Never forget, Al Franken resigned when old pictures of him goofing around came out.
Al’s problem is the woman’s complaint was clearly performative, but there was no way for him to say that without relying on the rhetoric of rape denialists and victim blamers. If he had fought back against it, he would forever be invoked in both sides arguments.
That’s the downside of being the party of empathy and human dignity.
And also that Gillibrand was forcing him onto that sword to up her own “Me Too” cred.
At the time, a lot of people wanted Al to push back. I’m glad he didn’t because sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.
we lost the war. 6 supreme court justices.
Removed by mod
I mean.
Voters are pawns for political parties, but their understanding of the world is guided by their media. Political parties pretend to be autonomous, but their funding largely comes from corporations.
Media (social and otherwise) is controlled under a handful of large corporations. (The TikTok ban was not about China, it was about corporate governance and the ability of TikTok to sway public opinion.) The U.S. system of government ensures only two possible political parties can exist, and outside efforts cannot succeed.The net result is that voters have no real ability to affect the outcome of our governance. Nor are the lawmakers inclined to change the system in ways that would harm their political party or their corporate patrons.
This has been the status quo for decades.
The only reason this is now a topic of conversation is because there’s a concerted effort to take the U.S. off the world stage by destabilizing it internally through both tearing apart the social fabric, but also destroying the very flawed but stable political system with fascism.
I’m not sure there is a war to win, for the citizenry, at least.
Removed by mod
Right now the one that comes to mind is the voucher systems for schools.
Channeling public money into private schools. It drains the education system.
As Reagan’s dismantling of the mental health system showed - once you destroy a public service, you can’t really rebuild it. The buildings are gone, the land repurposed. Now there’s a ‘homeless crisis’ as people do not get adequate care to participate in society.
And when our core populous is educated with a corporate agenda or a religious agenda, who will be capable of upholding the U.S. on the world stage? Will we innovate? Will we keep up military?
Rail transit in the 50’s and 60’s, followed by privatization of buses - leading to mass pollution, economic waste, segregated communities, and a divided society.
Bans on research, or underfunding public research, allowing corporations to tell us that cigarettes, PFAS, PCBS, BPA, Glyphosate, and all number of substances we consume(d) daily are safe. Leaning to massive public health issues.
Cuts to social safety nets, the attacks on the library system, Trump-era underfunding of the IRS, banning the post office from providing banking/passing laws and appointing people who specifically are trying to destroy the postal service, repeal of the FCC fairness doctrine - I could go on, but … sigh.
I think I need to hug my wife. I’m glad we aren’t having kids.
The U.S. system of government ensures only two possible political parties can exist, and outside efforts cannot succeed.
The net result is that voters have no real ability to affect the outcome of our governance. Nor are the lawmakers inclined to change the system in ways that would harm their political party or their corporate patrons.
Hard disagree on both points. Change is still possible but it has to come from the ground up, showing up once every 4 years isn’t how citizenry should act.
Nor are the lawmakers inclined to change the system in ways that would harm their political party or their corporate patrons.
Agree.
I’m not sure there is a war to win, for the citizenry, at least.
Oh there very much is and the rightwing figured it out 70 years ago.
Removed by mod
How do you envision change happening?
Every scenario I come up with is foiled by voter suppression measures, micro-targeted ads, influence campaigns, and systemic blocks.
At my most hopeful, I think that perhaps maximally, some of the national issues can be addressed at the state level via ballot initiatives - but that won’t change the federal government. And ballot initiatives move glacially slow compared to legislators who can change the rules and make ballot initiatives nigh impossible.
By voting in liberal democrats - like Obama? Who abandoned his promises once he had power, because resolving issues like abortion is less motivating to voters than using them as wedge issues? Of course, if they vote Democrat, that’s assuming their liberal candidates can rise through the ranks to gain power, vs like, a candidate that is a former Bush CIA torture operative, that is so hated by her constituents that when the district she was in got redrawn to include a better liked (and more liberal) candidate, she moved into the house of a lobbyist to run somewhere she wouldn’t get primaried. And then - when a senate seat opened, The Party emplaced her there by negotiating more liberal, better liked candidates out of the primary, so she can do to America what Manchin and Synema did the last time democrats had a majority.
