What is your definition of "Frankened"?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Mine would be--

"Where a campaign seeks to punish or shame a public official--perhaps out of a misguided sense of "zero tolerance"--for behavior that may be mildly inappropriate at most and seeks to place such behavior in false equivalence to morally repugnant and even criminal acts."

[orangecrush]

1. And it,seems to me

there are a number of low counters pushing for just that kind of self destruction.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. There will be low-counter extremists on all sides of every issue.

They're just happy to cause confusion, division, diversion.

[orangecrush]

20. Agree 100%.

Though I should point out that most low posters don't fall into that category.

[hlthe2b]

3. that's a pretty good start...

[Roy Rolling]

17. An Essential Element

It must be performed in a rushed manner, hastily, and accompanied by grandstanding to take credit as the first to call "Frankened!".

[democratisphere]

4. The attempted destruction of a Democratic male politician for alleged

inappropriate contact with females without any type of actual evidence and/or due process.

[Trumpocalypse]

6. So women don't deserve to be believed

and must produce evidence.

[democratisphere]

8. Without evidence, what have you got?

Hearsay. Belief and perception about what is right and what is wrong is difficult at best.

[Trumpocalypse]

10. So I guess apologies are owed to

Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacy and many others who lost their jobs.

[democratisphere]

14. I'm not the judge or the jury.

If a woman feels uncomfortable about anything a man does or says, then that woman should voice her opposition at the moment the alleged offense occurs, not many years or decades later in the media.

[Trumpocalypse]

25. But that wasn't an option in the past

and in many cases today. Especially when the offender is a powerful man.

[democratisphere]

29. Then and now there was no reason a woman can't speak up

if she doesn't like something! The Great Spirit only knows that when women I know don't like something, I sure as hell hear about it.

[Trumpocalypse]

31. Yes there were

and still for many is today. Shame that you don't understand that.

[democratisphere]

34. Oh, I understand exactly what happened here.

[orangecrush]

21. Bye

I don't like your style of "arguing", so there is "0%" chance of us agreeing.

[Trumpocalypse]

26. Didn't even know we were arguing!

[brush]

35. Are you kidding? There was plenty of documented evidence in all of those cases.

As there having to be proof of a woman's accusation against men in sexual harassment cases— hell yes.

What do you thing our whole judicial system is based on? It's on due process and proof of accusations, not just someone's word.

If not, any woman can accuse a man and he is considered automatically guilty.

That's nuts. Make accusations and then prove them.

Got it?

[Trumpocalypse]

39. What evidence?

And none were accused of a crime so the judicial system has nothing to do with it.

What about Brett Kavanaugh? What evidence was there other than the word of the woman he raped?

The point is there can’t be one standard for people we like and another for people we don’t.

[brush]

41. Try Lauer's confessions for what evidence.

You can come out from under that rock now you've apparently been sleeping under for the last few years since you've missed so much.

[Trumpocalypse]

42. Lauer's confession?

You have to do better than that.

And what evidence was there in the Brett Kavanaugh case?

[brush]

43. I never mentioned kavanaugh, you did. And are you still under the rock?

You must be to not know of Lauer's admissions.

Pls don't bother to respond. I've had enough of your implausidble arguments over many threads.

[Trumpocalypse]

44. Not implausible

My argument is that there should be only one standard. Not one for people you like and another for everyone else.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. No one deserves to be automatically believed without evidence.

Women do have a right to have their grievances heard in good faith, but that's not the same as saying they must be believed.

I sure as shit don't believe someone like Juanita Broaddrick or Kathleen Willey, for example. That doesn't mean I didn't listen to their stories in good faith before coming to that decision.

[Trumpocalypse]

24. So you refute the entire #MeToo movement?

[brooklynite]

5. Which campaign are you thinking of? And do you have any evidence for it?

[peggysue2]

7. I think your definition is . . .

exactly on the mark and is passing before our eyes at this very moment.

It needs to stop before we blow up our entire primary and our chance of ousting the most destructive presidency of my living memory.

Stop it already! Or we won't have a frigging country left.

