's self ownership and autonomy as you are forcing her to carry a child to term against her will and it necessarily requires her body to do so.

    This is not even remotely complicated.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Posting the same thing twice does not an argument make.

    Stalker screws up AGAIN!!!
    Each is totally separate. (smirk)

    Evading your PROVEN lies here:
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7054966

    One more time

    I'll TRY to dumb it down.
    Assume only two unalienable rights (each being absolute)
    If they conflict WHICH ONE PREVAILS?
    Which one do YOU say is absolute and NOT-absolute AT THE SAME TIME?

    Changes subject. Launches new aggression

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm yelling (boldface) because he can't hear me

    You're yelling because you're an un-Hihnged suckwad.

    Now go back to your closet before I put another tumor in your neck.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You severely insulted Jesus Christ here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7055103

    ... I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.
    Now I'm honored that you rank me with Christ!!

    (deep bow of appreciation)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.

    Clearly, that's why you REEEEEEEE every time, Hihn-sano.

    (long strut of confidence)

  • hello.||

    Michael Hihn is without any shadow of a doubt the most mentally deranged person I have ever seen in my entire life.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    He sure attracts a lot of crazy thugs.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    5. All that matters is his vote against abortion! Nothing else matters! And if you point out that this defense excuses any and all horrible behavior whatsoever, suddenly they change the subject.

    Is that even contradictory though? This is all power politics, and they are saying this single issue is so important that it goes beyond personal failings of a single politician. Maybe we find it tasteless, particularly my guess is that Chemjeff has probably pro-choice. But I don't know if there is inherent contradiction here.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, you really wrote an impressively distorted bunch of bullshit there. Impressive. The reason Moore is still viable is that the accusations are of very old events, lack evidence, the stories have inconsistencies, and the timing of the accusations is painfully convenient. Maybe he's guilty, but it's entirely likely he is innocent. None of this was the case with Franken or Conyers.

    That you hate Moore doesn't make him guilty.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hello? Moore CONFESSED to dating underage girls .. with the consent of their mothers

    That you hate Moore doesn't make him guilty

    He's innocent because YOU believe SOUTHERN parents would consent to their underage daughters dating a man in his 30s!!!

    Tribal goobers to the left of me. ... Tribal goobers to the right of me. ...
    Both self-righteously ... blind.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    He's not being accused of dating teen girls with the permission of the parents. He's accused of physically assaulting a girl. So far there is no evidence to back up her account.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (smirk).
    Would YOU consent to YOUR underaqe daughter(s) dating a man in his 30s?

    Did Dubya plot the attack on 9/11?

    Are space aliens being held in Roswell New Mexico?

    Is Alex Jones on track to be canonized after his death?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Once again, all of that was well known in Alabama for decades. None of that is what he is accused of. And there is no real proof of what he IS accused of. And I don't really care about what those people thought about an older guy dating their daughters forty years ago. None of. Y business, and it was forty years ago.

    I'm far more concerned about the conduct of siting senators that are actually criminal,like Bob Melendez, who gets no press coverage,

  • Michael Hihn||

    Cowardly evasion.
    One more time for the morally challenged.

    "Would YOU" (all caps) "consent to YOUR" (all caps) "underage daughter(s) dating a man in his 30s?"

    All caps -- plus the point sailed over your head! Anyone who BELIEVES the bullshit that ALABAMA parents would consent to their underage daughter dating a man in his 30s, ESPECIALLY BACK THEN .... is probably brainwashed enough to believe the librul MSM conspiracy to bury the Menendez charges ... or ... you missed it because you can't spell his name!.

    Google found tens of thousand of reports on Menendez charges and trial. (gasp)
    Here's an index of JUST the diabolical bastards at ...the NEW YORK TIMES! (lol)

    Right - Left = Zero

  • Michael Hihn||

    Missed a biggie ...

    Once again, all of that was well known in Alabama for decades

    Once again?
    That he dated underage girls?.
    That you BELIEVE conservative parents consented to their underage girl(s) dating ment in their 30s ... back in 1979 ... and REFUSE to say if YOU would allow your own underage daughter to do likewise.

  • hello.||

    Considering a girl can get married in Alabama at 16 with parental consent, it was apparently common enough that they decided to write it into their laws.

    Considering that Reason wants to do away with sex offender registries and all sex trafficking and statutory rape laws the pearl clutching over a 30 year old guy taking teenage girls on dates where nothing happened besides kissing and hugging is all just a little too fucking precious.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Considering a girl can get married in Alabama at 16 with parental consent, it was apparently common enough that they decided to write it into their laws.

    Ummm, the law was passed first, which is why she can. That's how the law works..

    Considering that Reason wants to do away with sex offender registries and all sex trafficking and statutory rape lawsI'm only about halfway down the page and you're up to 12 blatant lies and/or blunders.

  • hello.||

    Beat that strawman into submission. I'm sure if you keep flailing your arms you'll somehow make an equivalence between 40 year old accusations without any shred of evidence and photographic proof of a man grabbing a woman's tits while she's passed out.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    He never touched her tits.
    That's now 13 lies and/or blunders.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Franken doesn't need defenders. All he had to do was *not* resign. What a coward.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I suspect there was more to come if he didn't resign. The accusations showed no signs of abating.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Same with Moore and Trump (snort)
    .

  • Azathoth!!||

    Franken's not 'accused'. His sexual assault is proven.

    That's important.

    The only reason Franken is leaving is because there's photographic evidence of him sexually assaulting someone.

    Give me some real, unimpeachable evidence that Moore did anything wrong and that's all it will take.

    So far, we've gotten a 40 year old 'she said'--not even 'he said/she said'--because he claims to not even know the women who are alleging crimes.

  • Eric||

    I'm sure you are as reasonable in your analysis of Bill Clinton's past. What unimpeachable proof do we have of sexual assault?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Bill Clinton was not accused of sexual assault.

    He was accused of committing perjury.

    And a blue dress proved that he had, in fact, committed perjury.

    Thank you for playing. Please accept you consolation prizes as you exit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Azathoth ,... world champion bullshitter!

    Bill Clinton was not accused of sexual assault.

    Google Paula Jones ... and her $700,000 settlement

    Thank you for playing.

    Pull your head out of Clinton's ass.

  • hello.||

    Lol. Hihn jumps in to defend his buttboy Bill Clinton... by pointing out that there actually IS credible evidence that he committed sexual assault. Good work you stupid prick.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    kol. Hihn jumps in to defend his buttboy Bill Clinton... by pointing out that there actually IS credible evidence that he committed sexual assault. Good work you stupid prick.

