I think the presumption of innocence for Ds and presumption of guilt for Rs

[Dreamer Tatum]

in criminal and civil matters makes DU look sort of hackish and stupid.

Let's get serious: if Franken was a Republican, none of this sophistry, slut-shaming, and equivocating would be happening at all.

Attaching the accuser to the party you don't like weakens the (righteous) outrage over cases that are far more compelling, and which have far more evidence, with greater implications, e.g., Moore.

It also perpetuates the inherently paternalistic, misogynistic view that political affiliations are primitive to w woman's credibility in such matters.

Just my opinion - flame away, call me a bot, whatever.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

1. Agree, if anyone even hinted at Moore's accusers were lying

They would have been eviscerated

[MFM008]

2. Sorry

I think she looked at that picture
And thought what can I do with this.
I would have said it about a republican.
The only hack is making this allegation..

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. Suuuuuure.

Thanks for proving my point, though.

[MFM008]

39. I dont have to believe a right wing hack

in a staged photo.
If more accusers step fprward thats another matter.
I believe she looked at the photo and thought how she could make it work for her side.
I dont believe her. We democrats can be suckers
especially when we almost always do the right thing.
And the republicans always BRAZEN it out.

[brooklynite]

5. ...and then Franken apologised and she accepted it and said he shouldn't step down.

What a diabolical plot!

[MFM008]

40. She didnt expect him to call for an investigation

that may expose her MOTIVES.

[Cattledog]

53. Bingo!

[Lil Missy]

50. that kind of thinking demonstrates the problem

[Sailor65x1]

4. Yes it sure does.

You are correct, but it's a tenuous position here at best.

On edit; tenuous meaning it could get your posts popped.

[loyalsister]

6. It does

We have been hypocrites and should have dealt with this correctly when the most high profile incident came to light. But, at that time most of us participated in the abusive smearing of women who told their stories about our president. We have a chance to set straight what we should have acknowledged 20 yrs ago. Women are most likely telling the truth about sexual harassment and rape when they come forward as victims.

I was wrong when I was complicit and I won't be again. No one can defend any of these men, call out the predators when they don't like them, and expect to be taken seriously when they say they care about what happened to the victims. It's time to get real and be honest about our heroes even if it hurts.

[vi5]

11. Thank you....

....It's really upsetting to me that I've wanted to make a post just like this, but didn't because I was fairly confident that it would get deleted and possibly get me banned.

We can't pick and choose which accusers we believe and which ones we don't. And just as you say, I was guilty of this back in the 90's and long before this current wave of accusations and accusers I felt uneasy about how I handled things and some things that I said.

No more. I'm done with it.

[loyalsister]

34. there is so much wrong with the position I took then

The nagging question I now have is whether Trump would have been elected if we had drawn a line that said this is unacceptable behavior by anyone, in any instance, ever.

[NightWatcher]

7. Al's accuser admits they were in USO comedy skits.

All of the related harassment occurred during and around said skits.

What was Moore's excuse? Did he, like Al, apologize?

This is a false equivalence.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. Did you duck in order to miss the point? nt

[MichMary]

61. The photograph

was not related to a skit. It was related to a sleeping woman who was vulnerable, and any decent person would have understood that whether actual touching was involved, snapping a photo like that was unacceptable.

[Caliman73]

9. I generally agree.

I think that to some people on both sides, it may be deeper than Republican or Democratic affiliation. Some people may see the person who stands accused as the embodiment of virtues that they have presented. In the case of Moore, there are people who believe that he is the righteous defender of the unborn and of Christianity that he claims to be. For defenders of Franken, some see him as a person who has tried to live a life of integrity and a champion of various good causes including his fight to bring justice to victims of assault during the Iraq War. That doesn't mean that they are innocent or guilty. Both could be either.

If all that someone sees to assume guilt or innocence is a (D) or an (R) by the name, then yes, that is being a partisan hack. For people who are conflicted because of their own beliefs, it can be more challenging, but I agree that if we are talking about consistency then if we believe the accusers of one, then we have to give that same respect to people who accuse those who hold some of our political beliefs as well. I think that the survivors deserve the respect to be heard. I do believe that the accused have the right to defend themselves, but above all, we need to be consistent about how we approach these matters.

[Glorfindel]

10. "...view that political affiliations are primitive to w woman's credibility in such matters." ???

"primitive"? Maybe prohibitive? I understand your passion, but it shouldn't cause you to become incoherent.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. Here ya go...

primitive

(of an algebraic or geometric expression) from which another is derived, or which is not itself derived from another.

