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.
At a press conference held Monday in Cedar Falls, Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addressed sexual assault on campus and how women should to respond to an attack.
"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault," Clinton said. "Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you."
Does nobody remember the Duke lacrosse rape case debacle? A number of young men were falsely charged with raping a woman, who later was shown to have made the whole story up. The young men had their reputations ruined based on the lies of this woman who falsely claimed sexual assault when no such thing occurred.
This is why we have, or at least used to have, due process in this country, which historically included presuming people were innocent until proven guilty.
Well, in case anyone wants to respond back that we still do have all of this, not according to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee to be President of the United States and MANY others on the left, we don't. According to her comments yesterday, quoted above, any woman who claims sexual assault has a right to be believed, even if she is lying. Believing her is the default position, and the people being accused are therefore guilty until proven innocent.
This is what counts as "progress" according to our 21st century "progressives". However, in truth Hillary and the left are supporting ideas that are regressive rather than progressive, as it is quite easy to see here in this instance.
Does nobody remember the Duke lacrosse rape case debacle? A number of young men were falsely charged with raping a woman, who later was shown to have made the whole story up. The young men had their reputations ruined based on the lies of this woman who falsely claimed sexual assault when no such thing occurred.
This is why we have, or at least used to have, due process in this country, which historically included presuming people were innocent until proven guilty.
Well, in case anyone wants to respond back that we still do have all of this, not according to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee to be President of the United States and MANY others on the left, we don't. According to her comments yesterday, quoted above, any woman who claims sexual assault has a right to be believed, even if she is lying. Believing her is the default position, and the people being accused are therefore guilty until proven innocent.
This is what counts as "progress" according to our 21st century "progressives". However, in truth Hillary and the left are supporting ideas that are regressive rather than progressive, as it is quite easy to see here in this instance.
The presumptive Democratic nominee? Have you kept up with the news?
Whats the difference? the courts say "innocent until proven guilty". Shouldn't the accuser be
believed to be telling the truth until proven not to be telling the truth? ( just as the accused)
"Due process" is all we have in determining guilt or innocence. Unfortunately some accused and accusers fall between the cracks.
You say.. There is no longer due process for the accused, but in your example .. Those boys were exonerated due to having their day in court. Is that not " due process"? There may have been some collateral damaged, but in the end their innocence was proven.
People are routinely tried and convicted by the " court of public opinion" and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
Does nobody remember the Duke lacrosse rape case debacle? A number of young men were falsely charged with raping a woman, who later was shown to have made the whole story up. The young men had their reputations ruined based on the lies of this woman who falsely claimed sexual assault when no such thing occurred.
This is why we have, or at least used to have, due process in this country, which historically included presuming people were innocent until proven guilty.
Well, in case anyone wants to respond back that we still do have all of this, not according to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee to be President of the United States and MANY others on the left, we don't. According to her comments yesterday, quoted above, any woman who claims sexual assault has a right to be believed, even if she is lying. Believing her is the default position, and the people being accused are therefore guilty until proven innocent.
This is what counts as "progress" according to our 21st century "progressives". However, in truth Hillary and the left are supporting ideas that are regressive rather than progressive, as it is quite easy to see here in this instance.
You have to be north of fifty to remember this, but when Bill Clinton was running for president in 1991, Hillary was in charge of the 'bimbo eruption' office. One of her jobs in the campaign was to put down, belittle and browbeat into silence any of the women who claimed to have been seduced (and/or molested) by her husband. That included the Arkansas State Troopers who occasionally leaked to the local press some of the extracurricular exploits for which Bill Clinton, while governor, was famous.
I also recall that she was not particularly fond of comments by Monica Lewinski, a 20 year old intern who was seduced by her boss (that would again be Bill, Hillary's husband) back around the mid-1990s, either.
So does this mean that Hillary believes every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted should have their voices heard - except for those who were sexually assaulted by members of her (Hillary's) family...?
Whats the difference? the courts say "innocent until proven guilty". Shouldn't the accuser be
believed to be telling the truth until proven not to be telling the truth? ( just as the accused)
"Due process" is all we have in determining guilt or innocence. Unfortunately some accused and accusers fall between the cracks.
You say.. There is no longer due process for the accused, but in your example .. Those boys were exonerated due to having their day in court. Is that not " due process"? There may have been some collateral damaged, but in the end their innocence was proven.
People are routinely tried and convicted by the " court of public opinion" and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
Actually, it was because they had the resources to fight it.
The prosecutor Mike Nifong was very corrupt and was determined to railroad them. He knowingly fabricated so he could look like a hero in certain circles and there were too many so eager to believe his and the accusers lies.
It is only because their lawyers were so good that this was brought down.
If these boys had been poorer, they likely would have gone to jail because of a corrupt system. So no, they were presumed guilty first and they came this close to losing their freedom and the entire lives forever destroyed.
When you so easily accept convenient political targets worthy of sacrifice, it is only a matter of time till justice and liberty is lost for all.
Here is a quote from Mrs. Willey in response to Mrs. Clintions comments related in this thread:
"She is a lying pig. I CANNOT believe that she had the call to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in h#ll"
The list of women that stepped forward and publicly complained about the former President are:
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
please stop mocking this very serious issue that plagues every society on earth for the sake of making fun of HRC.
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.