    Now 14 massive lies and/or blunders
    Ad YOU say Azathoth attacked Clinton and Hihn defended him,

    you stupid prick

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Hello was convicted of raping nine girls, between the ages of five and twelve .. which is how I defend his moral character.

    And, as we all know, Jesus Christ performed his own Crucifixion. .
    And Lee Harvey Oswald delivered the eulogy at JFKs funeral.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The photo doesn't actually show him assaulting Tweeden. It shows him being an ass and pretending like he was going to grab here, but I see no actual contact in the photo.

    And doubt there was any subsequent to the photo. "Hey, take a picture while prepare to actually sexually assault a woman in uniform" seems an unlikely scenario for Franken.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Do you actually know what the word "Assault" means, bbdd?

    Contact is not essential to "Assault", like it is to "Battery".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you actually know what the word "Assault" means, bbdd?

    (chuckle)

    Contact is not essential to "Assault", like it is to "Battery".

    Shameful.
    Emphasis added

    Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

    DOJ website

    Or

    illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent
    Merriam-Webster
  • Elias Fakaname||

    The legal definition of assault can vary somewhat by jurisdiction. Though it isn't necessarily the case it can (as you point out) include contact.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's why I cited both the Department of Justice and a major dictionary
    We agree that Entropy was blowing smoke. And it dId happen in the Middle East.

  • hello.||

    Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.

    Notice that doesn't say "and behavior". Try actually reading what you post you retarded fucking moron.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Franken's not 'accused'. His sexual assault is proven

    Liar

  • hello.||

    Yes, you certainly are. You're also delusional and mentally ill, but you deliberately lie as well. Best of both worlds. A psychotic liar.

  • BYODB||

    Honestly, I do feel like Franken was the victim of a witch hunt. I tend to give comedians more leeway when it comes to things they did as a comedian, and really even after that. Comedy isn't kind. Additionally, while I haven't been keeping up with the Franken story as well as I probably could have (I don't really care about it) so far all the 'allegations' up to and including the photo seem pretty tame comparatively.

    The photo does seem like it was intended to be funny, to me, even if it wasn't actually funny. That seems right in line with my opinion of Franken's humor, and as far as I know the accusations against Franken aren't even up to the level of those leveled against C.K. Lewis. (Again, though, I really haven't kept up with all the touching stories. It's hard for me to give a shit without proof.)

    Of course, that is my judgment and that isn't the rubric that is being used to judge Franken. By the Progressive view, he is damned guilty. I don't find that particular worldview useful, though, so personally I think Franken should have stuck it out unless the voters wanted him gone.

  • Presskh||

    Agree, BYODB.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I don't know that Franken is guilty of anything besides the boorish and disrespectful photo.

    And he's clearly denying the rest of the charges.

    I also think it gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that in fact I haven't done.

    Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently.
    ...
    You know an important part of the conversation we've been having last few months has been about how men abused their power and privilege to hurt women.

    I am proud that during my time in the Senate I have used my power to be a champion of women and that I have earned a reputation as someone who respects the women I work alongside everyday. I know there's been a very different picture of me painted over the last few weeks, but I know who I really am.
  • Presskh||

    Jordan,

    I will speak up in Franken's defense. I despise him, quite frankly, and am glad to see his leftist ass gone. But, as a male, the idea that you will be forced from your job, with no recourse, merely because of an accusation from any random woman totally flies in the face of not only our system of justice but also common sense. The net effect of this witch hunt against males will be that it will add another road block to women being hired. Employers will be even more vigilant about researching potential female employees and will reject any applicants with even a hint of filing grievances. I'm glad Franken is gone but I think the lack of any real evidence that he committed an actual crime is extremely troubling.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Well-stated in general. But for Franken, did you not see the photo?

  • hello.||

    Possibly because there's recent photographic evidence of Franken's sexual assault, while the entirety of the accusations against Moore stand on a forged signature in a 40 year old high school yearbook.

  • Falcon53||

    "In his eight years in the Senate, Franken has sponsored just three bills that became law."

    Shouldn't we be cheering this?

  • Ship of Theseus||

    The fact that only three bills becoming law means more were likely killed? Yes.

    That Franken was ever taken seriously as a Senator enough to get even three passed? No.

  • Falcon53||

    To your latter point, I agree.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    That was my first thought as well. It's bizarro to criticize a representative based on not sponsoring significant legislation that passed. Good for him actually.

  • CE||

    That's three too many.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Shouldn't we be cheering this?

    It's totally irrelevant
    And rather shameful..
    What's the comparison to others?

  • Just Say'n||

    Woah- what happened with Franken? First article I've seen about him. Well, at least Conyers remains

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Say what you will about this guy but he knows how to stay on topic.

  • Lester224||

    Conyers is leaving "retiring".

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The story's alternate title: "Bugger Off You Barmy Tosser"

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Dammit, Democrats.

    Just. God. DAMMIT.

    Look, as a nonbinary feminist, I was an early advocate of the "believe women" campaign. But I never expected it to turn out like this!

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Your complaint is....?

  • Jordan||

    It's a lame parody account by some butthurt conservative. Just ignore it.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Ah, noted. TY

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'd say it's a pretty good parody account. A little on the nose, but fun.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I swear, some of y'all have really low standards.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I only have low standards want to comes to women and whiskey.

  • Zeb||

    Seriously. Back in the day, there was some proper performance art commenting. This guy is pretty weak sauce.

  • BYODB||

    The tameness of the language contrasted with the content is what makes it so good, in my view.

  • hello.||

    MJGreen's idea of high parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGl1CCprCeU

  • Hail Rataxes||

    It's obviously Tulpa.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I support open borders, oppose the Second Amendment, and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. If that makes me "conservative" to you, maybe you need to rethink your definitions.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    So, you're an idiot.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    My complaint is that an excellent Senator, and champion of women, has been manipulated into resigning by a Republican-orchestrated witch hunt.

    My complaint is that the Democrats refused to fight, and instead just rolled over and let the Republicans win.

    My complaint is that "believe women," which I initially enthusiastically supported, has turned into something I could not have foreseen.

  • Radioactive||

    My complaint is that you don't have your head far enough up your ass.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Democrats know that they need Franken to resign now so that when the seat comes up for election, they have a winnable incumbent. It's nothing noble; it's strategy.

  • Myshkin78||

    "excellent Senator"

    Okay, that may be taking the parody too far.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Pay attention, Hihn-tard, this is how you troll.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You came here SOLELY to assault me 8 times
    And you severely insulted Jesus Christ here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7055103

    ... I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.
    Now I'm honored that you rank me with Christ!!

    (deep bow of appreciation)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.

