B Kavanough and MeToo

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I wouldn't say zero weight for all people but definitely little to no weight for those supportive or sympathetic to Trumpism, which Kavanaugh absolutely is.  

Actually, if they're only claiming it without evidence, or have to resort to logical fallacies, it has no weight from anyone. It's the start of a defense, but it can't be taken seriously without more to it.

[MigL]

" Oh yeah, but look at what D Trump said..."

Really, you're gonna use what D Trump says/does to justify your argument ?
I don't recall him being included in the OP, nor bat-shit crazy being justification for anything.

Look, I don't really care for the political games; and that is all the hearings were, as there was no attempt to get at the truth.
But an alleged crime was committed. And one of these two people will have their lives altered significantly and unjustly, because politicians are squabbling over fact finding and the extent of the investigation.

Do a proper investigation, even if it means filing criminal charges.
That will certainly stop the nomination process from being rammed through by Republicans.
Once you arrive at the truth, one of them should be in jail, and the other won't be a victim anymore.

Edit:   See what you just did, Phi ?
You stated that if you claim you're innocent with no evidence, you should NOT be believed.
That is the exact opposite of due process, where you are innocent until there is evidence to prove you aren't.

Edited October 5, 2018 by MigL

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

" Oh yeah, but look at what D Trump said..."

Really, you're gonna use what D Trump says/does to justify your argument ?
I don't recall him being included in the OP, nor bat-shit crazy being justification for anything.

Trump is the President, Kavanaugh is his SCOTUS nominee, Trump is out making a defense for Kavanaugh at rallies, and it was the White House that chose the manner in which the FBI investigation would be conducted. Discussing Trump in this situation is not off topic. Kavanaugh is Trump's pick and it is Trump's White House who prevented the FBI from interviewing Ford or Kavanaugh and  is jockeying Senators for their vote on Kavanaugh right now in real time. 

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Look, I don't really care for the political games; and that is all the hearings were, as there was no attempt to get at the truth.
But an alleged crime was committed. And one of these two people will have their lives altered significantly and unjustly, because politicians are squabbling over fact finding and the extent of the investigation.

Who is making this a political game. The GOP could have held a vote on Kavanaugh already or turned it over to the FBI for a full investigation. Democrats have no power to prevent a vote or turn this over to the FBI. The ball is totally in the GOP's court yet you continue to blame both sides equally for the process.,why?

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do a proper investigation, even if it means filing criminal charges.
That will certainly stop the nomination process from being rammed through by Republicans.
Once you arrive at the truth, one of them should be in jail, and the other won't be a victim anymore.

Democrats do not have the power to direct the FBI to do a full "proper investigation". Republicans would have to do that as they are the ones with the control which means Trump, who you don't feel should be involved is this discussion, would have to authorize it. 

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Edit:   See what you just did, Phi ?
You stated that if you claim you're innocent with no evidence, you should NOT be believed.
That is the exact opposite of due process, where you are innocent until there is evidence to prove you aren't.

See what you just did, MigL?

You stated that I claimed people with no evidence should NOT be believed, when I very clearly stated that a claim of innocence without evidence shouldn't hold any weight. You understand that there's a default position that can remain impartial until the evidence is gathered, right?

[MigL]

The 'default' position has always been innocent until proven guilty.
( welcome to the party, I like butting heads with you )

The Democrats certainly can force an investigation, Ten oz. All that needs to be done is the filing of criminal charges against B Kavanough.
Even D Trump would withdraw the nomination of someone who is possibly going to jail.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'default' position has always been innocent until proven guilty.
( welcome to the party, I like butting heads with you )

The Democrats certainly can force an investigation, Ten oz. All that needs to be done is the filing of criminal charges against B Kavanough.
Even D Trump would withdraw the nomination of someone who is possibly going to jail.

 

Do you really believe Trump would withdraw him even if they did, based on the evidence they have gathered to this point?

[MigL]

How would it look if someone he nominated to the Supreme Court has to quit because they are convicted and jailed ?

I have stated numerous times that these charges should be brought to criminal court, where they can be vigorously defended and prosecuted to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Certainly not through the internet, press or other public domain sources like social media.
And certainly not through partisan venues like the afore-mentioned hearings.

