Occam's Razor.....

[brooklynite]

Republicans found 8 women willing to lie about Al Franken, potentially risking perjury charges

and

Senator Gillibrand decided to destroy a Senator she worked with for 8 years for a nascent Presidential bid

and

the entire Democratic Senatorial Caucus and Party leadership was too stupid to see either plot

OR

the complaints against Franken -- in aggregate -- were seen as credible and were considered unacceptable in today's society

[Submariner]

1. I vote they're too stupid to see a plot

[Pachamama]

2. +1000

Agree

[rzemanfl]

3. +1000 n/t

[OnDoutside]

5. +1000

[gilpo]

10. Where is this painting from?

The sexual tension is blatant. I'm guessing some religious pamphlet. I think they got trolled in the commission.

[Submariner]

12. Just a redditt post

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/7ihcqj/republican_jesus/

[Egnever]

32. Not the first time

I remember IWR very clearly and a lot of the same senators are on that list as well.

[avebury]

51. +1000 totally agree

The Democrats are notorious for routinely shooting themselves in their collectie feet. Stopping to think before they act is just not a part of their playbook. Instead, like lemmings, they run off the cliff to the utter glee of the Rethugs.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. I don't think we need to assume malice on Gillibrand's part.

She's always struck me as kind of a dim bulb who doesn't think things through. So I guess I'm applying a bit of Hanlon's Razor to scenario one.

[pansypoo53219]

30. more zero tolerance. which has no perspective.

[VermontKevin]

6. I don't know why you want to bring logic and facts into this.

[L. Coyote]

7. These few remaining people who remember how to reason are such a nuisance

to Trump and the Republicans

[Hortensis]

27. Honesty would be like ice water on a riot,

so of course it's avoided.

[BootinUp]

8. Or:

One side wants to avoid further inquiry and one side doesn’t.

[yallerdawg]

9. We've let a lot of things go over the years.

Time to make a stand.

We need to stand with the 'silence breakers.'

Unconditionally. Unapologetically. Unquestionably.

[Motownman78]

57. I would except

I remember the Duke Lacrosse Team case.

[yallerdawg]

58. There are many reasons why victims don't come forward.

You just pointed out one.

I don't support silencing women. Period.

[Kaleva]

11. And people's reactions seem to be rather tame.

They may be expressing outrage in posts but in their real everyday lives, nothing changes.

[MoonRiver]

48. How would you expect them to change?

It will all come down to the 2020 primaries, and I, for one, will not forget.

[Kaleva]

59. Generally, if people say they are enraged, they do more then post about it

Some people have said they've called and/or emailed their rep and senator but that's what one does for even the most minor of issues.

Nobody is engaging in peaceful civil disobedience. I haven't seen anyone say they are joining or organising protests. Even if anyone is, the protest most likely will be held on a weekend or evening so as not to interfere with work. I haven't seen anyone say they are making significant changes in their spending or time management so as to be able to donate more money and time to the cause.

[Igel]

13. Or both. n/t

[grantcart]

14. How many ways is this wrong? Let's start with the obvious 6.

1) Occam's Razor is not an absolute rule. Many times the easiest answer is not the correct answer. Looking at the stars thousands of years ago showed that when constellations were in a certain area that was the best time to plant crops. The explanation that the stars cause it wasn't true.

2) There are groups where people actually started vomiting or expressed other physical symptoms in what is known as hysterical contagion in which real, not imagined, symptoms occur even though we know that it was all psychological. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_contagion

3) You completely misstate the known facts. Eight women did not "risk perjury charges". None of them did. Most of the accusations were made anonymously. None of the accusations went through professional reporters like the WP that strenuously vetted Moore's accusers. Even MSNBC is using headlines like "another accuser comes out with a charge of sexual misconduct against Franken" when none of the charges involved sexual misconduct

4) The real Occam's Razor: How likely is it that all of the "charges" appear in front of cameras, with none of the pictures supporting the charges (and two of them actually make it appear that Franken was not in position to do what was alleged) and that a "sexual predator" has NO charges of groping, kissing, exhibitionism, unwanted advances or invitations IN PRIVATE by the hundreds of women that he has worked with?"

Answer: Extremely unlikely and never heard of before.