    Clearly, that's why you REEEEEEEE every time, Hihn-sano.

    (long strut of confidence)

  • Chuck in CR||

    But I never expected it to turn out like this!

    No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Tuesdays on show weeks were all-nighters for the writers. One Tuesday night in late 1991, Lorne returned from dinner with George Harrison in tow. George wandered through the offices and met with the writers and actors, who were all thrilled to meet the man. Apparently he sat down at the piano in the writers' room and proceeded to play and sing to the happy group. Al's opened office door was fifteen feet away.

    Al [Franken]: 'I was coproducer at that time and I think George had perhaps too much wine. He played for two hours, no work was getting done, and there was no telling how long he'd be there.'

    So Franken rose out of his chair and said to the two young writers with whom he was working [Phil Hartman was there too], 'Watch this…' He walked over to his door and slammed it shut. George Harrison got up, excused himself, and disappeared into the night. That still makes me laugh just to think about it."

    - Tom Davis, Thirty-Nine Years of Shortterm Memory Loss: The Early Days of SNL from Someone Who Was There

    This American hero put the third-most overrated Beatle in his place, but hey he touched some broad's stomach flab so let's ruin his career.

    Fuckin' A, bros.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He was also the guy who later snuck into his house and stabbed him. Franken also gave that one guy his first copy of The Catcher in the Rye.

    And, I don't know if this means anything, it could just be a coincidence. But Al Franken is an anagram for Yoko Ono.

  • Radioactive||

    sounds like a plan!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Of course he did that to the guy who wrote "The Taxman".

  • Rhywun||

    reports of an eighth accuser

    Only 25 more to go to beat the 33 SNL ladies on his side.

  • Ron||

    resigned but did not admit guilt, then why resign

  • Crusty Juggler||

    then why resign

    Crisis management, bro - he resigns the issue goes away.

    Also, as Fist mentioned this morning, he resigns so that the Dem gov can appoint another Dem senator. If they dig in their heels and fight it out they could lose the seat and risk alienating their base, which we all know are white, mouthy dames.

  • Tony||

    All the women senators got together and decided that one more accusation would be the trigger for them, and one came shortly thereafter. He was forced out. I hope they know what they're doing, because I don't think there are enough eunuchs or Mormons to fill out the Democratic caucus in Congress.

  • MarkLastname||

    Mormons, no. Eunuchs, actually maybe.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    The circle will be unbroken. So far it's been an all male cast of villains. Xe on xer and xe on xe. I know there are sociopathic xers and some of them have been in powerful positions. There must be cases of xer on xe and xer on xer sexual aggression waiting for a moment in the spotlight.

  • Radioactive||

    you relying on this for a new wave of porn?

  • Rebel Scum||

    Franken also said he saw the "irony" in him leaving the Senate while President Trump, who he pointed out bragged on tape about sexual assault, remains in office

    He said "they let you". There's your consent.

    Roy Moore, accused of preying on young girls, continues to run for Senate with the support of the Republican party.

    This probably has to do with a lack of credible evidence and a forgery of a signature in a yearbook.

    Keep smiling for the camera, Franken.

  • chemjeff||

    So Leigh Corfman is part of some grand conspiracy to tear down Roy Moore?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    She is being funded by the deep state.

    Duh.

  • chemjeff||

    I suppose so.

    I mean, I would give more credence to the "she's a liar!" claims if someone could point to some connection that Leigh Corfman has that would embitter her to Moore. As far as I can see, Corfman is just an ordinary person, not a political activist, not some rabid partisan, in fact she claims to even have voted for Trump. So if she's lying, then why?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    As far as I can see, Corfman is just an ordinary person, not a political activist, not some rabid partisan, in fact she claims to even have voted for Trump

    That's where they made their mistake! She is too clean. That's why I think she is lying.

  • chemjeff||

    Crusty, I think you are on to something.

  • hello.||

    The same strawman touched you both 40 years ago?

  • Rebel Scum||

    Don't get me wrong, I think 30 year-olds going after (presumably post-pubescent) teens is creepy, but I do find some oddities with the accusations and the timing is questionable. I also think this whole //metoo thing is mostly bs. Accusations are not evidence. And to be fair to Franken, the only picture evidence I have seen does not appear to show him actually touching anyone. But it is fun to watch these peoples houses of cards fall.

  • ||

    And to be fair to Franken, the only picture evidence I have seen does not appear to show him actually touching anyone.

    I don't mean to defend Franken nor prevent his culture from eating him alive, but the rather explicit joke is that the photos are staged and don't reflect reality. Not that they actually caught him in the act of groping anybody. Like seeing this photo and thinking that we need to start issuing deer hunting (and driver's) licenses (or as supporting evidence for the fact that the deer population is out of control or whatever).

  • Tony||

    Because men who grab women by the pussy never claim that it was consensual when it actually wasn't.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Women don't like men with wealth and power?

  • Tony||

    Nobody has ever wanted Donald Trump to grab their genitals. Or Harvey Weinstein to jack off into a plant in front of them. I am fairly confident in these claims.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or Harvey Weinstein to jack off into a plant in front of them.

    Kevin Spacey might beg to differ.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Harvey is too old for Spacey. Also, Kevin is a slight fella and would have trouble carrying Harvey around.

    Get it together, sarcasmic.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sorry Crusty.

    *hangs head in shame*

  • Tony||

    If Kevin Spacey liked his men old and fat he probably wouldn't be in this much trouble.

  • BYODB||

    I'm pretty sure Trump has been married more than once, so that's yet another examine of a basic logic fail to add to the ACA-page-length journal of shit you've said that beggars belief.

  • Tony||

    And none of his wives actually wanted him to touch them.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Tony is really Marla Maples? That... explains a lot, actually.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Tony is really Marla Maples?

    Nope.

    Gary Hart using Maples' account.

    MonkeyBusiness - all the way down.

  • BYODB||

    Uhh...yeah I think you're way off base there but keep believing what you need to believe to sleep at night Tony.

  • MarkLastname||

    Plenty of women have wanted both I'm sure, if only to get paid.

    Nobody 'wants' to trim shrubs in the hit sun for hours. They want the money they get for doing it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "Nobody has ever wanted Donald Trump to grab their genitals."

    You're just jealous because he passed on you Tony. Plenty of gold diggers out there for a rich connected guy like him.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Women don't like men with wealth and power?

    If there is anything we have learned in the past few weeks it's that not all women want a man with wealth and power to touch them inappropriately, or watch a man beat off into a plant, etc.

  • Lester224||

    Especially a man as ugly as Weinstein or Trump.