By voting in third party candidates? Who lack conmity in their local dealings, who only gain that if they manage to elect enough people to gain local power? Which will split the power of the party closest to their political views under our two party system and ensure endless game theory discussions until that third party loses strength to go back into the shadows?I just… don’t have hope today. Maybe tomorrow.
Yeah, me too! I’d totally rather die in a camp or be deported than stand for my values and fight for what’s right, especially if it might give the appearance that I’m compromising on my values which I’m absolutely willing to compromise in the interest of politics. /s
Snark aside, I wish we’d stood up for Anthony Weiner. Dude was legit amazing back in the day. Corporate media networks were absolutely gleeful to tear him down and people just watched it happen and laughed the whole time. Then again, I think maybe my values are just more in line with the idea of actually accomplishing political goals (read: legislation and policy) and not so much with making performative gestures that only serve to hurt said political goals. Obviously, in Weiner’s case dude committed crimes (iirc), but again he was an incredible politician, which is what he was hired for. Politicians are tools, like doctors and mechanics, they’re not our friends; they’re fellow citizens that provide a necessary service. I wouldn’t let Weiner or my mechanic babysit but that doesn’t mean they’re not skilled at what they do.
Anyway, we’re probably going to just continue arguing about bs like this while the right consolidates power and supports ruthless leaders. All while we’re asking/tearing down our leaders what pronouns they use or their opinions on eating steak or who knows what. Else Not saying pronouns and the beef industry/climate change aren’t important to some/many people - power to em, for sure - but it seriously feels like people need to get a grip. The distractions are real. We need to focus!
/rant
I’ll miss Al Franken and I was disappointed he didn’t stand up for himself. His supporters and his constituents deserved that, imo
I get it, but the fact that Wiener was later convicted of sending obscene materials to an underage girl really undermines your point. It’s pretty obvious in hindsight that he shouldn’t have been in a position of power and influence. There are things that can be overlooked - but actual crimes that could create a conflict of interest or leave someone vulnerable to blackmail cannot.
Should he have been forced out in 2011? From the perspective of say, 2012, there is a good argument against it, but 2015 demonstrated that it was, in fact, the correct call after all.
Anthony Weiner is a shitbag who sent photos of his dick to an underage girl if I remember correctly. That is not the same as Al Franken. Even Jon Stewart, his old college roommate, rebuked him harshly.
Removed by mod
Weiner was a creep. I live in New York and no one wanted him to fight. Everyone wanted him gone ASAP.
He fought the only way he knew how; by lying.
Dude, Anthony Weiner? Did you skip the second half of his wiki page, or…?
While I don’t oppose sex work it is funny that the people trying to legislate these idealized catholic values are all weirdo sex perverts who are willing to spend a lot of money for sex as entertainment.
Classic transference.
In The Handmaid’s Tale (book), the Captain took his wife’s handmaid to a sex club.
Removed by mod
Yet. He paid a minor for sex. It was confirmed by his co-conspirator and the women who was a minor at the time. His co-conspirator is in prison partially for that rape/payment.
The DOJ dropped its investigation because Gaetz is a powerful ally of the former president, comes from a Florida politcal dynasty, his convicted co-conspirator has credibility issues from past lies about politicians, and because the rape victim refused to testify.
None of the above mean that he didnt rape that women, it just means the DOJ are wimps that wont take a case if its hard to win.
the DOJ are wimps that wont take a case if its hard to win
Taking on losing cases is a waste of time and resources. There isn’t even a moral victory to be had in a loss. Even if the accused was actually guilty, their win will be used as vindication and often proof that they did not do the crime. It’s a bad idea all around.
