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.
Some of these sexual harassment accusations may be legitimate, but I’m pretty sure that many of these women are coming forward because of some ulterior motive such as money, fame, revenge, etc.
A lot of it doesn’t pass the smell test. Many of the women were most likely playing along until things went south for them somehow.
Its strange to me that so many people say never to judge history using modern standards, but things that happened back in the 60s 70s and 80s, are very much being compared to modern views and laws, they dont realize things were different back then.
Plus, its like the boy who cried wolf, in the end, after so many false claims, eventually NO ONE will be believed, I do not think they are taking that into consideration.
All the accusations coming out seem to be fostering a dangerous attitude.
Are accusations alone now sufficient cause to call for people to resign, step down or recommending investigations and charges?
What is the end goal behind this lower standard and why do we as a society overwhemingly give the accusers the benefit of the doubt when false accusations are not at all uncommon?
The court of public opinion and the standard to which we hold politicians running for office is different than a court of law. We're not saying "lock them up!" We're saying don't elect these people who may potentially be sexual predators.
Serious allegations like these need to be taken into account in the voting booth. Now, whether a politician should resign I think requires a higher standard of proof and also depends on the seriousness of the allegations. For example, I don't think Trump should resign based on the allegations against him alone. However, people should really have ****ing thought of it when voting him in in the first place. If these allegations ever become more closely scrutinized and thus their credibility enhanced, I may join the chorus of those who say he should resign on this basis.
Let's use an illustrative example. OJ Simpson received a verdict of innocence for the murder of Nicole Brown, but guess what? We all know he probably did it, so if he's running for office it's perfectly ok to have a public campaign against him on the basis of the alleged murder. (For the purposes of this example I'm asking that we ignore his criminal record to date).
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Hilary Clinton at the Benghazi hearings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
She was grilled relentlessly in 9 congressional hearings by a republican biased committee, their final conclusion was they could find no wrong doing on her part.
Interesting, because I did, when she passed the buck. She received the phone call, where they told her, they needed help and she couldn't pick up the phone and call any one about their request? That is when I stopped listening to the hearings ... ("I don't recall")
Don't a lot of women want to be treated like sex objects in the way they dress and act and how they front what they have?
Women dress to make them feel good about themselves. It's men who treat them as sex objects. I'm sorry but stop blaming women on how they dress and blame men for not being able to control themselves when they are around them. That really has to stop.
As others have mentioned the Court of Public opinion doesn't need evidence it just goes with its gut along with a dose of assurance from the lefty media. Image is everything for a politician and a sex scandal will destroy most.
As we have seen if you are a Republican you are dragged over the coals and guilty. If you are a Democrat the media is more likely to handle the alleged sex scandal as a "misunderstanding" and they are not in a rush to damn the accused as a serial rapist.
My fear is that the Dems will use these alleged sex scandals to destroy their opposition in 2018 and 2020. DC as a whole has been caught with its pants down and it seems like so many politicians have used their power and positions to coerce sex from their underlings. It is so common that they actually have a tax payer based fund to pay off the accusers before it gets to the press!
This is CRAZY.
The Dems are turning the page in their playbook from labeling everyone a Racist to the new chapter of labeling the opposition Sexist.
What makes me nervous is that the media is taking off and running with any accusation and painting the accused as a rapist monster before the evidence is even considered and that can destroy a person standing and credibility.
We might very well be seeing the 21 century version of the Salem Witch Trials developing.
Playbook? You mean racism and sexuap harrassment aren't actual, honest-to-goodness issues?
Our overreacting to this, as well as claims of racisim etc, poses a potential risk of "boy who cried wolf" backlash of disbelief..... or at least an increasd burden on the "victims" to prove that allegations have merit.
If we're not careful, we as a society, could end up minimizing whatever "injustices" we are trying to fight against.
A great example is the NFL kneeling business......
It has grown into such a ridiculous side show that the original purpose and message of the players gets lost in the hullabaloo and in the end a lot of people just tune it out.....both figuratively and literally.
When everything is a crisis.....nothing is a crisis.
It wasn't the players who created the hullaballoo that their message got lost in. It was the righties who reacted all out if proportion and insisted on ascribing motives to the players that were in direct contradiction to what the players and those around them were clearly and repeatedly articulating. I mean, seriously, who stops attending football games because somebody is protesting social injustice?
Interesting, because I did, when she passed the buck. She received the phone call, where they told her, they needed help and she couldn't pick up the phone and call any one about their request? That is when I stopped listening to the hearings ... ("I don't recall")
Well, the people who didn't stop listening could find no wrongdoing on her part. Nine times.
Interesting, because I did, when she passed the buck. She received the phone call, where they told her, they needed help and she couldn't pick up the phone and call any one about their request? That is when I stopped listening to the hearings ... ("I don't recall")
You dont think Tres Gowdy and his gang of witch hunters were chomping at the bit to hang the woman on any piece of wrong doing they could find? In Many congressional interrogations the last one lasting 11 hours they could find no wrong doing on her part.
As for your out of context phone story call she supposedly never acted on? it was a little more complex = http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/tru...ns-3-a-m-call/
Watch Dr. Phil if you think women don't lie about sexual assault.
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.