  • BYODB||

    If this was true, people wouldn't have those lists where if your wife or husband meets 'x' celebrity they get a pass on cheating. So, yeah, people are attracted to fame, power, and beauty but not necessary all of them at the same time.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    One of my classmates regularly had wealthy sugar daddies back in her twenties. I met two of them. They made Trump look good, and she was gorgeous. So she had no problem getting good looking guys (both her husbands are fairly handsome guys). So if anyone thinks hot young models and actresses won't go for Trump, you're out of your fucking mind.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    He said "they let you". There's your consent.

    You know how people keep asking, "Why didn't these women come forward earlier?"

  • MarkLastname||

    Because the Patriarchy isn't sufficiently incredulous? Come on, if you wait 20 years to come forward, and all you have is your story, you don't deserve to just be believed.

  • hello.||

    If we don't accept every decades old accusation at face value with no evidence then women won't come forward with decades old accusations with no evidence. The logic is perfect.

  • Ron||

    Roy has changed his story so often he can't keep his lies straight therefore i think he is guilty of the crimes

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It was a long time ago and he might not have initially remembered everything from 1979 clearly. That doesn't make him guilty. Not saying he's innocent either, but The Who,e thing is just too shaky and the accusation too conveniently timed.

  • Mcgoo95||

    The democrats just seemingly committed an act of human sacrifice, eventhough they actually lose nothing. I think it is very likely they just guaranteed Roy Moore a win. I find it very amusing that the democrats have chosen to wield the cudgel of sexual puritanism and then only managed to hit themselves over the head with it. Pretty sure *a good part* of the country is sick of this stupidity. Most likely the silent, voting part. Guess we'll see.....

  • Brian||

    At least one of the democrat rapists is being held responsible.

  • CE||

    Tweeden said she was motivated in part to come forward by a radio interview she conducted with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who told her that when she was a young Congressional aide, a powerful man in her office tried to forcibly kiss her.

    "At that moment, I thought to myself, Al Franken did that exact same thing to me," Tweeden wrote...

    I blame old movies.

  • Microaggressor||

    The calls for Franken to resign snowballed and yesterday an eighth woman accused him of putting his hand on her waist, "grabbing a handful of flesh," after she asked to take a photo with him.

    About time for hover-handing to make a comeback.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Who knew the War on Women was being waged by leftists?

  • Zeb||

    Well, men are scum, after all.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And obsolete.

  • 68W58||

    But, but, but...binders full of women.

  • Curt||

    "Franken said he was "excited" about the conversation about the way men mistreat women when it first started, saying it was "long overdue". "Then it came back to me," he said, saying he was shocked and upset to hear how women perceived his actions."

    Well, I'll be damned. That is shocking. What's next? Are we going to discover earthshaking evidence that some of the people who were burned as witches supported witch-burning before they were accused?

    Is there an actual reason that no one ever believes that the laws they support and the outrages they stoke might come back around and bite them in the ass?

  • Red Tony||

    It's so we can laugh at them. Also because people who advocate witch hunts usually aren't very self-aware.

  • Radioactive||

    "former comedian" implies that at some point he was funny maybe in a funny strange way, but never in a funny ha-ha way

  • Zeb||

    He had his moments, I thought. Not side-splitting hilarity, but some clever bits.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    The Olympic synchronized swimming with Mr Burns was funny

    "No no..you're not mad at him. You're pointing saying 'Hey you...I know you, I know you..' "

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Ooh, it's looking like we're still in the early stages of this thing. Supposedly, journos are collecting dirt on a couple dozen Congresspersons. (I'm hoping for a woman or two) Most recently, Morgan Stanley fired former D rep Harold Ford Jr. for harassment.

  • Rhywun||

    At least one woman, who is not a Morgan Stanley employee but interacted with Ford in a professional capacity, was interviewed by Morgan Stanley's HR department as part of the investigation.

    Wow. Hands off the contractors, guys.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Nothing wrong with a little fishing off the company dock!

    /shreek

  • BYODB||

    Honestly, this is a little disappointing.


    While I get that there's a photo of Franken (shown in the blog post, no less) I still don't think that really paints Franken as some kind of molester unless you think he wasn't just kidding around. (Even if it was poor, juvenile humor, it doesn't seem like that should be illegal or disqualifying for office to me...)


    It is possible, of course, but so far I haven't really seen any big proof that he actually molested anyone. He honestly does seem kind of innocent, and while I think the guy is a jerkoff it should be left to the people who elected him to recall him, or whatever.


    I just can't bring myself to clutch pearls over the accusations I've seen toward Franken. It seems like any touching, or hugging, or shit even shaking a woman's hand is being interpreted as 'assault' or 'molestation'. It just doesn't seem that way to me.


    Maybe I'll be labeled a misogynist or a rape apologist or some such, but I can't help but feel like Franken really is the victim of a witch hunt here. I haven't been keeping up with the Franken story very closely, though, so are there some accusations of him actually trying to rape or assault anyone or is it all 'butt grabby jokes' accusations?

  • Lester224||

    Franken is "taking one for the team" here. His far from the worst of the offenders. This puts Democrats ostensibly on the "moral high ground". I don't think it will work because if the right wing supporters or Roy Moore are an example, then red America doesn't seem to care much about sexual misconduct or harassment or even sexual assault. Supreme Court nominations and abortion politics outweigh moral objections. I think that unless you can convict a right-wing politician of a felony, he or she will have support of most of the Republican voters.

  • BYODB||

    It is true that the Democrat parties obvious strategy at the moment is to impeach Trump and this does appear to serve that end, so it's very possible.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    It wasn't assault when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin so why would it change for Roy Moore?

  • hello.||

    I don't think it will work because if the right wing supporters or Roy Moore are an example, then red America doesn't seem to care much about sexual misconduct or harassment or even sexual assault.

    No, they do see something wrong with sexual misconduct and sexual harassment and sexual assault. If there were any evidence of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment or sexual assault against Moore, like say if there were a picture of him grabbing women's tits, they would probably drum him out of office. Since there's no evidence of any sexual misconduct or sexual harassment or sexual assault involving Moore and his accuser has admitted to forging the only piece of evidence she presented that she even knew Moore 40 years ago, they aren't drumming him out of office. Do you get it now, fucking idiot?

  • Zeb||

    The worst I've heard of was forcing kisses on the same woman the tit grabbing photo was taken with.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Franken said he was "excited" about the conversation about the way men mistreat women when it first started, saying it was "long overdue."

    "Then it came back to me,"

    This is what happens when you light an arson fire and it goes out of control.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah. Note that I'm rending my shirt over Franken resigning but I do think he probably didn't need to do so. I wouldn't have attacked him if he decided to stay in office any more so than I would have if he had never been accused of anything.

