Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Nov 2017, 3:15 pm

freeman3 wrote:I don't see the issue as infidelity. The issue to me is using power to obtain sex or some kind of sexual contact without consent. Infidelity is wrong but not on the same plane as that. I don't recall Clinton as using his power to coerce Lewinsky into a sexual relationship.


She's not the end of the list. Many credible accusers alleged worse than a "butt grope" happened. Juanita Broaddrick said Bill raped her. Why was she not believed?

I'll tell you why: Bill Clinton was useful to the Democrats *and* Hillary wanted to bootstrap her own career on his. That would be impossible if he were believed to be a rapist.

Many more here. http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/bill- ... lot-longer
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 7:17 am

Post 01 Dec 2017, 8:48 am

I wish I had been older and known better when Bill Clinton was in office. His administration ranged from middle school to early college for me and at the time, I remember thinking that he was a sleezy husband, but that the attacks felt so disgustingly political. I regret that I let the politics of red vs. blue impact how I viewed him and his behavior and that I didn't give it much further consideration when he was out of office until recently.

I think that looking back at men who first faced allegations prior to the current understanding of such issues, but remain in positions of power and respect, is important for the country. Clarence Thomas should not be on the Supreme Court.

Roy Moore, John Conyers, Joe Barton, and so many more that we don't even know about should resign their seats immediately. I recently went on a some dates with a woman who has directly lobbied Congress on various bills pertaining to the safety of women and she confirmed what is widely discussed in hushed tones around the District: that there is an epidemic of sexual harassment and assault occurring on Capitol Hill, committed by congressmen and associated lobbyists against women who are trying to simply do their damn jobs.

I'll address the Franken issue separately, because on the surface, it seems like the allegations against him are tangibly different than those against the others. However, if we've learned anything in the past few years, it's that none of these have been isolated instances. Men in power haven't been making isolated mistakes; they've been engaging in systematic abuses of their power to torment and harass women. I don't want my affinity for Franken's politics to lead me to justify his behavior as somehow less offensive. What he's been accused of is bad enough and at this point, I'd be more shocked if more didn't come out against him. He needs to go.

There needs to be a massive investigation conducted by an independent group of experts in the field of Congress and how it has operated, both in the initial offensive actions and in the response. This should be completely and utterly shameful to every single American.

As for Trump, I'd rather he stay in power despite his daily disgusting and unpresidential behavior because his incompetence does a pretty good job of keeping his vile ideologies in check. Pence would be much more successful working with Congress and passing legislation that would seriously harm millions upon millions of Americans. But no... Trump. Must. Go.

I personally know multiple women who have been harassed, assaulted, raped, and even sexually trafficked. I cannot begin to calculate the damage to them of not only the events, but to see that a man who has openly bragged about assaulting women could then be elected President of the United States. It revolts me on the most visceral level possible.

I don't care about politics on this topic. I want every man who has committed offenses against women to be kicked to the curb at the least and charged with any criminal offenses that are applicable. It is 2017 and this is so far beyond acceptable.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 01 Dec 2017, 9:26 am

Southern Marylander wrote:I don't care about politics on this topic. I want every man who has committed offenses against women to be kicked to the curb at the least and charged with any criminal offenses that are applicable. It is 2017 and this is so far beyond acceptable.


Or woman.

Here is a well written response. Politics need to be aside. Fire each and every one that committed these acts.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 01 Dec 2017, 10:20 am

As Southern Marylander has stated, this is an epidemic on both sides. It is not just the Government that is full of these issues. We have seen the movie moguls, TV icons, big time rap producers, military and teachers show themselves this way.

This needs to stop. Society MUST take a stand and say that these actions will result in termination of employment. Sooner or later the hint will be gotten.

I must say that the firing of Lauer is the way to go. I applaud NBC for it's stance on that one.

Freeman said that it is not a terminating offense. I could not disagree more. Sexual harassment is a fire worthy offense. If not this type of thing, what does it take to get fired?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Dec 2017, 11:00 am

I don't think I said sexual harassment is not a fireable offense. I just said that Franken's case at the time was not severe enough to warrant resignation if there were overriding political impacts at play (such as giving Trump more power to inflict damage on the country). That's all I said.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 01 Dec 2017, 12:09 pm

OK. Do you think Franken's actions are sexual harassment?

Based upon what you say, Franken should be fired, or it was not sexual harassment. I look forward to your definition.

Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines state:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when

submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Dec 2017, 12:15 pm

Were any of Franken's accusers employed by him? If not, then your definition does not apply.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Dec 2017, 12:22 pm

freeman3 wrote:Were any of Franken's accusers employed by him? If not, then your definition does not apply.


I think the problem for Franken is going to be perception more than the law. What he did was not exactly "pro-woman."
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 01 Dec 2017, 1:06 pm

Ahh yes, the law definition. "Depends on what the definition of the word IS is."

