Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who is being denied the LEGAL presumption of innocence? Individual people (not on a jury) are free to have any opinion they wish. So what's the problem?
The problem is that opinion over 35 year old claims is affecting an important job nomination. The problem is that Feminist mafia automatically judges any woman who claims any kind of sexual assault as being truthful without requiring any proof. Most feminists say that they believe Dr. Ford because she gave credible testimony. So essentially they believe the woman over man because of her acting skills. And a man in question, as far as I know, has not a single accusation of any impropriety for the last 35 years after he graduated from high school.
I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed? Let's say if a man would come up with a sexual assault allegation that happened 35 years ago against female Supreme Court nominee. The allegation that was not even supported by his best friend. I bet no one will pay him any attention, especially the Feminists. Feminist mafia only cares when a woman is an accuser.
Now, I have nothing against an FBI investigation. But in this case, with allegations known ahead of time, why were they not brought up earlier, during Kavanaugh meeting with Senators? Why was the accusation raised when the nomination/vetting process was essentially over? I could be wrong but I think Democrats did not even bring this up until the confirmation process started. If Democrats did bring up these allegations earlier and Republican ignored them, then they got what they deserved.
I think the process as it was has been very cruel and unfair to Kavanaugh. And I am saying this as someone who is opposed to his political views...
What do you mean take one month, take until after the election. That is unless the Republican Party holds onto the Senate in which case keep digging while the House of Representatives vote to impeach. And then hold on until the next Presidential election.
Finally when all is done we can accuse the next nominee of the other party of raping prepubescent children as minority party tries to hold out until the nation becomes a single party state like California is today.
Let's try to stay away from partisan politics on this thread. Because otherwise it will be very long. But I have to say that Republicans started this stone walling process by not even holding nomination hearings for Obama's SCOTUS pick a year before the election. If the current nomination is derailed and they lose Senate, Republican with reap what they sowed.
What do you mean take one month, take until after the election. That is unless the Republican Party holds onto the Senate in which case keep digging while the House of Representatives vote to impeach. And then hold on until the next Presidential election.
Finally when all is done we can accuse the next nominee of the other party of raping prepubescent children as minority party tries to hold out until the nation becomes a single party state like California is today.
This is such a partisan post.
California is not a single party state. "The state senate currently consists of 27 Democrats and 13 Republicans, and the Assembly consists of 53 Democrats" and 25 Republicans and two vacancies".
There are a number of states that are similar, but on the Republican side.
The problem is that opinion over 35 year old claims is affecting an important job nomination. The problem is that Feminist mafia automatically judges any woman who claims any kind of sexual assault as being truthful without requiring any proof. Most feminists say that they believe Dr. Ford because she gave credible testimony. So essentially they believe the woman over man because of her acting skills. And a man in question, as far as I know, has not a single accusation of any impropriety for the last 35 years after he graduated from high school.
I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed? Let's say if a man would come up with a sexual assault allegation that happened 35 years ago against female Supreme Court nominee. The allegation that was not even supported by his best friend. I bet no one will pay him any attention, especially the Feminists. Feminist mafia only cares when a woman is an accuser.
Now, I have nothing against an FBI investigation. But in this case, with allegations known ahead of time, why were they not brought up earlier, during Kavanaugh meeting with Senators? Why was the accusation raised when the nomination/vetting process was essentially over? I could be wrong but I think Democrats did not even bring this up until the confirmation process started. If Democrats did bring up these allegations earlier and Republican ignored them, then they got what they deserved.
I think the process as it was has been very cruel and unfair to Kavanaugh. And I am saying this as someone who is opposed to his political views...
Paragraph 1: So I guess what you're saying is that the "unreasonableness" of today is pretty much a flip from the "reasonableness" of the past.
Paragraph 3: There are many articles online that outline why women are so reluctant to come forward. You need to Google the topic and actually read some of those articles.
Let's try to stay away from partisan politics on this thread. Because otherwise it will be very long. But I have to say that Republicans started this stone walling process by not even holding nomination hearings for Obama's SCOTUS pick a year before the election. If the current nomination is derailed and they lose Senate, Republican with reap what they sowed.
After your post # 81...now you want to stay away from partisan politics. You're sort of like Lindsey Graham -- whom I often like -- who never saw partisanship in the Senate until now. Perhaps he needs eye surgery.
I'm not afraid of anything. I don't have a political stake in this. What I am concerned about is how an allegation this bereft of any evidence has merit. I do not want to reward this as a tactic to use against future nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat.