Edited October 5, 2018 by MigL

[Phi for All]

Just now, MigL said:

The 'default' position has always been innocent until proven guilty.

We're talking about different things. You're talking about a trial, and the assumption of innocence that structures the way we treat them before they make their plea, and while prosecutors are making their case. I'm talking about the empty statements swansont mentioned. Since both the guilty and innocent are likely to claim innocence, it's up to the evidence to provide weight to the claims.

[J.C.MacSwell]

For me, my default position would be different for a trial and for this or other circumstance, but that would only matter at the point of decision. My starting point would be be to withhold belief or disbelief, which may even be maintained afterward.

Also "not guilty" does not equate to "innocent".

[Phi for All]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For me, my default position would be different for a trial and for this or other circumstance, but that would only matter at the point of decision. My starting point would be be to withhold belief or disbelief, which may even be maintained afterward.

Also "not guilty" does not equate to "innocent".

To me, this is what is meant by innocent until proven guilty. It's not claiming you believe in guilt OR innocence, but are willing to let the arguments for either position to be made with no bias ahead of time. To me, "believe them" isn't asking me to take women's side, but rather to take them seriously.

[CharonY]

53 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

To me, this is what is meant by innocent until proven guilty. It's not claiming you believe in guilt OR innocence, but are willing to let the arguments for either position to be made with no bias ahead of time. To me, "believe them" isn't asking me to take women's side, but rather to take them seriously.

And perhaps to emphasize again, it is only relevant one it hits the courts. Before that investigators will at one point or another consider credibility of the accused, accuser and victim as well as gather evidence under the presumption that a crime might have happened. If investigators do not believe that accusations are credible, it is unlikely that a proper investigation will be started nor will it end up with a prosecutor. At one point or another the investigator has to work with the hypothesis of possible guilt in order to develop an investigative strategy and use the evidence that turns up to strengthen or weaken the case. 

 

But anyway, as expected it seems that sufficient votes are in to push Kavanaugh through, Flake and Collins have declared that they are going to vote "yes". So there will likely a majority or a tie (which Pence can break). Edit: Manchin (D) also went "yes" so it is really done deal. With regard to OP, this is what happens in most cases when there are allegations of this sort. Nothing. Yet it is interesting that despite the likelihood of that outcome some folks fear the specter of women running around accusing folks and ruining their lives. It just seems so disconnected from the frequency of what actually is happening.

Edited October 5, 2018 by CharonY

[J.C.MacSwell]

It appears to be heading toward a confirmation. I know many of you will be disappointed but I like the reasons given by Senator Collins on her decision.

She was one of the few Republicans to call out Trump for mocking Ford. 

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She was one of the few Republicans to call out Trump for mocking Ford. 

Well, yes but that amounts to nothing, usually. McCain was also a critic of Trump but still voted for the most part according to party interests. It is not really surprising. Even Murkowski, should she vote "No", is not a huge surprise, considering her constituency and their views on Kavanaugh.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

The Democrats certainly can force an investigation, Ten oz. All that needs to be done is the filing of criminal charges against B Kavanough.
Even D Trump would withdraw the nomination of someone who is possibly going to jail.

How exactly can Democrats do that? 

* Also I am still waiting for a citiation on the implication that Feinstein has planted evidence on the past (a crime). 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Ten oz

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

How exactly can Democrats do that? 

The Supreme Court, silly. Oh wait, that's been stacked.

Have fun with your new constitutional crisis. After this vote, the next vote will be to relegate all women to incubators for the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Lucky girls to have such a compassionate conservative government controlling their personal lives, especially in the light they're not to be believed.

[Ten oz]

40 minutes ago, rangerx said:

The Supreme Court, silly. Oh wait, that's been stacked.

Have fun with your new constitutional crisis. After this vote, the next vote will be to relegate all women to incubators for the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Lucky girls to have such a compassionate conservative government controlling their personal lives, especially in the light they're not to be believed.

