StringJunky Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Hirono had plenty of opportunity to make clear the context you are suggesting. She did not. The strong and intended implication was to "shut up" (her words) and take without question any statement made by an accuser. That was the message she wanted sent out to the country, not one of a reasonable call to withhold judgement. Her message seemed unequivocal to me, which was to believe Ford purely on her testimony.
Ten oz Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 20 minutes ago, mistermack said: What's changed over thirty years? He's been around all that time, not in hiding. The only thing that's changed is he's up for the job. Therefore, it's patently obvious that the only reason she's come out with it is to stop him getting the job. All of the rest of it is an act. She could have done it all years ago, but didn't. So in the tiny chance that she's telling the truth, I would say "tough, you left it too long. Thirty years too long". This sort of argument really disturbs me because it blatantly obfuscates what we know about sexual assault. It is documented that the majority of victims never come forward at all and the that false reporting is rare, Here. You are asking what changed as if suddenly seeing your attacker's face everyday on TV, news apps, and etc is nothing. Only a small percentage of Sex Assaults are reported in a timeline manner. It is not the norm. 1
mistermack Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Ten oz said: This sort of argument really disturbs me because it blatantly obfuscates what we know about sexual assault. It is documented that the majority of victims never come forward at all and the that false reporting is rare, Here. You are asking what changed as if suddenly seeing your attacker's face everyday on TV, news apps, and etc is nothing. Only a small percentage of Sex Assaults are reported in a timeline manner. It is not the norm. Yes, but there is such a thing as consequences to actions. If you put your hand in a fire, it gets burned. Jump off a building, and you will probably have a hard landing. Choose not to report it for thirty six years, and then do it just before he gets nominated for the supreme court, and the evidence will be gone, you motive will look suspicious, and it will be one person's word against another. Just saying "lots of people don't report it" doesn't make it one bit more deserving. If lots of people put their hands in fires, then lots of people get burned through their own fault. Numbers don't change it at all. Leaving it for 36 years is also incredibly unfair to the accused. How can someone CLEAR themselves 36 years later? 36 years ago, there might have been a witness who could easily clear him. You can't expect that to last 36 years. It's totally ludicrous.
Ten oz Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 1 minute ago, mistermack said: Yes, but there is such a thing as consequences to actions. If you put your hand in a fire, it gets burned. Jump off a building, and you will probably have a hard landing. Choose not to report it for thirty six years, and then do it just before he gets nominated for the supreme court, and the evidence will be gone, you motive will look suspicious, and it will be one person's word against another. So Ford wait 36yrs, which is not abnormal for a sexual assault victim, comes with consequence but Kavanaugh misleading the Senate and being belligerent does come with any. In the game of he said she said I see no reason t error on the said of the identified liar.
swansont Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Hirono had plenty of opportunity to make clear the context you are suggesting. She did not. The strong and intended implication was to "shut up" (her words) and take without question any statement made by an accuser. That was the message she wanted sent out to the country, not one of a reasonable call to withhold judgement. ...and yes, I would argue in support of the OP, a reasonable, moderate and balanced position IMO. Bollocks. It was a press conference. Sexual assault, and how women are typically treated, is not some new phenomenon that needed to be described. If you are going to weigh in on some topic, you own the burden of have some basic understanding of it. That you (and others) are ignorant of, or just ignoring, the context is on you.
mistermack Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ten oz said: So Ford wait 36yrs, which is not abnormal for a sexual assault victim, comes with consequence but Kavanaugh misleading the Senate and being belligerent does come with any. In the game of he said she said I see no reason t error on the said of the identified liar. Change the subject, why don't you? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 25 minutes ago, swansont said: Bollocks. It was a press conference. Sexual assault, and how women are typically treated, is not some new phenomenon that needed to be described. If you are going to weigh in on some topic, you own the burden of have some basic understanding of it. That you (and others) are ignorant of, or just ignoring, the context is on you. Bollocks yourself.The intended context by Hirono was obvious. I'm not suggesting you don't weigh in though, even if you don't understand that.