As far as your nebulous sex claim is concerned, how long after the alleged incident did the investigation begin? Given the fact that the accused student was still in school under your purview as an administrator, it couldn't have been very long at all. If it was indeed that immediate, even then the results boiled down to a 'he said/she said.' Let me repeat. Even after interviewing a host of people your investigation turned up snake eyes.
Now, take that instance of yours, and add thirty-odd years to the timeline. Add the alleged witnesses who, under oath, testify that they have no recollection of the event described by the accuser. I mean, they've already testified under oath. What more is left to investigate?
I can tell you what the FBI will say. "We interviewed a handful of witnesses who confirmed their previous testimony that they have no recollection of the events of that night. Dr. Ford's lifelong friend claims she wasn't present at any such party, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never heard of this event until it hit a few weeks ago."
I think if there's any motive to be questioned here, it's yours. Any objective person would look at this and say, "How can we possibly verify this woman's claims? The witnesses she named rebutted her account." Politically speaking, you're the one who has skin in the game.
That's the purpose of the FBI investigation -- to determine whether or not there is merit.
I agree that there is a difference between my example and the current situation. However, you're missing my point entirely (and probably intentionally). My point was -- investigate. But you're wrong about something very important here. They claimants have not testified. Mark Judge has not testified; he has been interviewed by the FBI. The "other" women have not testified.
You know what the FBI will say? Baloney.
"Any objective person"???? Have you read the polls on this?
But that's not the issue here. It's the willingness of a nomination of a Supreme Court judge to be held up due to unsubstantiated claims from 35 years ago, claims that have been rebutted by Dr. Ford's own witnesses.
Here's the problem with saying you believe her, however. By saying, "I believe her," then you are automatically buying into an accusation without a shred of proof based on nothing more than who she is and who he is. Did Kavanaugh do this? I don't know. I literally don't know one way or another. Because I don't know what the evidence is. Is there foundation to her statement?
But what I do know is that anyone, man, woman, white, black, latino, straight, gay, Methodist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, whoever, should not have a de facto pronouncement of guilt or innocence hung around his or her neck just because he or she falls within a particular identity group. Ultimately, it is the reduction of people into stereotypes, with people acting as judge and jury based on who they are rather than what they did. In that sense, saying, "I believe her because she's a woman" is no different than saying, "I believe her because she's white."
More to the point, if you simply shrug and say, "Hey, what's the harm? My opinion doesn't matter," I would argue that it does matter. For when we form lynch mobs, especially those based on well-orchestrated political operatives, then no one is really safe.
You don't get to decide what the issue is here. We are all as free to decide that as you are.
You admit you don't know what the evidence is...but you don't want the investigation to find what the evidence is. That's rather ironical.
He isn't being lynched. He isn't being convicted. MAYBE he won't get a job he applied for. Across this nation today there are thousands of job applicants who won't get a job they applied for.
Paragraph 1: So I guess what you're saying is that the "unreasonableness" of today is pretty much a flip from the "reasonableness" of the past.
Sorry, no idea what you mean...
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Paragraph 3: There are many articles online that outline why women are so reluctant to come forward. You need to Google the topic and actually read some of those articles.
Thank you for assigning me required reading. But even if this is true, I see that women who do come forward are automatically assumed to be telling the truth be feminists. And the men they are accusing are considered criminals. In fact female Senators were saying that they believe Dr. Ford even before she testified... Feminists don't care how unfair and sexist they are as long as women benefit.
And I realize that fortunately the opinion of Feminist Mafia does not influence criminal justice system. But their choke hold on a lot of media pretty much guarantees humiliation and very likely job loss for an accused man. So basically feminists can act as a judge and a jury and they relish that role.
He isn't being lynched. He isn't being convicted. MAYBE he won't get a job he applied for. Across this nation today there are thousands of job applicants who won't get a job they applied for.
He is being humiliated. And how many job interviews are there today that are broadcast across the US with half a nation watching? Pretty much one, SCOTUS nomination. So let's not trivialize what he is going through...
Thank you for assigning me required reading. But even if this is true, I see that women who do come forward are automatically assumed to be telling the truth be feminists. And the men they are accusing are considered criminals. In fact female Senators were saying that they believe Dr. Ford even before she testified... Feminists don't care how unfair and sexist they are as long as women benefit.
And I realize that fortunately the opinion of Feminist Mafia does not influence criminal justice system. But their choke hold on a lot of media pretty much guarantees humiliation and very likely job loss for an accused man. So basically feminists can act as a judge and a jury and they relish that role.
1. Why am I not at all surprised?
2. Isn't it a shame when the power shifts and you're no longer in the favored group.
3. The public has always been a judge and jury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