5) Where there is smoke there is fire. The most damaging allegation is that there were 8 (but actually only 4 that made anything public). The right's use of quantity in targeting someone is a well known tactic, just ask Mr. Service. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029904657

6) Democratic leadership: Not stupid but they are weak and seduced by a stupid strategy. They are looking at winning the Alabama seat and how this would effect a Tsunami reaction: More women running, more women getting committed to the offshore election where Democrats repeatedly don't come out and vote.

The idea that a sexual predator goes over board on a photo where a consensual hug is part of the ritual and then never does anything in private where he can get caught is laughable. The idea that none of the pictures support the allegations is hilarious. Here is another Occam's Razor: If he is a serial 'grabber' and did this repeatedly in front of cameras in multiple areas why isn't there some photo evidence, even just a surprised look, on any of the accusers face?"

As to the first accuser: A PAID member of Hannity's group that is captured committing "perjury" in advancing the birther lie is the most credible charge because of the staged picture, but then there are plenty of pictures of her engaging in even more aggressive actions with Robin Williams and other soldiers.

This is another example of Democrats coming to a gun fight with a knife but in this case its a plastic knife and we are handing the Republicans the gun.

How likely is it that radical reactionaries that have been exposed to have paid provocateurs surreptitiously filming Democrats trying to document progressives and even reaching out to our enemies to win an election would try to have a couple of provocateurs come forth right before Moore's election to try and save their seat?

Likely, it was predictable.

[flamingdem]

23. +1

[smirkymonkey]

24. +1000

[CentralMass]

26. Great response.

[treestar]

29. +1

[Egnever]

33. And again you nail it

Thanks Grant!

[betsuni]

35. +1

[uponit7771]

41. This

[R B Garr]

42. This is such a fantastic response, grantcart! All excellent points.

You are so right -- nothing was ever alleged in private, it was always in front of the camera as you described in a "consensual hug" that is part of the ritual of picture taking-- SO TRUE.

[bench scientist]

46. Very very well said! Agree entirely.

[MoonRiver]

49. Thank you!

[Raster]

55. +1,000,000

[ms liberty]

56. Great reply, grantcart. n/t

[Denzil_DC]

15. Invoking Occam's Razor to present a false dichotomy is manipulative and an insult to Occam.

And razors.

There are far more than two options, including the possibility that very little deep thought or judgment was involved among the Democratic Caucus, rather than kneejerk blind panic and me-tooism (in the old business manual sense, not the current one), as borne out in this OP from Jakes Progress:

I thought Rachel might help.

She had Senator Hirono on to say why she and the gang of vigilantes came to the decision to demand Franken's resignation.

I mean. Okay. Maybe they had some really damning evidence, some first had knowledge of some behavior, something other than republican and anonymous accusations.

But no. Hirono said she just sort of decided it was time, that one more unsubstantiated claim was, you know, just too much.

So. Rachel didn't get it from anyone. Hirono said that Gellibrand put out her statement, so she rushed hers out there too. We seem to be able to find out testimony from inside grand jury deliberations, the contents of CIA wiretaps, the lunch menu for Air Force One. But no one can say why these senators turned on one of their own.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029939174

Since you've persistently told DUers that DU is irrelevant to "the real world" and politics, one wonders why you bother continuing to peddle these straw men to a bunch of people you consider unimportant.

[Bucky]

19. as a side note, the word "me-tooism" has taken on a more nuanced meaning

[MoonRiver]

50. "Herd Mentality"

Herd mentality and mob mentality, also lesser known as Gang Mentality describes how people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors. Examples of the herd mentality include nationalism, globalism, stock market trends, superstition, and even home décor.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality

[LexVegas]

16. She was also able to draw Bernie Sanders into her nefarious plot. nt

[SMC22307]

53. And Kamala Harris. (n/t)

[alarimer]

17. How can anonymous accusations be judged as credible?

It seems worth noting.

You really have an ax to grind here, don't you?

[Bucky]

18. While, yeah, Franken did do some inappropriate things, Occam requires including all evidence

You can't just ignore the role right wing media hacks played in fluffling this story into national prominence. A number of prominent Republicans have done far more and far worse and there's not an equivalent left wing media out there pushing those narratives.

Occam says Franken crossed a few lines of decorum and some powerful people wanted to play that up to silence him.

[stopwastingmymoney]

45. This...nt

[tonedevil]

20. It doesn't work...

when your razor is this rusty.

[califootman]

21. Man, Occam must have been shaving constantly because he had a lot of Razors...

How about this one:

Eight women believed Al Franken touched them innapropriately, mostly during photo ops.