swansont Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 29 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Bollocks yourself.The intended context by Hirono was obvious. I'm not suggesting you don't weigh in though, even if you don't understand that. Not obvious to me. In fact, if you consider the status quo, she is arguing FOR due process. Because I don't think you can argue that ignoring someone who reports sexual assault is due process. The opposite of believe is disbelieve. And that's the de regeuer of sexual assault reports. To extrapolate "believe them" to "believe them, but not only that, chuck all of the criminal process out the window and go straight to conviction" takes a lot of mental gymnastics. Where in Hirono's brief statement did she even mention due process, or criminal proceedings? (because "due process" is a phrase that only makes sense in terms of government action, seeing as it's guaranteed by the constitution) If it's "obvious" to you it's because you have chosen to interpret her statement in a particular way, and not only that, by saying it's obvious you imply that there is no other way to interpret it. (Because if there is, then the term would be ambiguous) 2
StringJunky Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 15 minutes ago, swansont said: Not obvious to me. In fact, if you consider the status quo, she is arguing FOR due process. Because I don't think you can argue that ignoring someone who reports sexual assault is due process. The opposite of believe is disbelieve. And that's the de regeuer of sexual assault reports. To extrapolate "believe them" to "believe them, but not only that, chuck all of the criminal process out the window and go straight to conviction" takes a lot of mental gymnastics. Where in Hirono's brief statement did she even mention due process, or criminal proceedings? (because "due process" is a phrase that only makes sense in terms of government action, seeing as it's guaranteed by the constitution) If it's "obvious" to you it's because you have chosen to interpret her statement in a particular way, and not only that, by saying it's obvious you imply that there is no other way to interpret it. (Because if there is, then the term would be ambiguous) I do not think there is any ambiguity. She even says she believes Ford. Hirono is expecting the men to as well. It's ridiculous. Quote "Seventeen is not exactly a baby, either," Hirono told Politico Magazine on Tuesday. "These are serious allegations. She has a very credible story. I believe her." https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407265-hirono-to-men-shut-up-and-step-up
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 16 minutes ago, swansont said: Not obvious to me. In fact, if you consider the status quo, she is arguing FOR due process. Because I don't think you can argue that ignoring someone who reports sexual assault is due process. The opposite of believe is disbelieve. And that's the de regeuer of sexual assault reports. To extrapolate "believe them" to "believe them, but not only that, chuck all of the criminal process out the window and go straight to conviction" takes a lot of mental gymnastics. Where in Hirono's brief statement did she even mention due process, or criminal proceedings? (because "due process" is a phrase that only makes sense in terms of government action, seeing as it's guaranteed by the constitution) If it's "obvious" to you it's because you have chosen to interpret her statement in a particular way, and not only that, by saying it's obvious you imply that there is no other way to interpret it. (Because if there is, then the term would be ambiguous) Are you not able to see there is a middle ground missing in those statements? Due process includes hearing someone out...while suspending both belief or disbelief...at least it used to.
MigL Posted October 4, 2018 Author Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) The point I was making Rangerx, is that if the FBI investigation is curtailed, we may never know who actually committed a crime as C Blasey Ford has no interest in further pursuing the matter and filing charges. And unlike you, I don't assign guilt or innocence based on appearances, only evidence and facts. Except for a few people, the partisanship evidenced by these hearings is disgusting, and proves nothing. And as Sting Junky pointed out, the numbers of Americans choosing sides are nearly equal, because of the polarization of their political system. IOW, its all politics, not justice. Half of American VOTERS voted for D Trump. They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass. ( fixed it, are you happy now ? ) And while we are at it, what does belief or disbelief have to do with due process. Due process means keeping an open mind until all evidence and facts are presented beyond a reasonable doubt, before convicting someone. Why this rush to assume the worst about a person based on partisan hearings ? ( hell, even I've made that mistake; based on appearances, I believe C Blasey Ford and dislike B Kavanough based on his political leanings ) Edited October 4, 2018 by MigL
swansont Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Are you not able to see there is a middle ground missing in those statements? Yes. That's what I am advocating. But you don't seem to be exploring it. 8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Due process includes hearing someone out...while suspending both belief or disbelief...at least it used to. If you hear someone out, isn't that provisional belief? A point both iNow and I made way back on page 2, where we also discussed the context that you have rejected as not existing.
Ten oz Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, StringJunky said: I do not think there is any ambiguity. She even says she believes Ford. Hirono is expecting the men to as well. It's ridiculous. If you reported a crime to law enforcement they word believe you, take your word at face value, and investigate. Believing a report doesn't preclude a proper investigation.
swansont Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 25 minutes ago, StringJunky said: I do not think there is any ambiguity. She even says she believes Ford. Hirono is expecting the men to as well. It's ridiculous. I'm not sure what you mean. What's ridiculous about it? But the ambiguity I was referring to was how you interpret the statement. Are you saying this is an obvious call to disregard due process, and there is no other way to interpret it? Because we already have data here in this thread that some people did not interpret it that way.
MigL Posted October 4, 2018 Author Posted October 4, 2018 And the same data indicates that, if SOME people did not interpret it that way, Swansont, SOME OTHERS did.
