Sexual Harassment claims

[Archigeek]

No you didn't. You quoted an interpretation. The actual quote is "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." It says "and" not "or". the rules determine what is disorderly behavior, they may punish for the disorderly behavior, and the may expel for the disorderly behavior. Go ahead and keep believing Congress can jsut expel elected members because they just feel like it though. That would create a definite suppression of minority voice and that is obviously against the whole idea.

I stand corrected on the first part of your statement above, I didn't post a quote. Apologies. I do however stand by the claim that they can expel any member at any time for any reason.

You are hanging your hat on a conjunction. You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton arguing over the word "is." A better way to parse the logic of a sentence that contains three parts is to see how it reads with one of the parts missing. By your argument, the sentence only applies to disorderly conduct, which would then mean that the other two parts of the sentence don't apply except in cases of disorderly conduct. This makes no sense, because of course congress gets to make its own rules with no regard whatsoever to disorderly conduct.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, "disorderly conduct" is wildly open to interpretation.

Lastly, the proof is in the pudding. If you look at the US Senate's list of those who have been expelled (or a 2/3rds majority wasn't met to expel them), not a single one was expelled for disorderly conduct. Most of them were expelled for "support of the confederacy" but also for a wide variety of other reasons. No one was expelled for disorderly conduct.

[Gelston]

I stand corrected on the first part of your statement above, I didn't post a quote. Apologies. I do however stand by the claim that they can expel any member at any time for any reason.

You are hanging your hat on a conjunction. You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton arguing over the word "is." A better way to parse the logic of a sentence that contains three parts is to see how it reads with one of the parts missing. By your argument, the sentence only applies to disorderly conduct, which would then mean that the other two parts of the sentence don't apply except in cases of disorderly conduct. This makes no sense, because of course congress gets to make its own rules with no regard whatsoever to disorderly conduct.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, "disorderly conduct" is wildly open to interpretation.

Lastly, the proof is in the pudding. If you look at the US Senate's list of those who have been expelled (or a 2/3rds majority wasn't met to expel them), not a single one was expelled for disorderly conduct. Most of them were expelled for "support of the confederacy" but also for a wide variety of other reasons. No one was expelled for disorderly conduct.

I would consider "support of the Confederacy" to be disorderly conduct, seeing as the US was at war with the Confederacy. The proof is in the pudding, every instance is considered disorderly conduct.

[Gelston]

A second woman has accused Sen. Al Franken of groping her, saying the Minnesota Democrat inappropriately touched her in 2010.

The women alleges Franken grabbed her buttocks while posing for a photo with her at the Minnesota State Fair, according to CNN.

The woman, Lindsay Menz, also tweeted about the alleged incident last Thursday, in response to explosive claims by Los Angeles radio anchor Leeann Tweeden that Franken forcibly kissed and groped her during a 2006 USO tour.

"In August 2010, @alfranken grabbed me while taking a photo together at the Minnesota State Fair. I felt violated & embarassed. I 100% believe your account of him & his actions, @LeeannTweeden. Thank you for sharing your story," Menz tweeted.

Hey, this happened while he was a Senator. Wonder if he is still doing shit like this?

[Androidpk]

Trump mocking Franken. Hillary mocking Trump. Is this real life?

[ClydeR]

Additionally, as others have pointed out, "disorderly conduct" is wildly open to interpretation.

Yes, very broad. It's exactly what that lady was charged with for laughing at Jeff Sessions. If they would try to send her to jail for laughing, then you know they would punish each other for the same thing.

[Tisket]

You didn't ask for shit, you went off on a rant because I disagreed with you.

I didn't ask a series of questions? Oh wait a second....

You thinly veiled that rant with questions designed to bait me into falling into line with you or taking a position so far outside of reality that you could easily attack it. I didn't respond to your questions

You can't even keep track of your wandering logic within one post. Understandable when you are so easily goaded. I really hope you don't take your impotent anger and frustration out on the poor women that work with you. Sounds like you've made a habit of doing just that though

[Tisket]

So it's been a while since the bucks have been looking in your direction I take it? Sadly women can't always stay 25.

I'm pretty much unoffendable but, I like to at least understand the insults that come my way. I don't get this one though. The clip is funny I guess but what has it to do with the post you quoted? Or maybe it was just a random opportunity to take a swipe at me? If so, uh, cool?

[Jhynnifer]

I'm pretty much unoffendable but, I like to at least understand the insults that come my way. I don't get this one though. The clip is funny I guess but what has it to do with the post you quoted? Or maybe it was just a random opportunity to take a swipe at me? If so, uh, cool?

I think he's insinuating you're not as hot as you were at 25. Which is, of course, the go to insult for some idiotic reason. If you manage to deflect this one gracefully he'll most likely call you a whore.

[Tisket]

I think he's insinuating you're not as hot as you were at 25. Which is, of course, the go to insult for some idiotic reason. If you manage to deflect this one gracefully he'll most likely call you a whore.

I'm not as hot as when I was 25. What woman is? I might be a whore though. I could be!

[Gelston]

I'm not as hot as when I was 25. What woman is? I might be a whore though. I could be!

I'm hotter than I was at 25.