    I didn't like Franken as a writer for SNL, or as a Senator, but he wasn't anywhere near the top of any 'gets this guy out of office' lists as far as I'm aware. He was one of those types who got into office to vote 'Present'. It's not like he's even the only one. Hell, Barak Obama did it.

  • BYODB||

    *Not that I'm rending...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I think Al Franken is at the low end of the sexual harassment scale. But because the progressives, the left and the Democrats (which aren't always the same thing) essentially caused the category collapse, I'm not shedding any tears. The left is in full-on "kill them all, God will know his own" mode, I'm happy to watch the fire rage on.

  • Ladyhawk||

    "I just can't bring myself to clutch pearls over the accusations I've seen toward Franken."

    Agree -- I have been harassed, grabbed, fumbled with, and propositioned by some males who would not take "no" for an answer. I can't stand Franken, but those women are not describing true sexual harassment by someone able and willing to affect their careers. I was hoping he'd stay and just continue on as too tainted to be effective.

  • BYODB||

    That's sort of my view, in that what's happening is the bar for sexual harassment is being lowered to the point where it's crowding out actual harassment. That's not a good precedent.

  • hello.||

    What kind of society are we living in where you can't grab a passed out woman's tits from time to time without it being labeled as "harassment".

  • Ron||

    how would you like it if some man stuck his tongue down your throat. i wouldn't like it and I'm sure women wouldn't enjoy it either which is some of the accusations. note if they don't protest grabbing and kissing then what stops a person from going further.

  • BYODB||

    I've had drunk ass women kiss me before, and strangely enough I pushed them away and went on with my life.

  • stuartl||

    This is how I used to think. I've had drunk women and men kiss and or grope me and I always pushed them away. No big deal....But, I'm a guy and I never felt physically threatened. Listening to the recent accusations and descriptions of events, now I wonder what it would have been like if the person coming at me had been much larger and/or stronger than me and I could not push them away. Even worse, what if they had been "important" people and I were afraid to say no.

    Franken's offenses were on the border line, but now at least two of the eight said that he stuck his tongue down their down their throats. Good riddance.

  • Zeb||

    That is something to consider. Especially the physical intimidation factor. But as we have learned lately, society is ready to accept accusations against powerful people. So the fear of saying "no" to a powerful person (unless they have direct control over your future prospects, which is a different matter, I think) is perhaps overblown. If more people had said something sooner about powerful people doing inappropriate or downright criminal things, I think things would have gotten better sooner and in a saner way.

  • BYODB||

    So, in other words you are admitting there are physiological differences between men and women?

    Congrats, now you're on the list of people who need to be cleansed from society. (/sarc, of course)

    Please note that I did not say that the women who kissed on me while drunk were smaller than I was.

    Women don't get it both ways. You can't be small and fragile and need extra special good protection and be equals in society. It simply does not compute.

    If a huge guy beats your ass into the ground and rapes you, or just rapes you, would you refrain from calling the cops as a guy? Honest question. I'd reckon that the answer is 'no'.

  • stuartl||

    Admitting there are differences? I'm first in line saying as groups (not necessarily individuals,) there are physical and psychological and skill differences. I probably will be one of the first to be cleansed.

    But I'm not sure how saying there are differences says people are not equal. It just indicates there are differences. I'm better at math than my wife. She's better at writing. We are still equals. I'm smaller and weaker than all NFL offensive linemen. Again, we are still equals.

    And yes, if anyone besides a cop assaults me I will call the cops. Hopefully I can prove it.

  • Zeb||

    I wouldn't like it. But unless I had some other grudge against him, I don't think I'd go out of my way to publicly shame him or ruin his career. All depends on the circumstances, though. And different people get to draw the line where they see it.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yeah this far, most of it doesn't seem that egregious. The Dems are burning him at the stake more as collective penance than punishment.

    I'm glad he's gone, but putting your arm around someone's waste to take a picture with them? That's sexual harassment now? How far are we gonna take this? It's a little foreboding.

  • hello.||

    Honking a woman's tits while she's passed out and then going "Lol, it was just a joke!" doesn't change the nature of honking her tits while she's passed out.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Does anybody believe that he would have resigned if MN had a Republican governor?

  • Mcgoo95||

    ^ this

  • Tony||

    Having this conversation with fellow liberals who are all too eager to signal their virtue by saying good riddance.

    The answer is they'd have a much harder time sitting on their moral high horse if he were to be replaced by a Republican. Which makes it not a moral position at all.

  • BYODB||

    On this, you are correct.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It is a moral posiiton .... in that the red tribe is increasingly shameful by comparison.
    Goldwater and Reagan weep in their graves. As does John Kennedy.

  • BYODB||

    The same Kennedy who likely had affairs while in office?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (set bait for goobers .... wait ... you'll ALWAYS trap at least one)

    It is a moral posiiton .... in that the red tribe is increasingly shameful by comparison.
    Goldwater and Reagan weep in their graves. As does John Kennedy.


    The same Kennedy who likely had affairs while in office?

    Ready?
    THE SA

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ready?

    The same Kennedy who worked across the aisle for his tax cuts ... which launched the postwar boom, after 5-back-to-back recessions in only 15 years.

    The same Kennedy whose trail-blazing and bipartisan tax cuts were later copied IDENTICALLY by Reagan, also bipartisan ... followed by the second of ONLY two economic booms in the past 72 years. (Clinton took office in the 22nd month of an expansion launched by Reagan.

    MY TURN

    Ready?

    Skip to the present. Do you know Obana won the 2008 nomination, campaigned and was elected .... as a center-left MODERATE on healthcare ... with THE best argumnent against a mandate EVER?

    Do you know Republicans were then offered a BIPARTISAN health care option, as an ALTERNATIVE to single-payer ... AND THE FUCKERS REFUSED?

    It was REPUBLICANS who forced Obama to seek his far-left.... REPUBLICANS responsible for what Obamacare became .. they could have killed single-payer forever..

    When Kennedy and Reagan worked across the aisle, they could ignore the wackos in their own parties. Kennedy's were OPPOSED by the far left and AFL-CIO as "tax cuts for the rich!"

    Stop screeching. Here's 2008 Obama on health care, in a LIBERTARIAN campaign ad!

    So PLEASE spare us the shameful moral relativism of partisan whataboutism.
    (gag)

  • BYODB||

    You really have absolutely no idea what moral question was being discussed, do you?

  • BYODB||

    And, just to make it clear, the moral question was related to sexual impropriety which made your response...questionable.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You really have absolutely no idea what moral question was being discussed, do you?

