Should Al Franken Resign?

[rogue06]

Don't get me wrong, Rogue - I don't think Trump is a "true" Republican by any stretch of the imagination. But the man is hijacking the Republican party at an amazing rate. Look - we all know that most congressional districts in the U.S. (partially due to gerrymandering) face more challenge in the primaries than they do in the general election. Trump/Bannon are threatening every mainstream Republican who in any way opposes them with challenges in the primaries. Because Trump has a significant base in the places that tend to be Republican - that's a significant challenge. So most Republican leaders are caving...and the party is becoming the Republican Party of Trump.

If that trend is not reversed...it does not bode well for the Republican party, IMO. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But if I AM wrong, and it DOES bode well for the Republican party - then we are headed down the road of admiration for leaders who are dictators and overlords. From there is a short step to Nazi Germany.

IMHBAO, there was far more to worry about with the mindless admiration for Obama (who actually seemed to buy into it to a large extent) leading toward a dictatorship than there is with Trump. He was, after all the "Obamessiah" who was "sort of God" and who even boasted how upon his nomination that the planet itself was reacting positively toward it (the whole his nomination "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" spiel).

As I kept pointing out before the election, Trump has very little support among Republicans in Congress who by and large despise him. It is incredibly unlikely in the extreme that Trump will be able to replace them with sycophants.

And the MSM is absolutely apoplectic in their visceral hatred of him to the point that if he hasn't actually done anything worthy of their ire they have no trouble concocting something to attack him over which has helped to keep his poll numbers down which is the exact opposite of the admiration you are talking about.

[rogue06]

And, again, comedians are probably noticing this the most....

I need to find that clip of the guy who starts....

"OK, so there was this fat guy ... oh, wait, I can't say 'fat'... um... This Jew, an Italian and a German... nope, can't say "Jew"... ok, There's an old Indian.. uhoh... can't say Indian......"

Similar

4911b9312cfde0cc7fb465847f39bd1a.jpg

[One Bad Pig]

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

The interesting thing is that, if you look past his Twitter account and bombast, the actual policies he's putting into place are solidly conservative Republican. This may be because that's mostly who he's listening to, and I've heard it alleged that he tends to roll with whatever position he heard last.

[Cow Poke]

Here's a video I saw a while back that shows a German member of Parliament prefacing his (very brief) address to Parliament by greeting 60 different genders:

This is priceless! He's not done with his introduction yet!

[carpedm9587]

Hillary comes up with these little focus group quotes she likes to use - like "vast right wing conspiracy" and "politics of destruction" (of which she was a master) and "weaponized" information.

Not one of her better traits - I agree...

We're not talking about some schmuck in the mail room, Carpe.

No - but we are talking about independently acting subordinates. And the action was sanctioned when it came to light. I understand the "political capital" to be gained by constantly harping on such occurances - but on the bigger screen of our democracy - they only serve to undermine. Trump had senior cabinet officials grossly abuse their powers and waste taxpayer money. To his credit, he acknowledged it, decried it, and accepted (or demanded?) their resignations. I'm not going to pile on Trump because a few people he trusted and appointed to office failed his trust. If there is a widespread pattern, I might start to question his judgment about people - but one or two occurences are just in the "stuff happens" bucket, AFAIAC.

It happened under his watch, by people he oversees.

I happened under his watch. It was not people he directly oversees, as far as I know. It was subordinates or subordinates. See my point about Trump above - and that WAS people he overseas.

You have this unique ability to only see the evidence that supports your conclusion. And, yeah, after the horses are out of the barn, by all means, let's get those doors closed!

Sometimes, we only know the barn door is open when the horses actually bolt. So we round up the horses and close the door. And the problem is...?

Just a "someone", eh? And, why was it not "brought to light" until 5 months after the fact?

And why were members of our current cabinet able to run up half million dollar tabs over a period of months? Sometimes, stuff happens.

Actually, it goes to intent, your honor. The guy most definitely had an axe to grind.

Oh for pitty's sake - yes - the perosn in question had an axe to grind, and as soon as it came to light he was relieved of his duty. That is as it should be. Just as the cabinet member who abused his position, as soon as it came to light, was decried and his (their?) resignations accepted. As far as I can tell, Mueller is running the same kind of ship he ran as an FBI agent: clean and tight. No ship is completely free of defects or leaks. As I tell my students, "the measure of a good company is not 'they never get it wrong.' It's a combination of 'how often do they get it wrong' and 'what do they do when it happens.' This endless harping by both sides on every revealed ill as a sign of some massive conspiracy is, to use your words, 'old.' It's tiresome and pointless. If you want perfection, go find a god.