I honestly do not believe Roe V. Wade is at stake. As it currently stands Republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections. They also lose the majority of votes for Congressional races too but hold onto power in the house via gerrymandering and the Senate by dominating smaller states. In 16' Democratic Senators received 6 million more votes than Republicans Senators yet Republicans maintained control. Headlines note how divisive U.S. politics are and tend to blame politicians on both sides because it is easy but in my opinion the true reason for the current climate is that the wishes of the Majority are being ignored. People in the U.S. believe the U.S. to be a democracy and yet those with popular national support are subverted. Obama won re-election in 2012 by 5 million votes and Republicans refused to hold a vote on his SCOTUS nominee. Then Trump loses the popular by 3 million and gets to push his pick for SCOTUS though for the seat Republicans wouldn't let Obama fill. It is disgusting. Of course people are pissed off. 6 million more votes for democrats in the Senate yet Democrats are powerless in the Senate. 3 million more votes for the President yet Democrats are powerless in the White House. 

How that applies to Roe V Wade is that Republican control in govt while currently absolute is very tenuous. Republicans do not have the support of the nation and doing something extreme as overturning Roa V Wade would light a match which would burn their gmitck of maintaining power to the ground. Republicans can't afford to lose even a lone percentage point of their base and still win elections. Over turning Roe V. Wade would cause them to potentially lose double digit percentage points from their base. Democrats would win super majorities in Congress which would open the door to a variety of election and electoral college reforms which would devastate the Republican party. Right now people are mad enough to pace in their living rooms and and punch their car dashboards when the news comes on but that is about it. Overturning Roe V Ward would be marching in the street and tearing down the fences around the White House mad. It would be a catalyst for change that the GOP can't survive. 

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I honestly do not believe Roe V. Wade is at stake. As it currently stands Republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections. They also lose the majority of votes for Congressional races too but hold onto power in the house via gerrymandering and the Senate by dominating smaller states. In 16' Democratic Senators received 6 million more votes than Republicans Senators yet Republicans maintained control. Headlines note how divisive U.S. politics are and tend to blame politicians on both sides because it is easy but in my opinion the true reason for the current climate is that the wishes of the Majority are being ignored. People in the U.S. believe the U.S. to be a democracy and yet those with popular national support are subverted. Obama won re-election in 2012 by 5 million votes and Republicans refused to hold a vote on his SCOTUS nominee. Then Trump loses the popular by 3 million and gets to push his pick for SCOTUS though for the seat Republicans wouldn't let Obama fill. It is disgusting. Of course people are pissed off. 6 million more votes for democrats in the Senate yet Democrats are powerless in the Senate. 3 million more votes for the President yet Democrats are powerless in the White House. 

How that applies to Roe V Wade is that Republican control in govt while currently absolute is very tenuous. Republicans do not have the support of the nation and doing something extreme as overturning Roa V Wade would light a match which would burn their gmitck of maintaining power to the ground. Republicans can't afford to lose even a lone percentage point of their base and still win elections. Over turning Roe V. Wade would cause them to potentially lose double digit percentage points from their base. Democrats would win super majorities in Congress which would open the door to a variety of election and electoral college reforms which would devastate the Republican party. Right now people are mad enough to pace in their living rooms and and punch their car dashboards when the news comes on but that is about it. Overturning Roe V Ward would be marching in the street and tearing down the fences around the White House mad. It would be a catalyst for change that the GOP can't survive. 

Stop making sense. It's lost on conservatives.

They are scorched earth all in on this issue. Trump deferred to the Federalist Society, which tends to favor judges who take conservative stances on abortion rights and other social issues. Members of the Federalist Society have presented oral arguments in every single abortion case that has been before the Supreme Court since 1992. The society shares strong ties with political advocacy groups within the Christian family values movement.

[NicholaiRen]

@swansont @Ten oz

Perhaps you guys should take a step back and review these statements for a little bit.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It shows why zero weight should be given to someone saying they are innocent.

Zero weight should be given to someone saying they are innocent.

Let's say X accuses Z of a crime.

You're giving Z zero weight unless they can prove they are innocent(You didn't technically specify this, but I'm taking the liberty to assume it's in there).

If that were the case, X can simply come up with a crime to accuse Z of that Z cannot possibly defend against.

So, let's say X was to come up with an ideal accusation. 