    You just lied about your own words!

    who likely had affairs while in office?

    Are you pissed because I exposed your party's blatant stupidity?

  • Michael Hihn||

    BYODB|12.7.17 @ 5:52PM|#
    And, just to make it clear,

    ... that you lied about your own words?

  • BYODB||


    Are you pissed because I exposed your party's blatant stupidity?

    I don't have a party. None of them represent my views, including the Libertarian party. I don't expect to be represented, either. The Republic is too far gone. And you can't make me mad, you're way too bizarre for me to take you that seriously anymore.

    Do you deny that there are allegations that Kennedy had extra-martial affairs, or are you defending Kennedy that those allegations were baseless?

    Not that it matters, you'll cite Moore's own statements as some kind of defense of your own conclusions; and perhaps rightly so. Neither of us live in Alabama though. If I did live there, you can bet I wouldn't vote for Moore. Before or after the allegations. That doesn't mean due process should be lit on fire, either, although I have yet to hear anyone charging Moore with anything.

    Should he be a Senator? Probably not, but again that's up to Alabama and the Senate if they want to try and kick him out.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Proven liar,
    Your time has expired..

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Your time has expired..

    So has your sanity, Hihn-tard.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You came here SOLELY to assault me 10 times
    And you severely insulted Jesus Christ here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7055103

    ... I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.
    Now I'm honored that you rank me with Christ!!

    (deep bow of appreciation)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.

    Clearly, that's why you REEEEEEEE every time, Hihn-sano.

    (long strut of confidence)

  • Tony||

    I suppose it's a relative matter. Better a non-groper Democrat than a groper, but better a groper Democrat than a Republican. And that's absolutely correct.

  • MarkLastname||

    And yet you bitch incessantly about Republicans who support Roy Moore?

    If you want to say you'd prefer a morally worse candidate because you think the outcome will be better, fine, but they you whine about people deploying the same cynicism cal utilitarianism in defense of Moore. You seem to think being a hypocrite is a virtue.

  • Tony||

    I think not believing in climate change while being a lawmaker is just about the worst thing I can imagine.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, keep your religion out of this forum.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Heh :)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Tony, as a non-hater myself, I have publicly defended you when you're correct,
    Here, you EVADED THE COMMENT entirely ...to become an even BIGGER ass than MarkLastName asserted!

    Moore's defenders support a sexual predator ... who opposes abortion.
    YOU support a sexual offender ... who opposes climate change.

    EARTH TO TONY .... This is why the vast majority of us REAL independents are sickened by both corrupt tribes. (All three, actually)

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    New York Times: Women are disarming themselves!

  • Michael Hihn||

    How?
    Link?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Michelle Goldberg:

    When Our Allies Are Accused of Harassment

    It's possible that feminists, in trying to hold Democrats to standards that they wish were universal, risk unilateral disarmament. Kate Harding made this case in The Washington Post last Friday, arguing against Franken's resignation. If Democrats "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," she wrote. And when the next Democratic member of Congress goes down, there might not be a Democratic governor to choose his replacement.
  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks for correcting. I chose to have YOU do so on your own, and appreciate it.

    Women are disarming themselves!

    feminists ... risk unilateral disarmament
  • Michael Hihn||

    Good riddance to bad rubbish

    THIS is why today's libertarians will NEVER attract the support of .... the very independents they LAUGHINGLY claim "prove" a libertarian moment.

    Ass-kissing EITHER tribe is not independent. And PRECISELY what independents deplore. DUH.

    It's also why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of ... libertarians ... per our own Cato Institute. ... NOT CNN (lol)

    Yes, taking EITHER partisan side on this issue is to excuse sexual abuse on one's own side. Shameful

    Left - Right = Zero

    Even with all his hedging and denials, Franken accepted responsibility for the consequences of his own actions, if barely. Republicans continue their shameful decline.

    Starting wigth Clinton, voters have tidal waved against the Presideny's party ... and THIS President is even more reviled. How massive a fuckup is it ,., when fewer than 30% of voters approve TAX CUTS? And TRUMPCARE? While making Obamacare more popular than ever??

    Progessive are kicking our ass, as faux libertarans drink the kool-aid, deep in their tribal cave, as reason.com's web traffic keeps plummeting.

    Nolan libertarians are bound and gagged. As Lady Liberty stands all alone. In shame. Undefended .

  • BYODB||

    If Progressivism is attractive to a majority of the electorate, what could Libertarianism possibly offer them when they stand opposed to one another?

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    What they always have: Republicanism. Which is a mix of social conservatism, lip service to the Constitution, and concern about the debt and deficits when the Progressivists are in charge.

  • BYODB||

    That isn't actually Republicanism, words have meanings, but I absolutely agree that the Republican Party represents more or less what you've laid out. Frankly, Republicans are mostly Progressives these days as well. I'm not sure the trend can be reversed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If Progressivism is attractive to a majority of the electorate,

    That is shamefully dishonest. Please apologize.

  • BYODB||

    So, no response then except a straight up denial? Ok, by all mean's keep believing that Libertarians are driving people away as opposed to most people are not even remotely libertarian. I imagine it's a more comfortable outlook.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ?So, no response then except a straight up denial?

    Thtat was not a denial. I called you a liar. Now I'll prove it.

    Progeessives are kicking our ass, as faux libertarans drink the kool-aid, deep in their tribal cave, as reason.com's web traffic keeps plummeting.

    If Progressivism is attractive to a majority of the electorate,

    Liar. Proven,

    keep believing that Libertarians are driving people away as opposed to most people are not even remotely libertarian.

    Bend over This will go up your ass easier!! (lol)

    Me

    tt's also why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of ... libertarians ... per our own Cato Institute. ... NOT CNN (lol)

    Now DEEPER

    most people are not even remotely libertarian

    That same Cato says you're full of shit AGAIN. (Same link you REFUSE to check)

    .... we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: "Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?"

    100 - 9 = 91%

    Truly pathetic, a liar and a bully..
    .

  • BYODB||

    You imply that Progressives are kicking our ass (assuming you mean in legislative wins and content of the legislative bodies, and by 'our' I assume you mean libertarians in general) which is absolutely true and has been true for 100 years.

    I was clearly saying that you're wrong about the reasons. There are simply not enough Libertarians to drive anyone away from libertarianism which are, notably, not the same thing at all.

    What drives people to Progressivism is the Progressive ideology which is inherently anti-libertarian.

    Liberty has been in decline in the face of Progressivism for well over a century now. To blame that on less than 5% of the population today seems truly bizarre.

