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 see some of the stuff surrounding this subject, to be a confusion about what due process really means.
Just like I see people confused about what "Free Speech" actually means.
Free speech, you can say what you want, but I am not obligated to stand there and listen to it. Some people think that free speech means that they have the right to force their message to be heard by anyone they want to hear it. They have a right to be, for instance, on a privately owned website saying whatever they want, and if they get banned or blocked, that's some violation of their free speech. It's not. The only thing guaranteed by that right is that the government won't come lock you up for what you said, with very few and rare exceptions (the "fire in a theater" thing.)
Along the same lines, due process in situations like this means you're not going to be thrown in jail without a trial. The government cannot guarantee you will keep your job, or that people won't judge you. The government is not in the business of policing your public image and demanding that people continue to like you until all the facts are in. The so-called "court of public opinion" is simply a matter of each individual deciding what we believe. And no one, not a one of you or anyone else, has any right, to demand that another human being believe something or not. None of you have a right to tell me what side to take in my opinions on anything. Nor do I have that right with regard to you. And I am not remotely required to "remain objective" or withhold my personal judgments until all evidence is presented. Because my personal opinion never put anyone in jail.
To me that's part of what is so freakin' asinine about ~all of this~ is how when I see debates about sexual crimes, whether one particular case or the subject in general...SO. MUCH. EGO. I see way more ego on display, than I do compassion.
Tell ya what folks. Your opinion, unless you are a judge or juror or something, doesn't really mean much (no matter what you think) with regard to these cases we hear about in the news. It doesn't lean anything in favor of innocence or guilt for anyone involved. All it really does, is tell everyone who sees it, plenty about YOU. One way or another, for better or worse. That's it.
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...
This whole thing really bothers me and should bother every single American. It's her word over his, and I just recently saw a man got out of Prison, after 11 years, only b/c the woman confessed that she lied.
If she had come forward at any other time, it would have seemed more likely, but this timing was questionable, not to mention, it's a very dangerous accusation.
The man who was on the Netflixs show Danny, (I forget his last name) lost his job b/c some woman came forward and said, he molested her years ago....and they thru him off the show...that should never be.
I'm not saying she was molested...what I'm saying is when we're young we do some pretty stupid things, like going to beer parties, and teasing young men, and when they won't stop, now your in a fix. And I'm not saying its right, but I believe some of these women are sorry later on in life, and now decide it wasn't her fault.
There are also women who do this to get ahead in their careers, and so forth....and then later in life, have 2nd thoughts...so?
Unless they can prove he is guilty, no one should be fired, ever, on his word against hers, unless a witness comes forward, or they have proof she was molested...or raped....for instance, if she has black and blue marks, and was truly raped....b/c she went right to the hospital.
My cousin's daughter, thinks it's funny, b/c she's in college and she goes to frat parties, and then tells her mom, that girls get rapped at these parties.... Then don't go!!!!! Period. If you know your in danger, why would you go?
I feel this is really bad...and nothing good will come out of it...
I realize thats the way its supposed to be, but more and more today, public opinion is trending towards guilty until proven innocent. I do not think this happened by coincidence though.
Slow and methodical conditioning is turning us into very obedient and compliant subjects.
You always have your mobs with pitchforks. That's the point of having law and order.
You know. I've been thinking for the past couple of days about how context can start pulling on beliefs.
I support the general concept of the "me too" movement. But I also believe in the statute of limitations for most crimes. I don't care what the illegal offense, I'm not going to convict anyone based on hearsay or unsubstantiated claims.
In terms of Kavanaugh, I'd like Congress to actually find out the truth. I don't know why this has to be on an expressway to confirmation. The FBI could investigate this in a week or two. However, your comment that, "we're all giving this guy the bum's rush to the stocks"...I don't see that happening at all.
I was molested as a child. As a woman, I've been groped, stalked, have had a couple of men who've said disgusting things to me, entirely unprovoked. So I'm a "me too" gal as well.
However, in regards to Kavanaugh and Ford...I have my doubts about Ford. First of all...she apparently came to realization of her trauma way back in 2011. She apparently knew it was Kavanaugh WAY BACK THEN. This happened in a state with no statute of limitations...but she didn't press charges then.
Then, she sends the letter to Feinstein. Feinstein even says she's not sure the letter is credible. Even at that point...Ford thinks the subject is important enough to send a letter...but...why not press charges if this is what she believes?
Why didn't Feinstein submit the letter WHEN SHE GOT IT? Well, we know the answer to that. Because Feinstein used it for political dynamite. How can it be explained any other way?
Even now...what's to stop Ford from pressing charges, if she feels that he assaulted her?
I was molested as a child. As a woman, I've been groped, stalked, have had a couple of men who've said disgusting things to me, entirely unprovoked. So I'm a "me too" gal as well.
However, in regards to Kavanaugh and Ford...I have my doubts about Ford. First of all...she apparently came to realization of her trauma way back in 2011. She apparently knew it was Kavanaugh WAY BACK THEN. This happened in a state with no statute of limitations...but she didn't press charges then.