[Hekate]

12. Perfect definition. Trump is trying to pick off Joe Biden first. Then he'll move on to the others...

...one by one, which is exactly the way he eliminated all his GOP competition in 2016.

We know this -- or we should. The only question is: are we going to have the backs of all of our candidates -- or are we going all in to help Orange Mussolini win again?

I'm just feeling pretty intolerant about now on the notion of ourselves attacking any of our people, as every single Dem in the running is phenomenally better than the wannabe Hitler we are currently cursed with.

All I'm asking about now is: Who can best beat Trump? And if the answer turns out to be Uncle Joe, I will drop the rest in a heartbeat. But I won't attack them or question their abilities or their loyalty to Dem principles.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Reminiscent of the Nixon attack on Ed Muskie in 1972. nt

[Hekate]

16. Nixon surely led the way

[Azathoth]

13. "When a politician refuses to defend himself and thus gets steamrolled

by ambitious and reactionary members of his own party."

Contrast with being "Northam'd", where the office holder defends himself and resists the hysterical handwringing and survives.

[Mr.Bill]

18. The sexual version of

being Swift-Boated.

[Still In Wisconsin]

19. It is the weaponization of the Me Too movement for political purposes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. That's exactly it.

Calling something sexual harassment that isn't, even if it might have made someone uncomfortable. Yes, I know that nobody should be made uncomfortable by invading their personal space, but that's a matter of simple courtesy, and to call it anything else stretches the #metoo concept beyond reasonable limits and results in its abuse by people with agendas.

[PatSeg]

36. We all feel uncomfortable from time to time

for various reasons, many of which have nothing to do with sex. What is acceptable to one person, could make another ill at ease. Not all people are touchy feely, which is understandable, but to go on TV and share your discomfort with the entire world comes across as a bit self absorbed or perhaps politically motivated. In the case of Flores, she admitted it was not sexual in nature.

This reminds of the woman who posed for a photo with Al Franken and was "uncomfortable" when he put his arm around her waist. These sort of stories undermine the #MeToo movement and the many, many real victims of actual sexual assault and harassment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. I agree.

While I prefer not to be embraced, even in a non-sexual way, by a person I'm not close friends with, it wouldn't occur to me to go on tv and complain that the person had done something so inappropriate that they should be punished or criticized for it. It does undermine the complaints of real sexual assault victims and unfairly demonizes people who might not realize that some people are uncomfortable with unsolicited touching.

[PatSeg]

40. Exactly

Having a personal preference is something that any person should feel free to express to someone who hugs, kisses, or touches them. For me, it would depend on the person and/or the situation. However, I would not feel the need to tell the whole world that Freddy made me feel uncomfortable.

I know people who have met Joe Biden in person and find him very charming and engaging. When he talks to someone, he looks them in the eye and makes them feel like they are the only person in the room. He is a very demonstratively affectionate person and for those who love and admire him, there is nothing uncomfortable about the physical display of affection.

[LongtimeAZDem]

33. +∞

[PatSeg]

37. That is quotable!

Sums it up very well.

[smirkymonkey]

22. I think that is a pretty fine definition.

[trueblue2007]

23. What they are trying to do right now to VP Biden. Take him down and remove him from office.

[flotsam]

27. I just addressed this in a different OP

I wrote:
FOWDC


This needs to be the new Democratic meme to answer attacks on our people by the GOP and their stooges...

"He touched my fat roll when I took a selfie!"-answer Fuck off!-We don't care!

"She's mean to her staff"-Fuck off!-We don't care!

"It wasn't sexual but he invaded my personal space!" "Fuck off!-We don't care!

For their every concern this should be the only answer. And only we can eat our we can own or recognize that while their candidates are evil ours are human. Realize the same attacks used against a republican would be laughed off as petty bullshit. It is only fake equivalency that gets this BS the airtime it gets.

Now Kiddies! Repeat after me, "Fuck off! WE DON"T CARE!!!

[LAS14]

30. Excellent. nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

32. I agree; I would add "imply that anyone who protests is defending repugnant or criminal behavior."