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.
I always hear that if multiple women have the same stories it’s proof a man is a predator? Nobody ever mentions that fact that these women can collaborate their stories ahead of time. Or that people just repeat what others have said? I bring this up to people and they don’t get it.
Politicians tend to get the benefit of the doubt, if only because the motivation of their accusers is more in doubt. Is the witness lying because she supports an opponent, or because the event actually happened? A consistent report across multiple reliable witnesses provides substantial weight of evidence. The female witnesses against Cuomo seem pretty credible to me. I also have to suspect that they were hired for their attractiveness and perhaps their somewhat meek personality.
I always hear that if multiple women have the same stories it’s proof a man is a predator? Nobody ever mentions that fact that these women can collaborate their stories ahead of time. Or that people just repeat what others have said? I bring this up to people and they don’t get it.
Politicians tend to get the benefit of the doubt, if only because the motivation of their accusers is more in doubt. Is the witness lying because she supports an opponent, or because the event actually happened? A consistent report across multiple reliable witnesses provides substantial weight of evidence. The female witnesses against Cuomo seem pretty credible to me. I also have to suspect that they were hired for their attractiveness and perhaps their somewhat meek personality.
I agree. Specific to the Cuomo case the reaction and cover-up is damning even if they cannot prove their harassment claims.
Their appointees should also get the benefit of the doubt considering the motivations are there as well.
The reality is that due to politics, the bar for accusations has been lowered to zero. You don't even have to prove you ever met or recall where or the year.
I tend to look at credibility of the individual accuser. If it's someone that is or was a supporter of the politician, worked on his campaign or in his staff, pushes the same party and platform-and then accuses him of something inappropriate.
If it's someone that has a long history of supporting the opposing party, suddenly "remembers" an event from decades ago, clambers for media attention and wants to put on a media circus in front of congress to accuse someone from the opposing party, and can't remember where or when the "attack" even happened, or who else was even there-not so much. Especially when they can't come up with even one witness that can say she told them about it at the time or was at the same party.
I bet you believed the Kavanaugh accuser...no other accusers, no corroboration by ANYONE, EVER. Accuser couldn't remember where it happened.
No I didn’t believe the accuser. My point is. Just because people have similar stories doesn’t meant they are true. They can hear other stories and just repeat them saying it happened the same way when in some cases it didn’t happen at all and the stories are fabricated.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,372 posts, read 54,603,269 times
Reputation: 40841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie&Rose
Are you speaking of Cuomo, Biden, Clinton or Anthony Weiner, Tony Navarrete ect ect. You must be a dem.
Since you don't mention Trump, Gingrich, Giuliani, Packwood, etc., etc. you must be a Rep.
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.