Then, she sends the letter to Feinstein. Feinstein even says she's not sure the letter is credible. Even at that point...Ford thinks the subject is important enough to send a letter...but...why not press charges if this is what she believes?
Why didn't Feinstein submit the letter WHEN SHE GOT IT? Well, we know the answer to that. Because Feinstein used it for political dynamite. How can it be explained any other way?
Even now...what's to stop Ford from pressing charges, if she feels that he assaulted her?
^^^^ This....
I to was a molested child, and had a man grope me, and had another problem and I took care of it...period.
No, means no, and if anyone goes beyond that, they need to be punished, but if I hadn't kicked a man in the family jewels one night at my car, no one would have been there, it would have been his word against mine, therefore, unfortunately, I had no case, unless someone came forward and said they saw the whole thing....so?
I see some of the stuff surrounding this subject, to be a confusion about what due process really means.
Just like I see people confused about what "Free Speech" actually means.
Free speech, you can say what you want, but I am not obligated to stand there and listen to it. Some people think that free speech means that they have the right to force their message to be heard by anyone they want to hear it. They have a right to be, for instance, on a privately owned website saying whatever they want, and if they get banned or blocked, that's some violation of their free speech. It's not. The only thing guaranteed by that right is that the government won't come lock you up for what you said, with very few and rare exceptions (the "fire in a theater" thing.)
Along the same lines, due process in situations like this means you're not going to be thrown in jail without a trial. The government cannot guarantee you will keep your job, or that people won't judge you. The government is not in the business of policing your public image and demanding that people continue to like you until all the facts are in. The so-called "court of public opinion" is simply a matter of each individual deciding what we believe. And no one, not a one of you or anyone else, has any right, to demand that another human being believe something or not. None of you have a right to tell me what side to take in my opinions on anything. Nor do I have that right with regard to you. And I am not remotely required to "remain objective" or withhold my personal judgments until all evidence is presented. Because my personal opinion never put anyone in jail.
To me that's part of what is so freakin' asinine about ~all of this~ is how when I see debates about sexual crimes, whether one particular case or the subject in general...SO. MUCH. EGO. I see way more ego on display, than I do compassion.
Tell ya what folks. Your opinion, unless you are a judge or juror or something, doesn't really mean much (no matter what you think) with regard to these cases we hear about in the news. It doesn't lean anything in favor of innocence or guilt for anyone involved. All it really does, is tell everyone who sees it, plenty about YOU. One way or another, for better or worse. That's it.
In regard to individual cases, I think I mostly agree with you.
But in regard to the big picture...the long term...I think you're wrong about "your opinion" not meaning much. Like any other aspect of government and society, our judicial system evolves.
This whole thing really bothers me and should bother every single American. It's her word over his, and I just recently saw a man got out of Prison, after 11 years, only b/c the woman confessed that she lied.
If she had come forward at any other time, it would have seemed more likely, but this timing was questionable, not to mention, it's a very dangerous accusation.
The man who was on the Netflixs show Danny, (I forget his last name) lost his job b/c some woman came forward and said, he molested her years ago....and they thru him off the show...that should never be.
I'm not saying she was molested...what I'm saying is when we're young we do some pretty stupid things, like going to beer parties, and teasing young men, and when they won't stop, now your in a fix. And I'm not saying its right, but I believe some of these women are sorry later on in life, and now decide it wasn't her fault.
There are also women who do this to get ahead in their careers, and so forth....and then later in life, have 2nd thoughts...so?
Unless they can prove he is guilty, no one should be fired, ever, on his word against hers, unless a witness comes forward, or they have proof she was molested...or raped....for instance, if she has black and blue marks, and was truly raped....b/c she went right to the hospital.
My cousin's daughter, thinks it's funny, b/c she's in college and she goes to frat parties, and then tells her mom, that girls get rapped at these parties.... Then don't go!!!!! Period. If you know your in danger, why would you go?
I feel this is really bad...and nothing good will come out of it...
I think there are two things that we have here.
The first is the way society works in general. And what I mean by that is that in the long past, women's voices about rape and assault have not been taken seriously all too often. And this goes back to an old saying, which then becomes a general principle -- boys will be boys. Now the pendulum is swinging. And as is almost always the case...the pendulum swings too far. And now we're being expected to give credence to too little evidence.
The second is that -- and perhaps I'm wrong on this and you're not vaguely referring to Kavanaugh -- this whole process was a job interview. As a retired school administrator, during my career I hired well over a hundred teachers and other school personnel. We looked at -- qualifications as indicated by college degrees, references, etc.; the interview (if it got that far); and baggage. And there are issues with all three of those aspects of the process. College degrees don't tell us how stringent an educational program or professors were, resumes are often terribly fudged, and references can be very valuable or useless. The interview -- face to face -- was always paramount for us. But so was the baggage...particularly as we began to get into the social media age; when we hired a person, we didn't want baggage because baggage had the potential to harm our school and distract from our mission. Kavanaugh had the first category -- the paper qualifications. But when it came to the job interview...just looking at the video (without the audio)...there's something deeply wrong. Just hearing the tone of his responses without the video...there's something deeply wrong. He was testifying. In a court case, would he let a defendant or witness use the tone and veiled insults toward him that he used toward a couple of Senators? No. He would have instituted contempt of court. And then there's the baggage. He's badly tainted. And that will affect the mission of the Supreme Court.
