2018 Midterm Election Thread

[DMT]

Ellison came up in the Supreme Court discussion. ITC seems to see him running away with his race in MN.

So I ask, as I dont live there anymore, where was the outrage from the Left when Ellison was accused of domestic violence with 911 tapes seeming to support the charge from the person that made the call.

Women getting assaulted is only worth listening to when they damage a non-Lefty??

Dude, gimme a break with your false equivalence, it's so tiresome. Remember Al Franken? The guy forced to RESIGN from the Senate for behaviors that were much less despicable than numerous republicans who receive generous support among their colleagues.

[baldgriff]

Dude, gimme a break with your false equivalence, it's so tiresome. Remember Al Franken? The guy forced to RESIGN from the Senate for behaviors that were much less despicable than numerous republicans who receive generous support among their colleagues.

Im not attempting to compare to Franken (who I agree may not have been given a fair shake). I did say this was coming over from the Supreme Court hearing thread - so it seemed evident that any comparison had little to do with Franken.

According to this VOX headline: "The Kavanaugh assault allegations are a reminder that Democrats were smart to push out Al Franken" dateline 9/28/2018 10:00 am EDT

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/18/17870782/kavanaugh-al-franken

Seems VOX is standing up saying its a good thing that Franken is gone and then there is this on Ellison:

Democrats are lucky that the abuse allegations against Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) seem to have some credibility problems in the form of a mysterious video that keeps not materializing, but it’s also pretty clear that they’d be better off in the Minnesota attorney general’s race if they had a nominee who didn’t have this cloud over his head.


So I apologize if you believe that there is some false equivalency being played here - it certainly wasnt my intent. Seems VOX is happy run the discussion and at least admit the Ellison may have something to possibly worry about.

Vox's summation about Franken: "Politics is, famously, an ugly business. But at the end of the day, cleaning up your own house isn’t just the right thing to do — it’s smart politics. If Kirsten Gillibrand and other women of the Senate Democratic caucus hadn’t pushed out Franken months ago, today’s strong political hand versus Kavanaugh easily could have been a Menendez-like fiasco instead."

[Sour Masher]

It gets frustrating to me that any time a discussion of one of these abuse cases come out, defenders come out to focus on other abuse cases for the other side. Trying to play gotcha with posters here that don't deserve it. How about we all agree to talk about the case at hand instead of side-tracking and engaging in whataboutery? If people want to talk about Ellison, then talk about Ellison without using him as a weapon to defend Kavanaugh or Trump or anyone, and if someone defends Ellison while bashing Kavaugh, yes, then, certainly, call that out, but you aren't scoring any points with me by dissing my "team" suggesting liberals or Dems are hypocrites and trying to lump me in with them with no evidence that I'm engaging in the biases you would rather focus on than the issue at hand.

I'd appreciate those responding to me on a issue, address my points and my words. Don't deflect and try to score points against "liberals." You aren't going to goad me into defending my "team." I'm interested in engaging individuals here, not walking labels or flag carriers for their "team." Address the issues at hand, debate those issue. Don't deflect. If the issue is sexual assault, don't change the goal posts and make it about political hypocrisy (that is fair to bring up too, but it is a different issue).

I think it will lead to actual discussions where people on different sides of things can actually move each other on issues and learn from each other rather than being the official voice box of a party or ideology. Again, if you catch me contradicting myself, please do point out my hypocrisy. But if all you want to do is score a jab against the hypocrisy of liberals or lefties, or whatever you want to call your foes, please use another poster as a proxy. I'd prefer to discuss things as an individual with other individuals in a clear, specific, concrete way.

[B-Fly]

It gets frustrating to me that any time a discussion of one of these abuse cases come out, defenders come out to focus on other abuse cases for the other side. Trying to play gotcha with posters here that don't deserve it. How about we all agree to talk about the case at hand instead of side-tracking and engaging in whataboutery? If people want to talk about Ellison, then talk about Ellison without using him as a weapon to defend Kavanaugh or Trump or anyone, and if someone defends Ellison while bashing Kavaugh, yes, then, certainly, call that out, but you aren't scoring any points with me by dissing my "team" suggesting liberals or Dems are hypocrites and trying to lump me in with them with no evidence that I'm engaging in the biases you would rather focus on than the issue at hand.

I'd appreciate those responding to me on a issue, address my points and my words. Don't deflect and try to score points against "liberals." You aren't going to goad me into defending my "team." I'm interested in engaging individuals here, not walking labels or flag carriers for their "team." Address the issues at hand, debate those issue. Don't deflect. If the issue is sexual assault, don't change the goal posts and make it about political hypocrisy (that is fair to bring up too, but it is a different issue).