    As for CATO, it's not that surprising to me that a libertarian think tank wants to find that most people are 'libertarian'. In some ways, I'm sure that's true but a survey of around 1000 self-reported voters and a three question survey? That's your proof regarding all of America?

    Sounds good, but it also doesn't support your point that the party or the people who identify as libertarian are what is driving some reduction in that number.

  • Michael Hihn||

    My stalker REVEALS his latest fuckup!
    WITH A NEW LIE!!

    You imply that Progressives are kicking our ass

    I stated it as an absolute.

    BEND OVER ... UP YOUR ASS AGAIN!

    (assuming you mean in legislative wins and content of the legislative bodies,

    So ... you made as ass of yourself ... 12th time on the page.

    Ummmmmmm, they're "kicking our ass" ... in the court of public opinion ... "as faux libertarIans drink the kool-aid, deep in their tribal cave, as reason.com's web traffic keeps plummeting.."

    ON TOP OF YOUR BULLSHIT "most people are not remotely libertarian

    STOP STALKING ME ...; AND BEING HUMILIATED EVERY TIME

    Will it apologize? Or more revenge aggression?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Shorter Hihn:

    "GURBLE-BURBLE GORBLDY-GOOK!!

    SKURBLY-DOO!

    FLORGLE-RIBLEY TOOKY BORGLE!!"

    (hops away giggling)

  • Michael Hihn||

    MOAR aggression by a long-term stalker ... PROUD to be a bully.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You came here SOLELY to assault me 10 times
    And you severely insulted Jesus Christ here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7055103

    ... I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.
    Now I'm honored that you rank me with Christ!!

    (deep bow of appreciation)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've always felt honored by your raging hatred.

    Clearly, that's why you REEEEEEEE every time, Hihn-sano.

    (long strut of confidence)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Translation: "REEEEEEEEEEEE!"

  • hello.||

    A question begging poll conducted by a think tank with an ideological agenda over 10 years ago. Couldn't you at least find some material?

    Oh, and maybe get the Democratic cock out of your mouth while you're preaching bipartisanship?

  • Microaggressor||

    This isn't ass kissing a tribe. You're senile, Michael.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But he's OUR Michael.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You can thank me for causing Reason to change an embarassing subhead,.
    You're welcome!

  • Michael Hihn||

    This isn't ass kissing a tribe. You're senile, Michael.

    Proving my point as an ass-kisser yourself.

    Ass-kissing EITHER tribe is not independent. And PRECISELY what independents deplore. DUH.

    Even worse for you ... Reason changed the subhead after my complaint ... which leaves you twistiing in the wind, all alone ... but-kicked by a senile old fart.

    xoxoxox

  • hello.||

    The highlight of your life is that a web editor changed a subhead on a blog article for reasons probably having nothing to do with your senile delusional ravings because you think it somehow validates the 20 year old stats you keep citing from a libertarian think tank. Why did you even take treatment for the throat cancer? If my life were that pathetic I'd have offed myself.

  • BYODB||

    And, is it at all shocking that Libertarianism (an ethos that enshrines individuality) might reject group labels and vote however they damn well please?

    Not that the Libertarian party is great, or anything, but a group of contrarians are barely something one could consider 'a group' at all. They only look like a group from the outside.

  • Libertarian Newbie||

    I'm new to this, BYOBD, so please explain. How does a self-label require me to vote a certain way?
    I self-define many ways. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and independent for this context.

    I can't label myself libertarian, because every prominent libertarian that I'm aware of is socially conservative, a few extremely so, in the statist sense. That makes them a threat to my deeply-values, or at least no way to vote my deeply-held values.

    Sadly, I find few to vote for, and many to vote against. I would never vote for a fiscal liberal, because they want to expand government power. For the same reason, I'd never vote for a social coservative. I think it was earlier libertarian writing where I saw my ideal. What first excited me. .

    In a free society, we are free to favor or oppose abortion, favir or oppose free markets, or hold and practice any other values. But nobody has any right to impose their own values by government force. Do you disagree? You seem to be saying that how I label myself is more important than how I vote. Is that what you mean?

    The Catio link was a lomg read, but it does say that I'm in the majority. 59% who self-define as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I've explained why I cannot label mysef as a libertaian, but hold libertarian valuis as defined by Cato. Libertarisn is fine. Libertaianism is not. That may be what Cato's survey means.

    .

  • hello.||

    Use your real name Hihn. Or go back to your Nolan sock puppet.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Left - Right = Zero

    Even with all his hedging and denials, Franken accepted responsibility for the consequences of his own actions, if barely. Republicans continue their shameful decline.

    Then Left - Right =/= Zero.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Also shameful ... this one for dishonesty

    Then Left - Right =/= Zero

    Only if you LIE about what said.

    Yes, taking EITHER partisan side on this issue is to excuse sexual abuse on one's own side. Shameful
    Left - Right = Zero

    That's WHY Sevo is your bitch. (sneer)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Michael, lighten up. LP stock is up 328% with as many votes as the entire State of Virginia. Our first electoral vote was from Virginia where we weren't even on the ballot! That tiny percentage sufficed to cow La Suprema into acknowledging some individual rights for women. We can spot louts without your having to point them out, trust us. Enjoy their stabbing at each other! Revel in their desperate panic... schadenfreude roolz. All we want is their spoiler votes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That has nor a shred of relevance to what I said ... which had nothing to do with the party.

    It's a fact that the libertarians label is REJECTED by 91% of libertarians.

    I know the party history, having been an active member for the 70s 80s, 90s and early 000s, serving on Platform and other committees at least a dozen times, and having tun a state party.

    It cannot be denied that the recent dominance of anti-government libertarians, instead of pro-liberty, has severely damaged the movement .. mostly because anti-govs ridicule the idea of seeking election, and the libertarian establishment is essentially ignorant on all major issues ... with not a single workable policy proposal

    Is it tribal to deny libertarian tribalism? Or to dent the damage caused by Ron Pa

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ron Paul, NON-libertarian.

  • hello.||

    Holy shit, the two delusional old psychopaths finally cross paths.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Al Franken actually did it. After yesterday disputing reports that he had decided he would announce his resignation today, the senior Democratic senator from Minnesota announced today from the Senate floor that he would resign "in the coming weeks."

    Franken didn't *do* anything but stall for time

    Pledge to resign "later"
    Stop the growing chorus asking him to resign
    Wait until the Left notices that they are taking down their own power, and backpedal on all the calls for resignations - already happening
    Remain in the Senate

    That's the plan, IMO

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Your opinion is worth shit when you still endorse serial sexual predators Drumpf and Moore.