[SaschaHM]

18. You were called incoherent over one word. The person was just looking for an excuse to dismiss you.

[Glorfindel]

22. Many thanks. I love learning new meanings of familiar words.

Alas, I never had any knack for algebra or geometry.

[NCTraveler]

12. I think your absolute argument is absolute garbage.

You should be flamed for this as it's an incorrect broad brush attack designed to make us all look bad. I don't recall "Weener" having a lot of support.

And yes, we use every moment we can to attack Republicans. Just something else you highlight as a negative.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. Weiner had ten tons of support in the beginning.

Oh, yes he did.

It wasn't until more evidence came out that his support vanished completely.

Go check it out, you'll see I'm right.

[NCTraveler]

27. Provide links.

Your broad brush attack is garbage.

"Weiner had ten tons of support in the beginning."

"Tons". Should be easy to capture us all in that one.

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. You have 24000 posts

you can search DU yourself.

[NCTraveler]

41. Didnt think so.

Nice claim without verification. You call out “tons” of DU members and don’t back it up.

I question your recollection of events. 😁

[Kingofalldems]

42. Yes. Correct.

[LanternWaste]

35. That appears to be the relevant distinction better the then and there and the here and now.

"It wasn't until more evidence came out that his support vanished completely..."

That appears to be the relevant distinction better the then and there and the here and now.

[moda253]

54. So you are complaining about the ideal of

So you are complaining about the ideal of innocent until proven guilty?

There is nothing wrong with supporting someone until evidence proves otherwise.

[Joe941]

13. You have to look at the pattern... it fits.

[Kaleva]

14. Weinstein is a Democrat and who here is attacking his accusers?

I don't see DUers shaming Kevin Spacey's accusers either.

[Skittles]

23. THANK YOU

it's a bullshit assertion

[BannonsLiver]

16. SO in your world the GOP and their smear machine is never up to any dirty tricks.

It must be nice to be so blithely unaware of the world around you.

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. And thank you for making my point as well. nt

[sarisataka]

19. Hypocritical

Is the word you are looking for.

There have been many comments posted today that if you removed the names you could not tell if they were from here or Hannity

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. It's just a difference of perception

But I perceive it as plainly as day.

Ultimately it doesn't matter much - no one here matters of jurisprudence.

[kcr]

20. Bullshit. We don't have to fall all over ourselves to immediately condemn our side

the instant an accusation, no matter how fishy it seems, is levied. Doubting this hinky accusation against Franken does not make one a hypocrite. Acknowledging that rape, sexual assault and harassment is epidemic does not mean you have to throw all logic, common sense and reason out the window.

[Skittles]

25. I will reply in their place

THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT

lol

[brooklynite]

26. How about acknowledging that Franken apologized and the woman accepted the apology?

[kcr]

31. I already replied to you my feelings on that n/t

[mythology]

45. Nor do we have to immediately call her a liar

But that's what many here are doing. Instead listen to her accusation, listen to Franken's response and then react. In this case Franken admits he made a mistake, meaning at least part of what she said is agreed upon to be true.

You know damn well any accusation against Republicans are immediately deemed to be true.

[kcr]

47. No, indeed. We do not.

But there's nothing wrong with commenting on the fishy timing of it, or any aspects of the story you find suspect, either.

[Orrex]

24. Do you have specific examples of this?

You referred to Democrats (plural), so other than Franken, which Democrats are being unreasonably presumed innocent?

Wiener was condemned more or less from day one (and rightly so).

Grayson was harshly criticized for his treatment of his wife.

Edwards as universally vilified for his infidelity and cover-up.

Granted, Republican offenders seem to outnumber Dems by about a dozen to one, but who are the Democrats who, in your view, are getting a pass?

[Dreamer Tatum]

36. Here is my point, using your examples

You referred to Democrats (plural), so other than Franken, which Democrats are being unreasonably presumed innocent?

It's a matter of general opinion.

Wiener was condemned more or less from day one (and rightly so).

Disagree. It was about 50/50 for a while. But the point is this: were Weiner a Republican, the accusations would have been accepted as absolute, immutable truth from the get-go. How am I so sure of this? Find me one example of R figure accused of something similar (or even milder!) and tell me if even one person ever said, "Bullshit! It's Democrat dirty tricks!"

Grayson was harshly criticized for his treatment of his wife.

And was also defended rather vigorously.

Edwards as universally vilified for his infidelity and cover-up.

Yeah - it only took a couple of years or something like that.


Granted, Republican offenders seem to outnumber Dems by about a dozen to one, but who are the Democrats who, in your view, are getting a pass?