I think it will lead to actual discussions where people on different sides of things can actually move each other on issues and learn from each other rather than being the official voice box of a party or ideology. Again, if you catch me contradicting myself, please do point out my hypocrisy. But if all you want to do is score a jab against the hypocrisy of liberals or lefties, or whatever you want to call your foes, please use another poster as a proxy. I'd prefer to discuss things as an individual with other individuals in a clear, specific, concrete way.

Good post. Enough with "where was the liberal outrage when..." stuff. Let's talk to each other.

[chancellor]

Good post. Enough with "where was the liberal outrage when..." stuff. Let's talk to each other.

Meh. Sorry. I don’t agree, though much of my baggage happened during your hiatus.

Seriously, if you posit that Kavanaugh requires - at a minimum - a delay until post-election on shady, proofless accusations that were held onto until the 11.9th hour and don’t acknowledge somewhat shady, but very much more recent accusations against those in your own party, it’s rather easy to draw the conclusion that you don’t give a rip about violence against women...unless of course, it benefits the situation at hand.

[The Feral Slasher]

Good post. Enough with "where was the liberal outrage when..." stuff. Let's talk to each other.

I think you and Sour masher have good points. I'll add that the easy way to get rid of Whataboutism is for everyone here to hold Dems and Repulicans to the same standard. But I suspect that is about as likely to happen as posters will abandon the tactic. As long as there are people who identify with a particular group they are going to have an inherent bias.

I'm curious to see how this works out, although with my knowledge of human nature I have my suspicions.

[baldgriff]

Good post. Enough with "where was the liberal outrage when..." stuff. Let's talk to each other.

So please tell me why you think:

Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly
At this point I suspect Ellison is and probably should be toast.


Im curious about that considering ITC is saying it looks like a run away train?


What were the things that you believed are making him toast?

[B-Fly]

So please tell me why you think:

Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly
At this point I suspect Ellison is and probably should be toast.


Im curious about that considering ITC is saying it looks like a run away train?


What were the things that you believed are making him toast?

I think he'll ultimately be pushed/urged/forced to resign.

[B-Fly]

Meh. Sorry. I don’t agree, though much of my baggage happened during your hiatus.

Seriously, if you posit that Kavanaugh requires - at a minimum - a delay until post-election on shady, proofless accusations that were held onto until the 11.9th hour and don’t acknowledge somewhat shady, but very much more recent accusations against those in your own party, it’s rather easy to draw the conclusion that you don’t give a rip about violence against women...unless of course, it benefits the situation at hand.

I supported the call for Franken to resign, and Conyers as well. I'm saying it now with regard to Ellison. So if you've drawn a conclusion that I don't give a rip about violence against women except where it aligns with my favored political outcome, you're dead wrong.

[baldgriff]

So would you agree that the Party is responsible to thoroughly vet those that are running and allowing them to run is the parties stamp of approval for the candidate to run under their Party?

If this allegation of Ellison's ex is true, do you think the party should pull his nomination?

[chancellor]

So would you agree that the Party is responsible to thoroughly vet those that are running and allowing them to run is the parties stamp of approval for the candidate to run under their Party?

Nope. Legally, the party has limited control for who can run under their banner- or, as I suspect you already know, Bernie Sanders wouldn’t have come within sniffing distance of being allowed to run as a Democrat.

[B-Fly]

So would you agree that the Party is responsible to thoroughly vet those that are running and allowing them to run is the parties stamp of approval for the candidate to run under their Party?

If this allegation of Ellison's ex is true, do you think the party should pull his nomination?

No, not necessarily. For a sitting member of Congress, I think it might be Congress's responsibility to investigate and recommend consequence. If Roy Moore had won in Alabama, it would have fallen on the Senate to review the allegations against him, not the state party apparatus. As to what the party should do, I'd say the same as I urged with Menendez. They can't necessarily prevent him from running, but they should have encouraged and backed a quality primary challenger.

[In the Corn]

Now, Ellison's ex-girlfriend has posted a medical record where she shared with her doctor about being abused by Ellison and feared retribution.

http://www.fox9.com/news/ellison-dom...ord-on-twitter

I just don't know how anyone can continue to support him.

[In the Corn]

No, not necessarily. For a sitting member of Congress, I think it might be Congress's responsibility to investigate and recommend consequence. If Roy Moore had won in Alabama, it would have fallen on the Senate to review the allegations against him, not the state party apparatus. As to what the party should do, I'd say the same as I urged with Menendez. They can't necessarily prevent him from running, but they should have encouraged and backed a quality primary challenger.

The DFL endorsed another candidate before the primary season...Ellison won without the endorsement.

[baldgriff]

I didnt even realize that.