    He is resigning on a well-executed hit-job. That, you can take a bow for.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's so mean when the Right fights back *in kind*! Wah!"

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's so mean when the Right fights back *in kind*! Wah!"

    ... and makes a total fool of yourself?

    Look below Time stamp 10:22 PM

    And you repeated that same tribal blunder twice here. So far
    Wah! (smirk).

  • Michael Hihn||

    Franken didn't *do* anything but stall for time
    Pledge to resign "later"

    Are you naive, ignorant or a liar?

    If he left the Senate now .... before his replacement is seated .,... would Republicans seat him ... and destroy their one-vote gain? (lol)

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    The timing of pressure from his own party to resign may have most been informed by the embrace by Republicans of Moore

    Questioning the motive behind the timing more than the actions of Roy Moore is a good way for reason.com Republicans posing as libertarian to appear above the fray

  • buybuydandavis||

    Fascinating how Franken's sex crimes are supposedly all about Roy Moore.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well clearly, Franken recovered a repressed memory of Moore fucking him against his will as aunderaged teenager and this damaged him psychologically. Later causing him to harass, assault, and torment Leann Tweeden and many other women.

    So it's all Moore's fault. And all the other republicans who cheered Moore on in that bar, while Moore held Franken down on top of a pinball machine and sodomized him.

  • josh||

    I'd like to be proud of Democrats taking a stand and saying any inappropriate act against women is too much and not to be tolerated.

    I'd like to....but I lost count on how many accusations against Franken it took for them to take such a stand in the first place.

  • buybuydandavis||

    any inappropriate act against women

    Sexist

    Now the standard for banishment is "inappropriate act". Not a witch hunt at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's called strategy and tactics. Pay attention.
    .
    By forcing out Franken, Democrats essentially force Republicans to expel Moore.
    They kicked your sorry ass AGAIN!

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Wordskillz!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Secondary to the strategy and tactics they employed against Republicans. Again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "STRUHTEGERY UND TAKTIKS REEEEEEEEEE!"

  • hello.||

    Hihn knows all about winning elections through sharp strategy and political tactics. Didn't you know he masterminded all of those huge libertarian electoral victories in the1980s?

  • Mitsima||

    ♪♫♪ Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude, goes wherever the karma does. Will he hoist by his own petard? Yes he will, he's a retard. Look out, here comes the Schadenfreude. ♪♫♪

  • buybuydandavis||

    Is there a tune this goes with?

    Everything is better with a jingle.

  • Red Tony||

    It's the Spiderman theme.

  • Johnimo||

    Al Franken is one of the most disgusting idiots to EVER occupy the office of "Senator." He's waiting for a miracle to save him by not resigning immediately. The Democrats are cannibalizing their own, in hopes of proving themselves "pure and holy," after supporting a Presidential candidate they knew to be DEEPLY flawed. We hardly knew you, Al. Good riddance!

  • Libertarian Newbie||

    I'm just a visitor, but I saw an argument on TV that describes what I believe I've seen.
    Democrats, as a party, have taken a mioral position by forcing Franken to resign.
    Republicans, as a party, and the President have taken a purely partisan positiion. I've seen many Alabamans say they would vote for Moore, even if proven a sexual predator, because he's not a Democrat. The President has said the same thing.

    Republicans claim to represent "values voters." Can you see why I'd wonder what those values are, and how I'd know t? As for your"very DEEPLY flawed candidate, the election polls showed most voters agreed with me that bioth candidates were seriously flawed, the worst ballot perhap ever.

    Keep it simple Would you vote for Moore, even if he might be proven a sexual predator within the next week? Your statement has much to trouble me. Are you a libertarian?

  • Bra Ket||

    Franken's resignation will not affect the fragile power balance in the senate. A democrat will replace him and he's delaying his resignation which prevents the republicans from even having a temporary advantage while the seat sits vacant.

    If Moore withdraws a liberal Democrat will take a (otherwise totally safe) republican seat. for six years voting at odds with the majority of his state's political preferences on actual issues like laws that affect their lives. The critical importance of warm-fuzziness over a representatives' character notwithstanding.

    It isn't simple. The voters there are indeed fucked. Better choice for them would probably be to elect Moore then impeach him for an alternative they have more control over.

    Keep it simple Would you vote for Moore, even if he might be proven a sexual predator within the next week?

    What is the value of this argument? You are claiming a moral high ground in hypothetical fantasyland?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Franken's resignation will not affect the fragile power balance in the senate

    Which has nothing to cdon with what he said.

    You are claiming a moral high ground in hypothetical fantasyland?

    You suffer the severe denial of a rightist. (leftists as just as bad.)

    Deal with the actual issue

  • hello.||

    It's a good thing you jumped in there to defend that totally different person who totally isn't a sockpuppet account for you.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I vote the straight libertarian party ticket. The platform is what matters. My concern is we do not get stuck with another sniveling mystical conservative cross-dresser like Bob Barr.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your attitude is why libertarians are so reviled, and we TOTALLY fucked up an opportunity to govern last year -- not one single policy solution ... to anything .. in the entire libertarian establishment ... at a time when voters are EAGER for even radical change ... and we had 50 years to prepare ... for an opening that occurs only once or twice per century. A libertarian moment. (vomit)
    ,
    You sneer at getting elected and governing, as if a free society will spring from the ground like weeds.
    Perhaps THE greatest obstacle to liberty, since we SHOULD know better.
    Sad

    Aim higher

  • hello.||

    Take it from Hihn the Kennedy hagiographer and libertarian strategic mastermind.

  • hello.||

    Well you did a good job. You don't have any more conservative cross dressers messing up your party, you got two Democratic geniuses who want gun confiscation, can't find Syria on a map and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

  • Bra Ket||

    Franken said he was "excited" about the conversation about the way men mistreat women when it first started, saying it was "long overdue."

    "Then it came back to me,"..

    Wow Al, you don't say...

  • Michael Hihn||

    He contrasted that to the moral atrocity we have in the White House. Correctly. Even beyond his (Trump's) depraved sexual standards and overall hypocrisy.

  • hello.||

    "It's different when Democrats do it!"

    - Hihn the fiercely independent libertarian

    Do you ever choke a little with Bill's cock down your throat, or have you managed to suppress that gag reflex after doing it so many times?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Good riddance. I am not going to miss that scientifically illiterate Warmunist looter. Entities like Franken give acidheads a bad name.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Like Ron and Rand Paul have destroyed the libertarian name? And psised all over fhe Constitution?

  • hello.||

    I think you just psised your pants. Or maybe you're mercifully having a stroke. Or maybe you're just a retarded piece of shit who can't spell.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online