I was molested as a child. As a woman, I've been groped, stalked, have had a couple of men who've said disgusting things to me, entirely unprovoked. So I'm a "me too" gal as well.
However, in regards to Kavanaugh and Ford...I have my doubts about Ford. First of all...she apparently came to realization of her trauma way back in 2011. She apparently knew it was Kavanaugh WAY BACK THEN. This happened in a state with no statute of limitations...but she didn't press charges then.
Then, she sends the letter to Feinstein. Feinstein even says she's not sure the letter is credible. Even at that point...Ford thinks the subject is important enough to send a letter...but...why not press charges if this is what she believes?
Why didn't Feinstein submit the letter WHEN SHE GOT IT? Well, we know the answer to that. Because Feinstein used it for political dynamite. How can it be explained any other way?
Even now...what's to stop Ford from pressing charges, if she feels that he assaulted her?
To me there's a couple of problems with your post.
1. When all those things happened to you, did you do something about it? Or are you only now a "me too gal"?
2. It's fair to have doubts about Ford. But it's just as fair to have doubts about Kavanaugh. That's the problem with she said-he said. But, what would the outcry be if she NOW brought a legal case against Kavanaugh...since you suggest that there is no statute of limitations on this? If you're correct, she still could.
3. Are you really expecting that in a purely political process that people won't play politics? Are you telling me that the Garland issue was not pure politics?
To me there's a couple of problems with your post.
1. When all those things happened to you, did you do something about it? Or are you only now a "me too gal"? I've told my story to several people. But I'm guessing you mean "Did I press charges against anyone? No. I did not. Heck, I haven't even been able to tell anyone in my own family. Except my husband knows. I GET that many if not MOST women are reluctant to put themselves through the scrutiny. Believe me.
All the more incongrous that Ford had many opportunities to come forth with her story, but didn't...until the 11th hour, for the shock and awe effect. There were opportunities when she could've spoke up and NOT had her name drug through the mud, and live in relative anonymity. But no...she chooses (or maybe she was thrown under the bus by the Democratic Party) the VERY MOST PUBLIC way to bring forth her story. From a pyschological POV...it doesn't make sense to me.
2. It's fair to have doubts about Ford. But it's just as fair to have doubts about Kavanaugh. That's the problem with she said-he said. But, what would the outcry be if she NOW brought a legal case against Kavanaugh...since you suggest that there is no statute of limitations on this? If you're correct, she still could. That's what I said. I have doubts. And there is no statute of limitations in Maryland, where apparently the assault happened. And I'm sure there'd be a huge outcry if she brought charges against Kavanaugh. If she did it NOW. But heck...it's all already out there. If it happened, then file charges and make it official.
3. Are you really expecting that in a purely political process that people won't play politics? Are you telling me that the Garland issue was not pure politics?
I'm not sure what you mean. Are YOU saying it's cool to throw a woman who preferred to stay anonymous under the bus, because it's politics? Because the way I see it, assuming everyone is telling the truth, since they were under oath, Ford intended to have her letter considered behind closed doors...and SOMEONE on Feinsteins staff leaked the letter to the press for maximum effect,
OR
It was all intended for maximum effect.
And...was Garland subjected to attempted character assassination? No.
Along the same lines, due process in situations like this means you're not going to be thrown in jail without a trial. The government cannot guarantee you will keep your job, or that people won't judge you. The government is not in the business of policing your public image and demanding that people continue to like you until all the facts are in. The so-called "court of public opinion" is simply a matter of each individual deciding what we believe. And no one, not a one of you or anyone else, has any right, to demand that another human being believe something or not. None of you have a right to tell me what side to take in my opinions on anything. Nor do I have that right with regard to you. And I am not remotely required to "remain objective" or withhold my personal judgments until all evidence is presented. Because my personal opinion never put anyone in jail.
I like how feminists trivialize men's loss of a job and ultimately career based on unproven allegations. I am sure there are thousands of men who were let go of their jobs based on false or exaggerated allegations from the metoo movement. Because women do lie and exaggerate just as men do. I don't know why this fact is lost too feminists.
Yes the government can not guarantee that anyone keeps their job. But there are Libel laws that help against the baseless allegations. Unfortunately, they are not easy to enforce and middle class men are not in a position to sue their accusers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
To me that's part of what is so freakin' asinine about ~all of this~ is how when I see debates about sexual crimes, whether one particular case or the subject in general...SO. MUCH. EGO. I see way more ego on display, than I do compassion.
I also see practically no compassion from feminist mafia about the men's careers and lives that they ruined because of unproven allegations. Women's word is considered Gospel and they are immediately believed even if they are describing events that happened 35 years ago. I see "SO. MUCH. EGO.", hatred for men and enjoyment of their position of power coming out of the metoo movement.
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.
Then don't go!!!!! Period. If you know your in danger, why would you go? 