Pursuing justice is never a bad idea. What you have here is the DOJ being afraid to do that because of politics, and because they want to keep their 90%+ conviction rate.
The fact that he committed the crime isn’t even really in dispute. It will just be hard to overcome the politics, so they gave up.
I agree that paying an adult for consensual sex shouldn’t be illegal but, it is. So, the “party of law and order” should be held to their own shitty standards.
Removed by mod
I feel the same when it’s a story about a politician and drug use. Like sure they might be a hypocrite, but fuck off with that scandal.
I’d agree the very minute they vote to legalize the drugs that they use. Until then, fuck no. Laws the law, they get it the same as everyone else. No favors.
OP: I don’t care if they break the law as the law shouldn’t be the law - net 27 votes
Me: I also don’t care if they break the law as the law shouldn’t be the law - net -10 votes
Edit: As the vote discrepancy increases, its become clear that more people on Lemmy are paying for sex than using drugs. That’s not surprising.
It’s the wording, you’re saying we shouldn’t care about it because it shouldn’t be illegal, the other guy is saying we should care about it because the politician in question thinks it should be
I mean, I did say they’re hypocrites. It’s up to you if you want to keep a hypocrite in office.
Shouldn’t a hypocrite in office be a scandal?
Not to the level the media would make it like this.
I downvoted the comment because it was whiny.
Oh all bets are definitely off on the follow-up.
Poor little victim
Removed by mod
We’ll find out eventually that the real investigation is over the fact that he paid in the first place, and didn’t follow their Lord and Savior’s command to simply grab them by the pussy. Perhaps Gaetz wasn’t famous enough at the time, so they didn’t let him do it.
“Witness” I’m guessing too young to
say a namegive names.Edit: pointless pedantry
I’m guessing too young to
say aprint the name.Just a suggestion. I interpreted what you wrote differently than I think you intended.
Pedantic.
I’m not going to insist that what you wrote is wrong, that would indeed be pedantic. I’m just saying that a casual read of that sentence indicates something different than intended and I suggested that perhaps a clearer version might be cognitively easier for some folks to read.
Downvotes obviously disagree so that’s fine. But it certainly wasn’t intended as pedantry.
I think what people are saying is there is no need to be a grammar Nazi. While we all know you get some secret joy out of it, it is generally in bad taste.
Removed by mod
I’m not seeing a single thing that indicates the person you’re replying to is an asshole or a dipshit.
Your comment though…
She should have gotten hazard pay on top of her usual rate.
I did not read the article. However, the headline really makes it sound like I’m supposed to think that paying for sex is a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong, Matt Geetz is a fucker and should probably be in prison, but we live in current year. It should absolutely be ok to hire someone to get your rocks off.
Hard agree, but it’s a rather “progressive” view for the political party hell bent on deconstructing reproductive services and eroding privacy to access porn.
It is also still illegal I believe? The lack of any consequence just highlights its a dumb law, demonstrates it only serves as a poor tax, and exposes all their theocratic preaching as just rules for thee and not for me to strip away freedoms.
How else is he supposed to get it? His personality?
I think this is just part of the republican playbook now. They all seem as scummy as humans can possibly be. tRump was right, it is swamp…filled with conservative scum
Knowing Matt I am not shocked.
I seem to recall that some papers took it upon themselves to publish names and pictures of “Johns” - I guess prostitution is legal for some, but not for others? Some Johns deserve to be named and shamed, but others, not so much?
Does the title not say his name and does the article not have his picture?
What are you saying here?
The “John” is Matt Gaetz. He paid for sex. He allegedly (and very likely did) groomed and raped minors. He is named.
You mean to say that child sex trafficking Matt Gaetz also pays for sex? I’m shocked!
Edit: typo
Nothing burger IMO. Get your money, girl.
deleted by creator
Today’s vocab word is: licentious. Or if he is actually paying a boatload, profligacy.
Just look into anyone that received or requested a presidential pardon from Trump.