Something that happened decades ago
Something that Z will be devastated over unless he can prove himself innocent.
Something that Z cannot prove himself innocent of.
Well, now you're faced with a problem. How do you come up with something that Z can't prove himself innocent of?

Typically evidence is based on 4 things: Who, What, Where, When.

If you cannot prove to me at least 3/4 of those things, I don't personally consider it evidence.

"Why" doesn't matter. Simply saying someone had the motivation to do something isn't evidence.

"How" is typically included in the general overview of those 4.

So X, in coming up with the crime, accuses Z:

Z(Who) almost raped me decades ago(What). I don't know when(When). I don't know (Where).

Z is now in the position of defending himself. He can't prove himself innocent by saying where he was because they don't know where(Where). He can't prove himself innocent by saying what he was doing at the time because they don't know when.(When). He can't prove himself innocent of what happened because the thing that happened yields no physical evidence(What). The only evidence he can tackle is who. However, the only way he can do that is by saying: I didn't do it.

If you give Z zero weight unless he can prove himself innocent, you're guaranteeing there is no way he can defend himself. 

When I was a young man I read a book once called "To Kill a Mockingbird". I know a lot of you younger generations no longer read this book because it's either considered boring, or it's considered racist by schools. However, I highly encourage you to read this. It's a truly amazing story. Inside the book, you see what happens when the burden of proof is laid at the feet of the accused, and not the accuser. You can tell all you like that simply requiring the innocent to prove their innocence against accusations won't hurt anyone, but it can. And it will.

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I wouldn't say zero weight for all people but definitely little to no weight for those supportive or sympathetic to Trumpism, which Kavanaugh absolutely is.  

Now taking this statement into consideration, it becomes all too much like "To Kill a Mockingbird".

Now you're saying Z, because he belongs to a certain group, is held to a different standard than another.

Inside of "To Kill a Mockingbird" the man who is accused of sexual assault belongs to one such group, and as a result, he's required to provide evidence, while his accuser, is not. An innocent man is executed because of it.

What you are saying is that those who don't agree with your political views should be required to provide evidence simply to prove themselves innocent, while those who agree with your views are not required to, because their word should be taken.

This reminds me of my time in Cuba, literally decades ago, where my friend was arrested based on an accusation by a communist. (In Cuba, if you belong to the communist party you are a card carrying communist.) 

My friend was not a card carrying communist, and as such, the burden of proof was thrown at his feet to say he was innocent. He couldn't do such a thing, and he went to prison as a result. I left Cuba years later, and I have no desire to return to an area where political views decide your innocence.

So please @Ten oz, do not advocate that America become such a place. I, and millions of others, suffered under what you're proposing. And I know you're not doing it out of hate, but sometimes even the best of intentions can lead to the worst of situations.

 

 

You guys are both intelligent young men. Use the past and look into history. Learn from my generation's mistakes. The world cannot afford to make the same ones again.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

To me, "believe them" isn't asking me to take women's side, but rather to take them seriously.

This thread should be moved to the silly section. I can't believe you wrote that !! 

I think this whole thing is doing damage to women, but not in the way that's being trumpeted. By sending out the message that it's ok to wait 36 years to complain, you are doing genuine victims real harm. The truth is, for anyone out of the public limelight, they should be going straight to the police as fast as humanly possible. REAL rapists would just LOVE people to not report it straight away, because in the real world, it multiplies their chances of getting away with it many times over.  It also means, if women out there follow her lead and don't report it straight away, that the rapist is still out there, roaming free, probably raping again and again. 

This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about. 

The message ought to be, "report it straight away, if not for yourself, for the sake of other innocent victims". 

 

 

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The truth is, for anyone out of the public limelight, they should be going straight to the police as fast as humanly possible. REAL rapists would just LOVE people to not report it straight away, because in the real world, it multiplies their chances of getting away with it many times over.  It also means, if women out there follow her lead and don't report it straight away, that the rapist is still out there, roaming free, probably raping again and again. 

