International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And Thereís Nothing Funny (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324808)

logger 7th December 2017 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105563)
I asked you first.

I knew you’d say that!

Okay, yes some of the Clinton allegations are true. Don’t you agree?

Stacko 7th December 2017 10:48 AM

This should be fun:
Tim Kaine is requesting information from the Senate Office of Compliance on the number of sexual harassment claims filed against Senators, members of their personal staff, and committee staff, along with the amount of monetary settlements that were reached in harassment cases.
I hope he gets it.

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleon (Post 12105562)
Remember, when Franken admits feeling up women, it's because he's guilty.

When Trump admits feeling up women, it's because of the Democrats and "fake news."

QED.

Did Trump admit to a particular case?

Or are you talking about the "locker room" bragging?

logger 7th December 2017 10:49 AM

Yes it will be quite interesting, we should place a bet on how it scores.

BobTheCoward 7th December 2017 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105576)
Yes it will be quite interesting, we should place a bet on how it scores.

Scores?

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 10:49 AM

I hope we don't start a witch hunt over allegations...

logger 7th December 2017 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleon (Post 12105562)
Remember, when Franken admits feeling up women, it's because he's guilty.

When Trump admits feeling up women, it's because of the Democrats and "fake news."

QED.

Lol

No, heís guilty because he admitted to it. And that pesky picture.

Cleon 7th December 2017 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 (Post 12105574)
Did Trump admit to a particular case?

Or are you talking about the "locker room" bragging?

Thanks for the correction:

When Franken admits to groping women, it's because he groped women.

When Trump brags about groping women and walking into dressing rooms, it's just "locker room talk."

William Parcher 7th December 2017 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12105478)
What would a non self serving speech sound like?

"I'm sorry. Goodbye."

Jerrymander 7th December 2017 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 (Post 12105568)
The burden should be on the accuser, imo.

The accused has no burden, imo, until some evidence beyond the accusation comes up.

Again, that's for the courtroom. So if multiple people told you that someone abused them and their stories were consistent, you would be perfectly okay with that person being around your kids?

tyr_13 7th December 2017 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12105539)
The Dems did not do as well with women in the last presidential election as they would like. Franken's actions were not consistent with the image they want to have as a party. It is a long play and I am not sure it will work. But really, what do they lose by trying?

Or it was the right thing to do, consistent with the Democrats and progressives having real convictions beyond just gaining political power and the courage to stick with them.

This is part of the reason I said that there isn't any reason to discuss this with most conservatives or Republicans. They largely (as a group) don't actually care about women being harassed beyond using it as political bludgeon and can't conceive of it being anything but for the Dems either. But it isn't. The progressives have progressed and the input of those who have refused the existence or scope of the problem and/or tried to regress (like supporting someone who openly opposes women's suffrage) shouldn't be a major consideration when making choices like the Dems made here. It isn't for them, because at no point will it change what they say or do. They'll still hold a double-standard. They'll still refuse that the Dems have the morally higher ground on this issue. They're not going to even attempt to find common ground, only frame attacking Dems and progressives as that. Once they're no longer such tribal authoritarians it might become useful again, and there is a sizeable minority of conservatives and Republicans who have worthwhile opinions, but that hasn't happened yet.

This should be focused on internal choices and convictions. Thankfully it looks like it was. It wasn't like they were going to gain politically with outsiders comparatively when the Republicans are backing Moore again.

BobTheCoward 7th December 2017 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Parcher (Post 12105582)
"I'm sorry. Goodbye."

Assuming he doesn't think he did the actions he is accused of what, is there a non self serving version of that speech?

Jerrymander 7th December 2017 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105571)
I knew youíd say that!

Okay, yes some of the Clinton allegations are true. Donít you agree?

And the Roy Moore ones aren't, why?

timhau 7th December 2017 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105583)
Again, that's for the courtroom. So if multiple people told you that someone abused them and their stories were consistent, you would be perfectly okay with that person being around your kids?

Is that someone a Republican or a Democrat?

Bob001 7th December 2017 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 (Post 12105568)
The burden should be on the accuser, imo.

The accused has no burden, imo, until some evidence beyond the accusation comes up.

Testimony is evidence. Even at a trial, the case ultimately can come down to one person's word against another's. You can choose to believe it or not, but when women say they were molested or assaulted, and in addition it is known that they told friends and family about it long before they made any public statement, that is compelling evidence. They don't have to provide photos or DNA samples. How would someone prove that Moore assaulted her in a parked car when she was 14, 40 years ago? Do you really want to claim that without his signed confession, it didn't happen?

Shalamar 7th December 2017 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105540)
So defending child molesters is okay, as long as they deny it.

Anything. As long as the conservatives get their one party fascist state.

William Parcher 7th December 2017 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleon (Post 12105581)
When Trump brags about groping women and walking into dressing rooms, it's just "locker room talk."

Trump is a compulsive liar. For him, telling lies is like breathing. He would happily tell lies about grabbing pussies even if he had never touched one in his life.

The guy is notorious for telling lies but then all of a sudden when he talks about pussies he's telling truths? Nope!

logger 7th December 2017 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105592)
And the Roy Moore ones aren't, why?

Because some clearly have an axe to grind.
Itís 40 years old and nothing was said after 8 statewide elections he was involved with.
One accuser refuses to offer up her proof to be examined.
Iíll think of a few more later.

tyr_13 7th December 2017 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Parcher (Post 12105602)
Trump is a compulsive liar. For him, telling lies is like breathing. He would happily tell lies about grabbing pussies even if he had never touched one in his life.

The guy is notorious for telling lies but then all of a sudden when he talks about pussies he's telling truths? Nope!

I don't trust anything he says without verification from the other parties involved.

They verified it.