It's not about getting passes. I think I've articulated my point appropriately.

[Orrex]

43. Okay, to build on your point:

Edwards as universally vilified for his infidelity and cover-up.

Yeah - it only took a couple of years or something like that.

Well, what would you have preferred? That we condemned him preemptively before the story came to light?

It's not about getting passes. I think I've articulated my point appropriately.

You should be more specific, then. From your OP:

I think the presumption of innocence for Ds and presumption of guilt for Rs in criminal and civil matters makes DU look sort of hackish and stupid.

As you concede, we don't uniformly presume Democratic innocence, so only some of us are "hacks."

Further, since none of us here is empowered to issue binding legal decrees by fiat, we are under no obligation to presume innocence, and we are free to base our assessments on any of a range of mitigating factors.

That doesn't make us hackish; it makes us human.

[Kaleva]

44. What do you base your assertion that it was 50/50 here for awhile concerning Wiener?

You are pulling numbers and timelines out of thin air and made absolutely no attempt to back up your claims. You may have convinced yourself that your worldview is accurate but my guess is that you didn't do actual research because you may find the facts turn your worldview upside down. Or you may not have wanted to put in the great amount of time this research would require and thought it'd be much easier to fling stuff out there and hope it sticks.

[Kirk Lover]

28. You are wrong.

[Bonx]

32. Well that was ez.

[Staph]

29. Personal opinion...

Moore is accused and instantly becomes defensive. "I never did this!"

Franken is accused and releases a statement of apology and requests that an ethics investigation be held. "I'm sorry!"





(And I think that the request for the ethics investigation is a brilliant move, similar to Obama's three-dimensional chess. If Al is investigated, then others accused of sexual harassment (and worse) must also be investigated. That's going to come back and bite Roy Moore in the butt, along with others. Nice move, Al!)

[Kaleva]

52. I think McConnell is also thinking this.

Set the stage to expel Moore if he wins the election.

[Cattledog]

56. Spot on!

[Vinca]

37. Context, context, context.

If Franken wasn't a comedian doing a comedy gig on a tour I would consider this a very serious matter. We now have reports the whole thing was staged. Al Franken is no Roy Moore. The GOP is desperate to deflect to the Dems. They might well find a Democratic politician who rivals David Vitter, but Al Franken isn't it.

[kwassa]

38. You also have a source with high credibility versus a source who worked with Hannity.

And is a Foxsports contributor.

That is a larger factor to me, in these initial stages of inquiry.

I think many are jumping to conclusions prematurely, but that happens everywhere in social media.

[Kingofalldems]

46. .....

Link to tweet

[eShirl]

48. Hope there is an ethics investigation and we let it do its job.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Kingofalldems]

49. Franken called for an ethics investigation of HIMSELF.

Has any republican ever done that? Trump? Moore?

[Irish_Dem]

51. Correct, right is right, wrong is wrong. Period.

No matter whether we like the perp or not.

[gibraltar72]

55. Roger Fucking Stone

involved nuff said!

[peggysue2]

57. Read Franken's response

He is not equivocating. He is not blaming the woman. He is taking full responsibility regardless of the circumstances surrounding the picture taking. He is also openly inviting an ethics investigation.

From where I sit, this is the most honest response I've ever read. And for that, he has my support. Not for the stupid picture, but for a response that shows actual character, something in scant supply in DC circles. Do I suspect the reasons this picture was suddenly released? Yes, I do. But Al Franken does not go there. Instead, he stands up and invites his accusers to throw whatever they want while posting a genuine apology for his actions.

I do not see where this:

perpetuates inherently paternalistic, misogynistic view that political affiliations are primitive to w woman's credibility in such matters.

If anything, Franken has set an example of how a man takes responsibility for an act of sexual harassment once he's called out. You stand up, take ownership and apologize without trying to smear the woman involved.

For the vast majority of men this is a lot harder than it looks or sounds, particularly for those in the public eye. If only men who have been accused of far worse would follow the example set here, we might have a chance of reducing the toxic affects of sexual harassment, something that women are fully aware of and that too many men still deny.

[stonecutter357]

58. #fakenews. she voted for trump so she is at lest a rascist pig .

[Irish_Dem]

59. We have to do the right thing. Isn't that what the Democratic party stands for? nt

[linuxman]

60. It's a DU classic.

"If X happened, I will be sad. I do not wish to be sad. X therefore never happened."

[Soxfan58]

62. But

We can point out the way each handles the situation. Win goes to Sen. Franklin