That assumes that most voters are informed enough to be aware of and understand the allegations. Something that was dubious even before foreign misinformation campaigns.

What you said at first about axioms is most of what I meant. I'm not opposed to logic and it is useful even in moral decisions, but can lead to mistakes. Imo the basis of morality is not reason, but is emotional and based in biology and culture. Abstracting rules is an effort to make a model. Using those rules and logic and coming to results that are not in accord with emotion can imply that there's something wrong with the model. The SMP mindset often leads to arguing that the model and logic must be right. It's like a meteorologist arguing that it's raining when it's not because the model predicted it.

So are we at the believe women stage yet, or is this one lying too? Maybe normal standards for picture taking don’t apply at the state fair? Just a comedic ass grab?

Opposition to unjustified authority including in economic relationships as well as political. Compassionate freedom lover. Recognizes the dignity of individuals as well as an obligation to the welfare of others. Faith in human nature on a human scale and not in impersonal organizations, whether governmental or corporate.

A worker coop, a consumer coop, open source software, a volunteer fire department, a book club, most PTAs, Amish barn raising.

Libertarian socialism
Anarcho-socialism

Part of the Spanish Revolution
Rojava
The Zapatistas

It's also the original use of the term "libertarian" coming from anarchists (anti-state socialists and communists) in 19th century Europe who didn't use the term "anarchist" to avoid censorship.

Chomsky, Bakunin, Proudhon, Bookchin, Kropotkin, Rucker, Graeber, Luxemburg, Orwell.

I don't agree with this. In theory, impeachment should be non-political. If the voters want a murderer or a rapist as POTUS, tough ****, the adults in the room should still impeach and remove him, and then he should be thrown in jail, IMO. We should no more be able to vote someone immunity from the law than we should be able to vote in someone who doesn't satisfy the requirements for president (i.e. if a 25-year old non-citizen wins by write-in, they don't get to take office either).

It's significantly less likely that two independent accusers are lying than that one is.

Yeah. Democracy isn't much of a safeguard against totalitarianism. Everyone (the rulers) being equal under the law is crucial. (And it's the right thing to do) POTUS has way too many get out of jail cards as it is.

Her feelings at the time and last week: he violated me and I felt disgusted
Her feelings now: I forgive him

Those aren't incompatible. That's all coherent. She didn't say she feels less strongly about it. She didn't say he didn't violate her. She didn't say her level of consent was magnified post hoc.

It is her prerogative to forgive him. I do take that into consideration here. But, as David said: the things Franken represents should have had a much greater influence on whether you wanted him to remain a senator than whether she forgives him.

Shouldn't the people of Minn decide this?

Maybe? They should have input but not sole discretion. The party has an interest not having creeps in their ranks either. If Franken cares about progressive values and doesn't want to continue to be a distraction or a punching bag, that should be a factor. The now two people he's accused of harassing / groping should have their say. Democrats in Minnesota should have their say (e.g., what if unscrupulous GOPers just want to keep him around to have him be a punching bag and be a weaker opponent in 2020?). Women writ large should have their say.

Most importantly, if Franken takes 'believe women' to heart, and if he thinks sexual harassment and abuse is a grave social ill, leaving it up to the people to decide his fate in his 3 years seems like an abdication of his principles that we should 'believe women' (don't just make hand-waving allusions to the fact you can never remember anything) and that there should be serious professional consequences for guys who prey on women.

Everyone can have their say. I don't defer mine in this case. He should resign.

Sure you can but he represents Minn.

Also these sorts of sexual assaults are like rats. See one in an older successful man and you can be pretty damn sure there's a lot of them.

(might not actually be true of rats)

If you think no consent is clear, then he should be in prison, no? Perhaps you don't think there should be a trial because it wouldn't meet the burden of proof there, but for your part, you're satisfied about that?

My impression of DS's take is that's it's more Machiavellian. It's not about what he represents, but how he votes and if he votes your way it doesn't matter if he's a rapist or a serial killer.

Opinions are like *******s, but the people of MN have a mechanism to remove him.

If Menendez had been convicted last week and the Senate voted to expel him, would you have opposed that? He's up for reelection next year.

Impeachment is political, period. I have no idea why you think otherwise, how could removing a sitting president from office be non political? It is inherently political.

Of course the voters don't have a veto on if the president goes to jail or not, if he commits a crime before taking office (again, that the voters know about and ignored), then of course he should be prosecuted for that. And then if he obstructs that investigation, impeach him for that.

As for whether or not Franken should be prosecuted, if some local law enforcement official wants to charge him, that's fine with me. He'll get his day in court lots of people seem to want then. I believe these women. They are accusing him of crimes (not the photo, but the kiss might rise to the level of assault; the butt grab definitely sounds like variants of unwanted touching or sexual battery).

"He should be in prison" is both the verdict and the sentence. I don't know what the penalties for these kinds of things exactly, everywhere, but they both sound like misdemeanor sexual battery and usually wouldn't carry jail time. But sometimes they do.

I leave to to DrModern and the other lawyers to determine all that, not my expertise.

As for DS, I think he's trying to communicate that his private, social, and professional punishments should not merely be left to the victim to decide. Which I agree. You can call it Machiavellian but Franken is an elected official, a Democrat, the stakes are high. If he purports to care about principles, he should consider whether his continued presence in the Senate does those principles any good.

I even left room for some sort of utterly partisan calculation *if* the Minnesota governor were a Republican -- the kind that says sure, Franken is a creep, but issues X, Y, and Z are just so critical that we have to leave him place. I do not subscribe to that argument in most contexts but it's not even relevant here. I'm sure Dayton can find a viable Democrat that can vote in all the ways Franken would have.

can a usa president be prosecuted while in office? I'd got the impression that impeachment was the only option.

No one knows, it's never been addressed

oh ok.

Was Franken convicted of a crime?

If the people of NJ (including myself) demanded that Menendez step down that is entirely different than people of California doing it.

You didn't answer my question.

There was a crime committed and a trial in the Menendez situation (if he was found guilty), we just have people accusing Frankin. They are not similar nor should they be treated equally.

Micro,

I'm not at all convinced that you or Dr. Modern actually want the very small gov't that this post, and the term "left-libertarian", implies.

Honestly, it feels like an attempt to reconcile an intellectual appetite for libertarianism with a desire to not be lumped in with the run-of-the-mill libertarians, a great many of whom (unlike you) are professional *******s.

DS is obviously correct that Tweeden's opinions on whether Franken should leave office should not be dispositive. But I don't think it we should entirely ignore them either. It's one factor among many that gives context in assessing how violative the conduct was. (I say that will full awareness that different people react differently to harassment.)

You still didn't answer my question. Why not?