I would say that the USO had employed them.
[url]
https://www.stripes.com/news/gao-questi ... es-1.15395[/url]

The reimbursement problems included more than 50 business- and first-class tickets worth about $76,000 for celebrities; the use of a limousine service and an airport lounge that cost $3,054; and $343,910 for unsupported production assistance and celebrity honorarium payments, which are used to help celebrities with day-to-day tour expenses; and other miscellaneous expenditures.

Does that help you in your decision making, counselor?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Dec 2017, 1:28 pm

I agree with DF. Liberals love Franken. He is one of us. But he did wrong. However, cases are different and what should be the punishment can differ. His lack of direct power over these women is a factor. I don't think he should be treated any different than anyone else just because he is a liberal, though.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Dec 2017, 10:57 am

What is occurring is not
an epidemic of sexual harassment allegations
.

It is a momentous occasion when women are finding their voice to both protest and fight back against sexual harassment and unequal treatment.
That hardly deserves the term epidemic. Rather its revolutionary behavior.
This period in time reflects an enormous social dynamic sweeping through society.
And, I submit, the more power women achieve, the better for society as a whole.
Countries where women have achieved greater political power tend to be well governed. Countries where women are closer to being full and equal partners without sexual discrimination and sexual harassment limiting their potential, tend to be better places to live. For everyone.

I don't think this will mean a reversion to puritan values or behavior that the more conservative in society seem to aspire, specifically because those puritan mores discriminated against women, and kept them from being equal partners in society.
What women are achieving at the moment is another step in their evolution to equality. It should be respected as more than a short term "epidemic".
As for the male "victims". There is going need to be a sense of context. Franken, for instance has been a bit of a pig. However, his political actions have tended to favor womens issues...
He requires sanctioning but not firing.
Conyers? Probable firing.
Trump? Roy Moore?
well, the day Paul Ryan can honestly gauge the equivalence between a mans' action regardless of their political stripe...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Dec 2017, 11:15 am

rickyp wrote:What is occurring is not
an epidemic of sexual harassment allegations
.

It is a momentous occasion when women are finding their voice to both protest and fight back against sexual harassment and unequal treatment.
That hardly deserves the term epidemic. Rather its revolutionary behavior.
This period in time reflects an enormous social dynamic sweeping through society.
And, I submit, the more power women achieve, the better for society as a whole.
Countries where women have achieved greater political power tend to be well governed. Countries where women are closer to being full and equal partners without sexual discrimination and sexual harassment limiting their potential, tend to be better places to live. For everyone.

I don't think this will mean a reversion to puritan values or behavior that the more conservative in society seem to aspire, specifically because those puritan mores discriminated against women, and kept them from being equal partners in society.
What women are achieving at the moment is another step in their evolution to equality. It should be respected as more than a short term "epidemic".
As for the male "victims". There is going need to be a sense of context. Franken, for instance has been a bit of a pig. However, his political actions have tended to favor womens issues...
He requires sanctioning but not firing.
Conyers? Probable firing.
Trump? Roy Moore?
well, the day Paul Ryan can honestly gauge the equivalence between a mans' action regardless of their political stripe...

What does Ryan have to do with this?

Btw, this isn’t just about males on females.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachuse ... isconduct/
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Dec 2017, 10:25 am

Eight is Enough. Franken to resign.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/07/56890986 ... -to-resign
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Dec 2017, 1:05 pm

Here's a Democrat I once respected. Now, he's just another abuser.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ha ... 85e53a0ce6

Former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr. has been fired for misconduct by Morgan Stanley after facing a human resources investigation into allegations of misconduct, a company spokeswoman confirmed.

“He has been terminated for conduct inconsistent with our values and in violation of our policies,” a spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley told HuffPost in an email.

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.

In two interviews with HuffPost, the woman alleged that Ford engaged in harassment, intimidation, and forcibly grabbed her one evening in Manhattan, leading her to seek aid from a building security guard. The incident took place several years ago when Ford and the woman were supposed to be meeting for professional reasons. Ford continued to contact her after the encounter until she wrote an email asking him to cease contact.


I know it's not just Democrats. Republicans have their own skeletons, but I don't believe this is going to help either party in the long run.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Dec 2017, 9:50 am

Fate
What does Ryan have to do with this?

He's the Congressional leader ... He should lead on this issue...

Here's what he won't do ...

Paul Ryan won't compare Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations to those facing Donald Trump

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... 59c77.html

Ryan will not call on the Texas Republican to resign following a POLITICO report that he used $84,000 in taxpayer funds to pay off an accuser, his office said Friday night — even though he has called for Democratic Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) to step aside over similar sexual harassment allegations.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/ ... ans-275984

Who's the family values party now?