AND

Al Franken doesn't think he touched any women innapropriately.

That is entirely possible, and I think the most likely based on the evidence we have seen and heard so far. People have different ideas about personal space. People have different ideas about what is a hug/squeeze/grope. People have different ideas of how much physical contact is appropriate depending on how familiar they are with an acquaintance.

I think a Senate Ethics investigation would have been messy. Not that it would have been damning against Senator Franken, but I think it would not have reached a clear conclusion. I think it would have ended up in a he said-she said (x4-8 depending on how many would agree to take part in the investigation). There might have been a lot of awkward discussions of what constitutes a grope: How many fingertips on side boob? How many squeezes of a waist? How much pressure on a butt cheek? In the end I don't think you'd have any of those defined, because there is lot of gray area and it is different for different people.

And while I hope there would not be victim blaming, there probably would at least have been the question, "Did you say anything to Mr. Franken during or after the alleged groping to tell him how you felt?" From what I've seen and read, none of them did. And I'm not sure it is fair to ask that of them. It happens so quickly; it's such an awkward thing to ask about; in many cases there are lots of people around and you don't want to make a scene. But man, it would be a lot easier to condemn Senator Franken as a serial groper if some of these women had said they told him he had touched them inappropriately. Because if he smiled and said, "Yeah, hope you enjoyed it!" there would be no dissent about giving him the boot. And if he had said, "I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to. I apologize." and changed his ways, we probably wouldn't be discussing this today. And if he had said, "I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to. I apologize." and kept on doing it, we'd say he didn't learn his lesson and out he goes.

Sorry, sidetracked there a bit and that should probably be a separate topic. But I think the result of the Senate Ethics investigation would have been unclear. It wouldn't be that Senator Franken is completely truthful and the women are all lying, and it wouldn't have been that women are completely truthful and Senator Franken is spewing falsehoods. I think it would have been as above... the women felt he had touched them innapropriately, and Senator Franken didn't think he had. Both sides were telling the truth as they saw it. That's a messy place to end up in. Did he sexually harass or sexually assault those women or not? You're in that big gray area where some would likely say yes, and some would likely say no. Does that merit expulsion from the Senate, or censure and calls to resign, or just censure, or maybe no punishment and just let the voters of Minnesota decide next election cycle? I think you'd get a lot of different opinions. So in the end, whatever the outcome, I don't think there would be a universal feeling that "justice was done". But, then again, I'm not sure we have that feeling now... and we have one of the brightest Democratic lights in the Senate about to step down.

[brooklynite]

34. Then the correct answer would have been I never touched them inappropriately

[Denzil_DC]

36. Which would have led to exactly the same outcome.

According to Hirono (see my reply above), it was Gillibrand's tweet coupled with the number of accusations that tipped her balance, not any judgment of the accusations' validity. Never mind the quality, feel the width.

Since Hirono was a Dem spoke on the Maddow Show, it seems reasonable to apply Occam's razor and say she's representative of her caucus. If not, they need to professionalize and figure out their media outreach, because he came across as unprepared and gave weak arguments.

But this is all irrelevant, as is your OP. On the evidence of your own posts, you convicted Franken a fortnight ago. You're in a clear minority on DU. In the age of sauce for the goose, I humbly suggest you try your best to get over it.

[brooklynite]

37. Except that, at that point, Franken's initial response was baked in to the analysis.

[Denzil_DC]

38. There has been no evidence whatsoever of any analysis.

None. Just craven kneejerk pandering, backed up by patronizing attitudes.

Franken's initial response and my take on the reasons for it are things I wrote about at length when this place was up in arms about Tweeden. Here it is yet again, since you seem to have managed not to see it the numerous previous times I re-posted it:

Here's a sad aspect to the story:

Al Franken wrote a bill to help rape survivors like me. He can’t lead on it now.

In November 2014, I was raped.

I’m certainly not the only one something this awful has happened to, but afterward, I felt as though I was. I was a 19-year-old college student. My life changed overnight. I faced an incredibly long fight to bring my attacker to justice: Daniel Drill-Mellum was wealthy, well-connected, and willing to throw me and my reputation under the bus. The #MeToo culture I’ve seen develop publicly over the last month wasn’t around to help me then. I was nearly harassed off the University of Minnesota campus for reporting. I was turned away by the Minneapolis Police Department despite the mountain of evidence in my case.

Over the next two years, I learned how to hold my frustration in, because I had an end goal in mind. I knew that my attacker belonged in prison, and I was determined to get the justice system on my side. I made mental notes about everything that was going wrong. I tried to have patience that someday I could make a different world. When my rapist was sentenced in August 2016 to six years in prison, I finally had my chance.

I sought help from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). He took up my cause without hesitation, and he worked with his aides to draft legislation to pay for training to help police departments treat assault survivors with more concern for what we’ve been through. But now that allegations have come out that Franken himself assaulted a woman years ago, I want another lawmaker to sponsor the bill we worked so hard on. This work deserves to be led by those without a history of sexual harassment or assault.

The news this week was especially disappointing for me because of how effective an advocate Franken has been for my cause. I felt my heart sink when I saw the news, but I was prepared to support the woman involved. I remember what it was like to be shamed and not believed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/18/al-franken-wrote-a-bill-to-help-rape-survivors-like-me-he-cant-lead-on-it-now/

If anybody wants to click through, they'll see the sort of work Franken's been involved in, and how sensitively he and his staff have handled the process of helping this woman frame the bill. She now wants to find a female congressperson to sponsor it instead.

I hope it's an overreaction to the early forms of this story, and she may revise her decision. Or perhaps it would be better if she can find a female senator to sponsor it, and Franken can offer whatever support is necessary, behind the scenes or from the floor. The problem with his involvement is Republican whataboutery. You'd hope a bill like this could find bipartisan agreement, but I doubt it.

It may shed some light on why Franken reacted like he did. The larger picture than his own career is the legislation he wants to pass and the changes he wants to come about - exactly as set out in his long statement. That's integrity.

I don't think any number of videos or pics of Tweeden cavorting onstage are likely to make Abby Honold feel differently, certainly not if Franken were ever to have a hand in relying on them as some sort of "defense" - especially in view of her own experience of the attempts to "throw me and my reputation under the bus". Or maybe she'll realize that this is more or less what's happened to Franken as her ally and change her mind.

What probably won't help change her mind is targeting somebody who comes forward with an allegation for her past behavior, however raunchy, given what she says above. Or maybe she'll join some here in resenting Tweeden for making false allegations, but that could be a slippery slope and she may not be able or willing to go there.

These are the stakes. This whole operation hasn't just targeted Franken, it's targeted the current wave of revulsion at revelations about how (especially powerful) men sometimes conduct themselves.

That's why I think Franken's reacted as he has, and why he's right to do so.

It's just my own interpretation, but I reckon Franken doesn't want to get into the position of publicly expressing disbelief of the women making the allegations, for reasons I outline above.

But I'm just a humble DUer whose opinion obviously means naught, and nuance has no place when electoral convenience is at stake.

[R B Garr]

44. He said he remembered it differently. What you are saying there is he

should have called them liars. But he was polite and said he remembered it differently...

[Binkie The Clown]

22. Occam's razor is a bitch. Occam's aftershave is even worse. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. or more stuff was about to come out and he left rather than deal with it

Why Democrats insist that their elected officials are pure as driven snow is beyond me.

[KPN]

28. Your OR is inaccurate -- a syllogism of sorts. The complaints against Franken

were not and are not seen as credible and unacceptable in today's society. That's pretty obvious from the reaction here and about.

Nice try though.

[Irish_Dem]

31. Thank you for posting this Brooklynite. Same thoughts I have had. nt

[BaileyBill]

39. Unlike with Trump, Moore, et al

I think there are actually zero accusers who would have been willing to risk perjury charges. Would have been interesting to see how many really had the courage of their convictions.

[Lil Missy]

40. What was the lie they told???

[LisaL]

43. There are no perjury charges for talking to reporters or posting on a blog.

So what are you talking about?

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Ridiculous!

I don't think you're remotely interested in a discussion.

[riverwalker]

52. Not all lied

I’m sure Franken is very friendly and probably did pat someone’s butt during photos and meet and greets. I have an uncle who does the same, that’s just how some people are. It’s harmless. Stone heard about his tendency and knew if he pushed the bogus Tweeden claim, someone may have a Me Too moment. He knew the Tweeden photo was a goldmine, and created his story to go with it, and pushed it. Hard. It worked. Stone is evil, not stupid. He knows about media pile ons, the tsunami effect. He knows how it works and it did, brilliantly. Look at us.

[treestar]

54. If it is not acceptable in today's society

then it is amazing Moore will win a seat and the PGIC is in the WH