And as folks have repeatedly told you, the way the system is set up it does not make any sense for a woman to do so. Hardly any of the accusations, even if done timely and with physical evidence, result in conviction. At the same time the accusers gets scrutinized, shamed, shunned, blocked in their careers and otherwise abused for what? Doing the right thing that no one cares about? There is a reason why many women, even if they report straight away, eventually withdraw. Not because they were not truthful, but rather because it puts an enormous stress on them without a real chance for justice. Under these conditions the rational decision is not to report. It is easy sitting on the high horse and tell everyone to do the right thing if oneself does not have to deal with consequences.

Note that this is perhaps even worse for men who get raped, as the whole masculinity thing increases the likelihood that they are not believed. While lower in total, it is not surprising that the rate of non-reporting is higher in men.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, NicholaiRen said:

When I was a young man I read a book once called "To Kill a Mockingbird". I know a lot of you younger generations no longer read this book because it's either considered boring, or it's considered racist by schools. However, I highly encourage you to read this. It's a truly amazing story. Inside the book, you see what happens when the burden of proof is laid at the feet of the accused, and not the accuser. You can tell all you like that simply requiring the innocent to prove their innocence against accusations won't hurt anyone, but it can. And it will.

There have been several people who have brought this book up recently, in this context. And they all seem to have missed the point if it.

One point being that the jury came to their inevitable verdict despite the evidence that was presented. That's a more salient parallel than the wrongful accusation.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

This thread should be moved to the silly section. I can't believe you wrote that !! 

I think this whole thing is doing damage to women, but not in the way that's being trumpeted. By sending out the message that it's ok to wait 36 years to complain, you are doing genuine victims real harm. The truth is, for anyone out of the public limelight, they should be going straight to the police as fast as humanly possible. REAL rapists would just LOVE people to not report it straight away, because in the real world, it multiplies their chances of getting away with it many times over.  It also means, if women out there follow her lead and don't report it straight away, that the rapist is still out there, roaming free, probably raping again and again. 

This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about. 

The message ought to be, "report it straight away, if not for yourself, for the sake of other innocent victims". 

OK. Victim blaming is my red line.

I'm out. Don't anyone bother quoting/responding to me. This stuff is making me ill. It's sickening.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm out. Don't anyone bother quoting/responding to me. This stuff is making me ill. It's sickening.

Why reply so quick then? Leave it till 2054, you might be feeling better. If you think 36 years is reasonable. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Why reply so quick then? Leave it till 2054, you might be feeling better. If you think 36 years is reasonable. 

She was 15 at the time. You are asking a lot of any victim, never mind a 15 year old one.

Ideally they go to the police immediately, whether 5, 15, or 50, but you cannot blame them for staying silent.

Ideally, they could be made to feel comfortable and safe to do so, to come forward. I am sure that taking away the rights of the accused is not the way to attempt to help them do so. Maybe it simply cannot be made fair.

 But at least we can avoid blaming the victim.

Edited October 6, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

Seem the Majority of Republicans are either dismissive of the seriousness of sexual assualt or rank get what they want above any sort of moral principle. 

Quote

 

According to a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, a little over half of Republicans said they would consider voting for a political candidate who had been accused of sexual harassment by multiple people if they agreed with them on the issues. Conversely, 81 percent of Democrats say they would “definitely not vote for” the candidate.

https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She was 15 at the time. You are asking a lot of any victim, never mind a 15 year old one.

Ideally they go to the police immediately, whether 5, 15, or 50, but you cannot blame them for staying silent.

Ideally, they could be made to feel comfortable and safe to do so, to come forward. I am sure that taking away the rights of the accused is not the way to attempt to help them do so. Maybe it simply cannot be made fair.

 But at least we can avoid blaming the victim.

That said, while I don't agree with blaming the victim for the delay (or never coming forward), I don't see piling on the negatives on Mistermack. Trump has already said and tweated much worse.

21 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Seem the Majority of Republicans are either dismissive of the seriousness of sexual assualt or rank get what they want above any sort of moral principle. 

 

According to a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, a little over half of Republicans said they would consider voting for a political candidate who had been accused of sexual harassment by multiple people if they agreed with them on the issues. Conversely, 81 percent of Democrats say they would “definitely not vote for” the candidate.

https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/

So...they thus claim over half of the Republicans would consider voting for Trump...pretty solid limb they are crawling out on

Edited October 6, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell