MNGunTalk.com

[quote="Is Cornish married?[/quote]
Nope divorced, has been for some time! Reading other news outlets - appears he was warned before by the former speaker of the house!

wasfuzz wrote:Reading other news outlets - appears he was warned before by the former speaker of the house!

That will sink him. It indicates an ongoing pattern of behavior sufficient to draw the attention of others.

The Cornish situation is certainly a blow to gun rights protection in MN.

If there is a pattern of non-consensual behavior in Cornish's office, it's not solely an issue of gun rights.

Needless to say, gun rights don't apply to just one gender; every US citizen is guaranteed self-protection rights under the 2A, regardless of gender. If Cornish's actions show disrespect for the opposite sex, then it doesn't mean that Cornish fails at advocating for gun rights. It means that his actions show a disparity between the rights he extends to males vs the rights he extended to other sexes. It's not trivial, and if he cares about gun rights for all citizens, then he should be accountable for it.

unfitmother wrote:If there is a pattern of non-consensual behavior in Cornish's office, it's not solely an issue of gun rights.

Needless to say, gun rights don't apply to just one gender; every US citizen is guaranteed self-protection rights under the 2A, regardless of gender. If Cornish's actions show disrespect for the opposite sex, then it doesn't mean that Cornish fails at advocating for gun rights. It means that his actions show a disparity between the rights he extends to males vs the rights he extended to other sexes. It's not trivial, and if he cares about gun rights for all citizens, then he should be accountable for it.

You perhaps miss my point. Regardless of why, if Cornish is no longer a rep and no longer chairman it impacts much about the future of gun restrictions in MN leg. I'm not defending him if he actually did any of the things said, just bummed that MN loses a strong advocate for rights if he goes.

BigBlue wrote: Regardless of why, if Cornish is no longer a rep and no longer chairman it impacts much about the future of gun restrictions in MN leg. I'm not defending him if he actually did any of the things said, just bummed that MN loses a strong advocate for rights if he goes.

Yes, and for what? The thrill of sending some stupid "dirty" text messages?

What was the endgame? Did he really think a 60yo man is going to turn a 30yo married lesbian woman back to hetero and win her over through his witty charm. It's just stupid.

MJY65 wrote:

BigBlue wrote: Regardless of why, if Cornish is no longer a rep and no longer chairman it impacts much about the future of gun restrictions in MN leg. I'm not defending him if he actually did any of the things said, just bummed that MN loses a strong advocate for rights if he goes.

Yes, and for what? The thrill of sending some stupid "dirty" text messages?

What was the endgame? Did he really think a 60yo man is going to turn a 30yo married lesbian woman back to hetero and win her over through his witty charm. It's just stupid.

In fairness to Cornish, this woman could have (intentionally, perhaps) fostered the relationship that made such comments within the boundaries of their familiarity- something we'd likely never hear about.
He wouldn't be the first guy to get set up for such a fall

What is more troubling about this, is the the most serious charges are from someone,who has yet to be identified, about an incident alleged to have been several years ago.

Seems to me there's a bit of orchestration going on.

But it seems like it will be 'mission accomplished' for the anti-gun people out to get Cornish, given the prevalent guilty until proven innocent attitude so pervasive.

Not a criminal charge, Ed. Guilt vs innocence doesn't apply in the context of politics and really any work relationship. Bad behavior is bad behavior. There's already been enough acknowledgment of the issue by Cornish himself that indicates he should resign. He was trying to bone a lobbiest.

I'm not happy about it either because Cornish has been a good proponent for gun rights. But this behavior is pathetic and stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

INOR wrote:Not a criminal charge, Ed. Guilt vs innocence doesn't apply in the context of politics and really any work relationship. Bad behavior is bad behavior. There's already been enough acknowledgment of the issue by Cornish himself that indicates he should resign. He was trying to bone a lobbiest.

I'm not happy about it either because Cornish has been a good proponent for gun rights. But this behavior is pathetic and stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure what you've read, but everything I've learned about the alleged lobbyist incident was verbal. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
And:
What lobbyist?

Such a serious charge for something that is said to have happened 7 years ago to someone yet to identify herself publicly.
Whether Cornish regains any committee chairs is up to the politicians; whether he keeps his job is up to his electorate.
Still seems a little early to be throwing a rope over a tree.

MJY65 wrote:

BigBlue wrote: Regardless of why, if Cornish is no longer a rep and no longer chairman it impacts much about the future of gun restrictions in MN leg. I'm not defending him if he actually did any of the things said, just bummed that MN loses a strong advocate for rights if he goes.

Yes, and for what? The thrill of sending some stupid "dirty" text messages?

What was the endgame? Did he really think a 60yo man is going to turn a 30yo married lesbian woman back to hetero and win her over through his witty charm. It's just stupid.

Regarding the comment about Maye Quade, it seems the worst he did was text her to say "I got caught staring at you". Doesn't seem to be much behind that other than jokingly acknowledging that he likes her looks. She had him in her phone as 'Tony', implying they are somewhat friendly and acquainted. That comment doesn't seem very 'bad' between two work colleagues that have some type of friendly relationship. The other claim by a lobbyist would be the only thing that would be valid as harassment, if it were true.

BigBlue wrote:That comment doesn't seem very 'bad' between two work colleagues that have some type of friendly relationship.

It's certainly not on the level of what was supposedly said to the lobbyist, but it also serves no purpose. ZERO....NONE!

What possible good can come from such a comment? It's not like he was (or should have been ) flirting with her to see how she might respond. Furthermore, he had been warned about this crap long before she was even elected.

This is part of the problem today. People are quick to be apologists for bad behavior on the part of any politicians that they happen to agree with ideologically today. Doesn't matter if it's left or right. I call ********. Call bad behavior out for what it is. Remember when so-called conservatives considered themselves to be the moral high ground party? Yeah, we can't claim that anymore. Because we stand idly by and let asshats like Trump, Roy Moore, and these similar douchenozzles take over the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

INOR wrote:This is part of the problem today. People are quick to be apologists for bad behavior on the part of any politicians that they happen to agree with ideologically today. Doesn't matter if it's left or right. I call ********. Call bad behavior out for what it is. Remember when so-called conservatives considered themselves to be the moral high ground party? Yeah, we can't claim that anymore. Because we stand idly by and let asshats like Trump, Roy Moore, and these similar douchenozzles take over the party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How are " so-called conservatives" supposed to feel about due process?

If he were charged with a crime, he'd receive due process. But in the context of employment, due process doesn't really apply particularly when the *********** in question has acknowledged his bad behavior.

And we can and should hold elected officials accountable for bad behavior. It's hypocritical for people to call for a liberal to resign over their **** behavior and not call out conservatives in the same way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

INOR wrote:If he were charged with a crime, he'd receive due process. But in the context of employment, due process doesn't really apply particularly when the *********** in question has acknowledged his bad behavior.

And we can and should hold elected officials accountable for bad behavior. It's hypocritical for people to call for a liberal to resign over their **** behavior and not call out conservatives in the same way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, an anonymous accuser can come out of the woodwork, 7 years after the fact, and coincidental to another accusation, and that's god enough for you to destroy someone's career and reputation?
Myself, I'm not calling for anyone's resignation based on what's known.
There's certainly is hypocrisy afoot, but it's not mine.