So...yeah...he was partially telling the truth. The lie was 'they let you'.

logger 7th December 2017 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 12105601)
Anything. As long as the conservatives get their one party fascist state.

Criminey the country would be so much better, thank you!

tyr_13 7th December 2017 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105604)
Because some clearly have an axe to grind.
Itís 40 years old and nothing was said after 8 statewide elections he was involved with.
One accuser refuses to offer up her proof to be examined.
Iíll think of a few more later.

The women are Republicans.

But thanks for the frank admission that you're just thinking them up, rather than finding them out.

WilliamSeger 7th December 2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12105467)
Franken's self serving speech was awful.

All woman deserve to be heard .....BUT...Some allegations are simply not true, others I remember very differently...

'k. Thx, bye.

Time to dig up the "Hillary is done" bone again, Dog.

Shalamar 7th December 2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105607)
Criminey the country would be so much better, thank you!

Kudos on you for admitting that is what you want.

Jerrymander 7th December 2017 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105604)
Because some clearly have an axe to grind.
Itís 40 years old and nothing was said after 8 statewide elections he was involved with.

Um, Weinstein effect?

Quote:

One accuser refuses to offer up her proof to be examined.
Oh right the "forged" yearbook.

Brainster 7th December 2017 11:04 AM

Farewell to the jackal of the Senate.
:D

BobTheCoward 7th December 2017 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105604)
Because some clearly have an axe to grind.
Itís 40 years old and nothing was said after 8 statewide elections he was involved with.
One accuser refuses to offer up her proof to be examined.
Iíll think of a few more later.

I think those are all stupid reasons without any research to justify them. Do we have any evidence that the percent of total accusations that are fake accusations go up with time?

The Big Dog 7th December 2017 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12105612)
Time to dig up the "Hillary is done" bone again, Dog.

Oh I am not certain that my work here is done yet.

BobTheCoward 7th December 2017 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12105621)
Oh I am not certain that my work here is done yet.

What is your work?

Stacko 7th December 2017 11:11 AM

Winter is coming.
SOURCES: @CNN and @washingtonpost working on exposing 20-30 congressional members 4 sexual harassment.

Pterodactyl 7th December 2017 11:12 AM

We are a terrible country.

WilliamSeger 7th December 2017 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12105621)
Oh I am not certain that my work here is done yet.

Oh, that's right; you were going to tell us who is next on your list?

logger 7th December 2017 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrymander (Post 12105617)
Um, Weinstein effect?

Weinstein admitted it. Lol


Quote:

Oh right the "forged" yearbook.
Yeah that one. Interesting why they wonít let it be examined.

logger 7th December 2017 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12105619)
I think those are all stupid reasons without any research to justify them. Do we have any evidence that the percent of total accusations that are fake accusations go up with time?

:rolleyes:

The Big Dog 7th December 2017 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12105634)
Oh, that's right; you were going to tell us who is next on your list?

Not in this thread I was not (for reasons why, kindly consult the tags for this thread)

BobTheCoward 7th December 2017 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12105636)
:rolleyes:

So, no, you have no evidence that the ratio of false accusations go up over time? So why would you factor in the accusations being 40 years after the fact?

Jerrymander 7th December 2017 11:19 AM

Quote:

Weinstein admitted it. Lol
The Weinstein effect is the reason why these allegations are coming out now.

Quote:

Yeah that one. Interesting why they won’t let it be examined.
Which won't matter since:

Quote:

In other words, your signature is never exactly the same each time you write it — but each time you write it there are common characteristics that your signatures share. To evaluate whether a questioned signature is your signature, a document examiner would need a lot of other examples of your signature (Songer said he would need five to 10) to have enough evidence to determine whether the questioned signature was valid. For other handwriting, like the rest of the inscription, he would need much more: other examples of your known writing (that is, things proven to have been written by you) that would allow him to evaluate individual words and sentences.

What’s more, Songer said, those known writings would need to be contemporaneous to 1977, the year that the inscription was purportedly written. “Everybody’s writing eventually changes over time,” he said, meaning that a bunch of handwriting from 2017 wouldn’t necessarily provide the necessary information to evaluate writing from 40 years earlier.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.75795fdbeb63

William Parcher 7th December 2017 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 12105606)
I don't trust anything he says without verification from the other parties involved.

They verified it.

So...yeah...he was partially telling the truth. The lie was 'they let you'.

Then get those women back on the stage and force or encourage him to resign. He might refuse to leave.

BrooklynBaby 7th December 2017 11:29 AM

Franken should be upset, having not reached the Dem mandatory retirement age of 88 for gropers.

LTC8K6 7th December 2017 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12105596)
Testimony is evidence. Even at a trial, the case ultimately can come down to one person's word against another's. You can choose to believe it or not, but when women say they were molested or assaulted, and in addition it is known that they told friends and family about it long before they made any public statement, that is compelling evidence. They don't have to provide photos or DNA samples. How would someone prove that Moore assaulted her in a parked car when she was 14, 40 years ago? Do you really want to claim that without his signed confession, it didn't happen?

How would Moore falsify that 40 year old claim? The claim doesn't even have a particular day so that Moore could show that he was out of town, for example.

Testimony given under oath is evidence in a court of law, sure.

That is during a due process proceeding.

Not on Twitter or Good Morning America.

I guess bigfoot is really real then, because I can find a hell of a lot of "testimony" about encountering and interacting with bigfoot, including being raped by bigfoot.

William Parcher 7th December 2017 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12105612)
Time to dig up the "Hillary is done" bone again, Dog.

For my Christmas present I want to see a high-level or famous woman accused of groping men. This current trend of guys grabbing ladies is becoming very boring. Let's see some spice for a change. Hasn't Hillary ever groped a man's junk? What about Oprah?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.