I'd be fine with it if Trump stepped down, but let's face it, the real reason people step down is because they know they are not going to be re-elected and their party wants to be able to get out in front of it by replacing them early. Also, I would think that the party of SJW's would have different standards than a party that openly mocks the values SJW's try to push. In short, I'm fine with whoever wants to step down for whatever reason they decide to do so, but I don't personally think that anyone should be required to do so unless they've done something worthy of being removed from their office. When it comes to Al Franken, the long list of women he's alleged to have groped wouldn't be substantial enough to get him removed from office so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other if he steps down over those allegations. If he does so, he's only doing so in order to protect his party so it's not a morally praiseworthy action nor is it morally praiseworthy for those who ask him to step down in order to protect the party.
The trend towards these sorts of judgments based on accusations alone is very troubling. At the level of the US Senate, nobody has a right to their seats and these other elected senators can do what they think is best. But this is a bad trend. Senator Franken's case has pictures, but are the actions in the pictures disqualifying? It is up to the voters of Minnesota to make that decision, in my opinion. If they are OK with having someone like this as their Senator, then it is up to them. If there is a trial in court or a hearing in the Senate which establishes that a threshold of legal or moral wrongdoing has been crossed, based on evidence and not just political spear-chucking, then that would be cause for the Senate to take the appropriate actions with regards to casting out Franken, or Moore, or whoever. As far as resigning, that is a choice they each have to make. But just because there is a politically motivated lynch mob on the warpath, that is not a very good reason for someone to be consider resigning. And just because there are "accusers," that is not a good enough reason to expect them to resign either. We live in a nation with many liars and this sorts of accusations have been lied about plenty. We need to have standards, but this lynch mob approach that has been popular since Obama took office is exactly the wrong way to handle these sorts of matters.
Good points. I disagree with you on some things, but I enjoy reading your posts- and yes, part of me is probably trying to score some moral victory. But I am sincere about the hypocrisy. I have no problem calling out liberals for bad behavior.
I am not sure why the OP is dragging me into this. I have stopped following this silly sexual harassment witch hunt. A politician should only be forced to resign if he has done something criminal. If their party or constituents demand his resignation, then its up to them to decide. I dont know exactly what Franken has been accused of, but from what I have read, none of it warrants his forced resignation and Im certainly not calling for it. Roy Moores allegations are a lot more serious. If they are true, he should be in jail, not running for office. When the Kevin Spacey story broke, I initially defended him. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
I just dragged you because you are right-leaning, but reasonable. This thread is good because these are reasoned, thoughtful responses. It’s good that we can favor our side but also be fair.
I don't think Al Franken should resign. He didn't do anything criminal or being indicted for anything. His voters should decide whether he stays or not. If they think he did a fine job representing them and want him to stay, so be it. But I guess democrats are determined to clean the house so they can get on their high horses again and go after Trump. I suspect that is the end goal.
Not that cut and dried according to this website: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vacancies-in-the-united-states-senate.aspx "Unlike vacancies in the U.S. House of Representatives, which must be filled according to federal law by elections, the U.S. Constitution gives states the ability to choose how to fill vacancies in the U.S. Senate. All states do so through an election, but they vary in two ways: whether the vacancy is filled at a regularly-scheduled election, or at a special election; and whether the governor can make an appointment to fill the vacancy during the period before the election occurs." Vacancies Filled by Gubernatorial Appointment In the following 36 states, the governor makes an appointment to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy, and the appointee serves until the next regularly-scheduled, statewide general election. Minnesota (2) Franken's seat will only be filled by a democrat because the Governor is a Democrat This issue for me is the loss of seniority and committee seats. I will have to look some more but I think there is a possibility he can be replace by an Republican which could be a shift in power in those committees etc Which is exactly why the Republicans are backing the pedophile Is this precedent setting? I don't know Rocket River
I think you are a reasonable conservative other than when Muslims topics are the discussion, you are what I thought the GOP should be, but that is asking way too much these days.
Focus on frivolous issues like these, and expect to get pounded at the next election, again. How will the Democrats improve: +Jobs +Education +Medical Care +National Security +Personal Liberty +Opportunities Talk to me about issues, not about where people are sticking their hands and dicks. /rant
All I know is I sure hope I never hear moral outrage over a democrat ever again on this board about sexual allegations or anything of the sort. If all it takes is agreeing with your politics and nothing else even matters then you have some really low standards for your leaders.
Yup, 90% of the people in the US would not care about this topic, but it will cost this administration diplomatic capital, which could come back to bite them later on issues such as North Korea or Iran for instance.
This assumes they are being elected to be "leaders". I don't view them as leaders, at least not in any moral sense. They are elected for their politics, so political concerns should be the first and foremost criterion. Their personal faults are only relevant, IMO, to the extent that it gets in the way of them properly doing their job.
Conservative and liberal lending individuals and leaders have different standard, different tolerance level for "bad" behaviors. Even though one side is rapidly changing, the difference are normal and expected. What's not honest and happen quiet often is applying YOUR standard differently toward candidate or official based on their party. There are clear difference between these party, so the 'they do the same' that happens regularly is BS and lazy.