Agreed - the buck stops at the top. In the case of the IRS scandals, the buck should stop with Obama.

It does - he said as much - he took steps. What else do you want? Did you expect him to resign because someone three or four levels below him misused their position? Should Trump resign because members of his cabinet abused their positions?

I'm multi-tasking, and only here to be a thorn in your side.

The first is a myth - and your failing badly at the latter

Yes, and other long long speeches where he boasts about himself. He is a classic "it's all about me" kind of dude.

As you wish, CP. I think you are seeing him through the jaundiced eyes of the right - and I'm sure you think I am seeing him through the rose colored glasses of the left. However - the diference is - I am willing to criticize Obama for the things I think he is/was weak on (e.g., definitive use of our military when it was warranted). I am willing to acknowledge the things Trump has done that are positive (e.g., addressing the abuses of his cabinet).

I tend to know when I am talking to someone that is "way off" left or right, because they are unable to criticize their homeboy (yes - you did nmote that Trump's name calling is tiresome. As I recall - that's about it) or find the value in the opposition (I don't think I've seen you say a single positive thing about Clinton OR Obama.

That speaks to me of strong bias. No one is all good or all bad. They all have strengths and weaknesses. When all of the emphasis is on the latter or the former, bias is usually at work, in my experience.

[carpedm9587]

no.

Being PC is coming up with artificially polite terms that are meant not to offend someone or some group. Even if you have to invent the offense that you are "fixing"

Apparently - that is your definition. PC gets tossed around, in my experience, whenever someone experiences themselves being criticized for something they don't want to look at or think is an "unreasonable" demand.

[carpedm9587]

And, again, comedians are probably noticing this the most....

I need to find that clip of the guy who starts....

"OK, so there was this fat guy ... oh, wait, I can't say 'fat'... um... This Jew, an Italian and a German... nope, can't say "Jew"... ok, There's an old Indian.. uhoh... can't say Indian......"

Meanwile....



7 famous comedians who said political correctness is killing comedy

No one said PC doesn't exist, CP. What is being said is that the term has morphed into being used for anything anyone just doesn't want to listen to. When I am accused of being "PC" because I say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," someone has a stick firmly planted somewhere.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, I mean, that just sounds wacky. If that's not PC, then I don't know what is. I know plenty of people on the far left who find that particular view "PC", even if they half-heartedly endorse it.

Are you screwing with me? You're screwing with me, right? When I stated, "I think you're going too far in thinking that the concept of PC is completely arbitrary and meaningless," I meant precisely the view when taken as a whole.

Not screwing (that's allowed on TWeb?) with you - but I may hav emisunderstood you. You've been accusing me of redefining words in arbitrary ways lately, so I interpreted your post as accusing me of the same, once again. My point was that PC has become "arbritray and meaningless" because everyone is using it to cover anything they don't want to hear. Trumps outrageous comments are being applauded as not being "PC." Few I have seen on the right are calling his language and behavior for what it is: boorish and unacceptable, especially for the highest office in the land. Take most of Trump's comments/tweets and put them in the mouth of your 15 year old and ask yourself, "would I praise him?"

Unless you can provide a direct quote, I'm going to assume you're just making this up. I find it incredible that anyone would call someone PC for not using "Jesus of Nazareth as an oath", or "swearing using the name of god". If someone is asserting this some place, it's extremely uncommon, or some sort of one off.

I have been avoiding providing a direct quote out of fear of violating TWeb terms of service. I cannot imagine this website would tolerate anyone, let alone an atheist, quoting and oath that uses the name of god or Jesus in a swearing context. I do not and did not allow that kind of language - and was labled "PC" for doing so - by youth AND parents. You are free to question my ethics if you wish. As I have done nothing to merit such doubt, I rest on my history here and reputation. Otherwise - there is nothing I can offer you for "proof." I have only my word.

Politically correct is a well defined and well understood term. Most people don't have issues figuring out what it means or who it applies to. You may be confused about it, but I assure you, most people aren't.

As you wish, Adrift Perhaps your world is different from mine. In mine - both locally and nationally on the political stage, the term "PC" continually shows up in contexts where someone has simply said something the accuser doesn't like. Say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you're accused of being PC. Suggest that Trump's insulting language is unacceptable, and you're accused of being PC. Tell a fellow adult that swearing using religious language, and you're accused of being PC. Say he/she/her/him to some people, and you're accused of NOT being PC.

It gets tiresome - and I have to admit that I no longer pay it much attention. When Trump's boorishness can be celebrated because he is not being "PC," the term has ceased to have any real meaning, IMO.