Ten oz Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, MigL said: Half of American VOTERS voted for D Trump. They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass. ( fixed it, are you happy now ? ) The majority of U.S. voters, by 8 points, voted for someone else. 63 million votes for Trump to 72 million votes for other candidates. Half of U.S. did not support Trump. Considering Clinton received 3 million more votes (66 million) it isn't even accurate to say a plurality of U.S. voters supported Trump.
StringJunky Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 13 minutes ago, Ten oz said: If you reported a crime to law enforcement they word believe you, take your word at face value, and investigate. Believing a report doesn't preclude a proper investigation. She has been given that courtesy and asked to present her case to the panel.
MigL Posted October 4, 2018 Author Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) You forgot the decimal on your 8 points, Ten oz. Yes I'm being sarcastic that you are quibbling over this when you know I provided rough figures. Edited October 4, 2018 by MigL
Ten oz Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 1 minute ago, MigL said: You forgot the decimal on your 8 points, Ten oz. Yes I'm being sarcastic that you are quibbling over this when you know I provided rough figures. No decimal. Trump got 46% of the vote. 54% voted for someone else. That is an 8 point difference.
MigL Posted October 4, 2018 Author Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) I can't believe I'm encouraging you... Was it EXACTLY 46.000000 % and 54.000000 % ? Keep in mind millions of people voted. So yes, there would be quite a few decimal places. ( this little side argument is probably destined for the trash ) Edited October 4, 2018 by MigL
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, swansont said: Yes. That's what I am advocating. But you don't seem to be exploring it. If you hear someone out, isn't that provisional belief? A point both iNow and I made way back on page 2, where we also discussed the context that you have rejected as not existing. I reject it as being what Hirono was implying. 32 minutes ago, Ten oz said: No decimal. Trump got 46% of the vote. 54% voted for someone else. That is an 8 point difference. 2.1% between Clinton and Trump. 7.8 between Trump and everyone else https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-wins-popular-vote-29-million/story?id=44354341 "According to vote tallies from The Associated Press, Clinton amassed 65,844,610 votes across all 50 states and Washington D.C., 48.2 percent of all votes cast. Trump received 62,979,636 votes, 46.1 percent of all votes cast." Edited October 4, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
Ten oz Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said: 2.1% https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-wins-popular-vote-29-million/story?id=44354341 "According to vote tallies from The Associated Press, Clinton amassed 65,844,610 votes across all 50 states and Washington D.C., 48.2 percent of all votes cast. Trump received 62,979,636 votes, 46.1 percent of all votes cast." 2.1% is the difference between Trump and Clinton which is different than Trump vs all U.S. Voters. Johnson and Stein also got 6 million votes between them. 1
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Ten oz said: 2.1% is the difference between Trump and Clinton which is different than Trump vs all U.S. Voters. Johnson and Stein also got 6 million votes between them. Thanks. I corrected as I realized what you stated.
Ten oz Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 29 minutes ago, MigL said: I can't believe I'm encouraging you... Was it EXACTLY 46.000000 % and 54.000000 % ? Keep in mind millions of people voted. So yes, there would be quite a few decimal places. ( this little side argument is probably destined for the trash ) Decimals notwithstanding half of U.S. voters or even a plurality of U.S. voters did not support Trump. While it may seem like a frivolous side discussion it is relevant to the boarder point being made about Kavanaugh temperament during the hearings. In lashing out against Democrats and claiming sour grapes over the 2016 Kavanaugh basically gave the middle finger to a plurality of the U.S. voting public. That is a rather disturbing thing to see a potential lifetime SCOTUS Justice do. It was also quite brazen considering he was nominated by a guy who lost the popular vote by millions, has historically low approval ratings, and is under criminal investigation. As asked in a post a few pages where is Kavanaugh's humility? If he is innocent of the multiple allegations that still doesn't give him the right to lash out against a plurality of the nation.
swansont Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I reject it as being what Hirono was implying. Based on what? 2 hours ago, MigL said: And the same data indicates that, if SOME people did not interpret it that way, Swansont, SOME OTHERS did. Meaning it was not obvious, and it was not my claim that the inference was obvious; I objected to that claim. So your response is not directed at the correct person. But really, the contention that a sitting US Senator (at least, one who has not abandoned historical norms to support an autocrat) is calling for the abolition of due process, in violation of the Constitution, does not strike me as a reasoned, or reasonable, interpretation of the statement. And I am not aware of any news reports describing it as such. That would be newsworthy, would it not?
Recommended Posts