[Adrift]

No one said PC doesn't exist, CP. What is being said is that the term has morphed into being used for anything anyone just doesn't want to listen to. When I am accused of being "PC" because I say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," someone has a stick firmly planted somewhere.

I can't remember a single time I've ever been seriously labeled PC, or have been told I'm holding a PC point of view. Sounds like it happens to you all the time. Maybe you think PC has morphed into being used for anything anyone doesn't want to listen to, because you're personally deflecting from an accusation you're used to hearing about yourself.

[Cow Poke]

No one said PC doesn't exist, CP.

Did I claim that?

What is being said is that the term has morphed into being used for anything anyone just doesn't want to listen to. When I am accused of being "PC" because I say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," someone has a stick firmly planted somewhere.

So what's your point? The world has gotten crazy with this "get offended by anything" crap. I'm saying there's been pushback because it's gotten downright nutty.

[carpedm9587]

IMHBAO, there was far more to worry about with the mindless admiration for Obama (who actually seemed to buy into it to a large extent) leading toward a dictatorship than there is with Trump. He was, after all the "Obamessiah" who was "sort of God" and who even boasted how upon his nomination that the planet itself was reacting positively toward it (the whole his nomination "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" spiel).

That one I have to grant you. The incredibly naive sense that Obama was going to be the beginning of a paradigm shift in humanity was WAY overblown - and grew tiresome quickly. From what I have been able to read about the man and by the man, I don't think he saw himself in those terms - I think he hoped that he would be able to move the country (and consequently the world) in that positive direction. I think he completely underestimated the boil his election was going to lance, and the impact it would have on the country.

Frankly - I think Trump's election, ironically, is doing more to draw attention to social ills we need to address. I am speculating here, and cannot prove any of this, but I doubt the current climate of #MeToo would have happened under Clinton. Society would have reacted to the first woman in much the same way it reacted to the first African American president. And the fact that that woman would have been Clinton, who is so universally hated by the right, would have made HER the focus of attention - rather than the issue. But under Trump - a man who actually embodies many of these social ills long overdue for attention - those ills are actually getting attention. So, ironically, Trump may prove to be a long-term good for the country by getting us talking about, and exposing, things we long since should have talked about and exposed.

As I kept pointing out before the election, Trump has very little support among Republicans in Congress who by and large despise him. It is incredibly unlikely in the extreme that Trump will be able to replace them with sycophants.

And yet - that continues to happen. With the exception of a few voices here and there, the only truly verbal people against Trump are the two senators who have declared their intention not to run again. The rest are half-hearted objections here and there, because those who truly speak out get targetted for a primary challenge by Bannon and Co. and are on the receiving end of Trump's tweets.

And the MSM is absolutely apoplectic in their visceral hatred of him to the point that if he hasn't actually done anything worthy of their ire they have no trouble concocting something to attack him over which has helped to keep his poll numbers down which is the exact opposite of the admiration you are talking about.

Yeah - I hear that a lot. That hated MSM. Tghey might even be more hated than Hillary. But you know what I see? Reporting. And when the story is wrong - acknowledgement and action. Trump is a repugnant moral pig. Do yuo really expect the media to dress the pig up in flowers? When you have a repugnant man in office, the news will be repugnant. When the repugnant moral pig decides to attack the media and label them "fake news," when 2/3 of what comes out of the man's mouth is wrong, badly spun, or a flat-out lie, you expect the media is not going to fact check and report it?

I know the right has a burr in their backside about the MSM - and loves their Fox and Brietbart. I found it incredibly ironic that, when Trump suggested a "Fake News" award (explicitly saying Fox should be excluded), the polls quickly showed that the award would be given to Fox News. Fox and Brietbart are not government mouthpieces - government propaganda outlets. The reality is actually far worse than that. We have a president who watches that stuff ceaselessly, and makes policy and decisions on the basis of what he sees on cable news.

If it wasn't so scary - it would be laughable.

[Adrift]

Not screwing (that's allowed on TWeb?) with you - but I may hav emisunderstood you. You've been accusing me of redefining words in arbitrary ways lately, so I interpreted your post as accusing me of the same, once again.

I don't get what you're saying here. I am accusing you of redefining words again (and apparently I'm not the only one). What does that have to do with taking the view as a whole?

My point was that PC has become "arbritray and meaningless" because everyone is using it to cover anything they don't want to hear. Trumps outrageous comments are being applauded as not being "PC." Few I have seen on the right are calling his language and behavior for what it is: boorish and unacceptable, especially for the highest office in the land. Take most of Trump's comments/tweets and put them in the mouth of your 15 year old and ask yourself, "would I praise him?"

I don't get what this bit about Trump has to do with your redefinition of the word "PC". First of all, I want to be clear, I think Trump is a terrible person, and I think it's unfortunate that he's the President of the US. I certainly didn't vote for him, so if you're thinking I'm one of the ones who would praise him, have a second thought. Second of all, you keep implying that being labeled not PC and being boorish are mutually exclusive. They're not. In fact, they're often inclusive. Trump can be both not PC and also boorish. I readily suggest that he is.

I have been avoiding providing a direct quote out of fear of violating TWeb terms of service. I cannot imagine this website would tolerate anyone, let alone an atheist, quoting and oath that uses the name of god or Jesus in a swearing context. I do not and did not allow that kind of language - and was labled "PC" for doing so - by youth AND parents. You are free to question my ethics if you wish. As I have done nothing to merit such doubt, I rest on my history here and reputation. Otherwise - there is nothing I can offer you for "proof." I have only my word.

What are you talking about? What does TWeb's terms of service have to do with providing a quote from someone who labeled "Jesus of Nazareth as an oath", or "swearing using the name of god" PC. There's nothing in TWeb's term of services that would prevent you from providing that. That said, I'm calling your bluff. I think that you can't provide such a quote because it doesn't exist. If that's questioning your ethics then...sorry.

As you wish, Adrift Perhaps your world is different from mine. In mine - both locally and nationally on the political stage, the term "PC" continually shows up in contexts where someone has simply said something the accuser doesn't like. Say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and you're accused of being PC. Suggest that Trump's insulting language is unacceptable, and you're accused of being PC. Tell a fellow adult that swearing using religious language, and you're accused of being PC. Say he/she/her/him to some people, and you're accused of NOT being PC.

It gets tiresome - and I have to admit that I no longer pay it much attention. When Trump's boorishness can be celebrated because he is not being "PC," the term has ceased to have any real meaning, IMO.

Like I mentioned in the previous post, this sounds more like a personal issue than an objective observation.

[carpedm9587]

I can't remember a single time I've ever been seriously labeled PC, or have been told I'm holding a PC point of view. Sounds like it happens to you all the time. Maybe you think PC has morphed into being used for anything anyone doesn't want to listen to, because you're personally deflecting from an accusation you're used to hearing about yourself.

Actually - it happens to me occasionally. My impression of "PC" in our society today is more informed by what I see online and in the news than what I personally experience. I find the joy the right is taking in a president who "isn't PC" to be grossly misplaced. And when I engage in discussion with such folks - both on the road, online, and even here in my home (my sister and her husband are probably further right than anyone here), the way "PC" is used and what is used in reference to align pretty much with what I have expressed.

Your local experience may be different.

Bottom line - I don't pay a great deal of attention anymore when someone says, "that's PC" or "your PC" or "your NOT PC." Usually, they are simply saying, "I don't want to hear it," or "I don't want to think about it," or "you're bothering me with something I don't care about."

[carpedm9587]

Did I claim that?

So what's your point? The world has gotten crazy with this "get offended by anything" crap. I'm saying there's been pushback because it's gotten downright nutty.

I'm saying on man's tomato is another man's tomahto. Truly being "PC" - so microscopically focused on using the right language so as not to offend ANYONE - is not how the term is used anymore, at least not in my experience and not based on what I see around me locally, regionally, or nationally. Even in my trip across the country last year, passing through all sorts of locations and engaging in conversations with people in Montana, North Dakota, Illinois, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Idaho, and several other states - I found people objecting to things as "PC" that were simple politeness - and applauding as "not PC" things that were just rudenesses - including many things Trump said and did. I could list examples - but somehow I don't think it would make much difference.

[Zymologist]

Actually - it happens to me occasionally. My impression of "PC" in our society today is more informed by what I see online and in the news than what I personally experience. I find the joy the right is taking in a president who "isn't PC" to be grossly misplaced. And when I engage in discussion with such folks - both on the road, online, and even here in my home (my sister and her husband are probably further right than anyone here), the way "PC" is used and what is used in reference to align pretty much with what I have expressed.

Your local experience may be different.

Bottom line - I don't pay a great deal of attention anymore when someone says, "that's PC" or "your PC" or "your NOT PC." Usually, they are simply saying, "I don't want to hear it," or "I don't want to think about it," or "you're bothering me with something I don't care about."

For the bolded: would you say that words like "racist" and "Nazi" have gotten to the same point?