US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
They wanted to elect an accused paedophile. They worship a man accused by 19 women of sexual assault who bragged about it on tape when he thought people weren't listening. Not really a surprise that they all don't want to believe this woman.
When the Dems had a problem with Franken, they got rid straight away even if they wanted to keep him.
It's ridiculous the difference in standards.
When the Dems had a problem with Franken, they got rid straight away even if they wanted to keep him.
It's ridiculous the difference in standards.
to be fair, a bunch of libs still hate gillenbrand for saying franken should resign
Well tbf the Democrats (including HRC) have protected Bill Clinton for a long time attacking and demonizing his accusers. And during the 1992 election when Gennifer Flowers first made her accusations public, Bill traveled back to Arkansas to personally oversee the prison execution of a mentally handicapped black man, Ricky Rector. So the DNC leadership of the last 20 years really has no moral high ground to stand.
Only me or don't they look much like one another to you guys either? I mean they're both white and have hair... but beyond that.
This made me chuckle though:
Christ that thread is clutching at straws.
There was a party at a place...
Guess what? There was a place that was arbitrary distances from 4 people...
You know what else? That place was a house...
The house had a staircase, here’s some floor plans to give the impression of technical evidence and professional investigation...
Oh and here’s the kicker, guess who lived in a house? Yeah someone that isn’t Kavanaugh!
We know it’s him because it has a staircase that is exactly like the very vague description supplied by Ford...
What’s more, she went to school with them and was the subject of a violent attack, she knew exactly who was tearing her clothes off and molesting her and that will only have been cemented in the short period after it happened.
I'm guessing his hypothesis is that it was Judge who did it.
those side by side pictures look like a face swap
Not weird at all. At this point in time, it’s completely normal.
jesus christ, this guy is the president of the Ethics Center. i want to die
and it turns out this was all coordinated with kavanaugh
Listen, I have no idea if he's guilty or not. But if the argument against hearing her testimony is - well I really want to get this lifetime judge in place, and we really want it before, erm, Thursday - that's absolutely pathetic.
But then, Mitch McConnell.
But then, Mitch McConnell.
This a bit of a tangent but I'll jump in anyway. This kind of crime is underreported for a number of reasons, one of them being the unreasonably high burden of proof placed on the victims. It's not unreasonable to say that initially high burden of proof is influenced by the typical power dynamics and status of victims and perpetrators.
That burden of proof is further raised when it's an accusation against "a man of character". The fact he's high status won't have been the decisive factor in her not reporting it, but it's a pretty strong thread through this story and likely influenced it. And it is still the case that race and status are linked.
They were linked more closely back in Georgia in 1959, but Nathaniel Johnson's case is a particularly vivid illustration of the point. We can say with some confidence that if he was white, he never would have been accused of rape. When he was, the consequences were more severe - that was clearly understood.
Nathaniel Thomas said:
So while I don't agree with his point, you're glossing over some important issues. She may have reported exactly the same incident if the power dynamics were different.
This is a huge hypothetical. If he was black he wouldn't be in this exact same situation. There is no point in discussing it.
*Cough*... Anita Hill...*cough*.
It was a hypothetical from the start. If you didn't think the hypothetical was worth discussing, you did a pretty bad job of not discussing it...
If you feel the need create the ''What if Bret Krapanaut was black" thread, I will not derail this any further.
I think you've misunderstood. I didn't raise the hypothetical of what if he was black, Revan did. And as I said at the time, I don't agree with his point. I was simplify clarifying that race and status are in fact linked to the propensity to report crimes of this nature, and cited a particularly horrific example. It was simply something you overlooked.
The burden of proof is not substantially higher than the burden of proof placed on anyone that is accusing someone of a crime. And the solution is not to lower that burden of proof, or shift the onus on the accused to prove that he/she didn't do it.
I don't want Kavanaugh on the bench. But I'm baffled at the amount of people that can speak to any party's guilt/innocence here with a high degree of confidence.
The court of public opinion is a funny thing indeed.
For all the criticism of Trump and his cronies trying to twist the truth, it would be very naive to think that the other side wouldn't resort to similar tactics.
Kavanaugh looks guilty mind, but I have no evidence whatsoever to back up the statement except gut feeling.
Shouldn't BK want all this investigated as deeply as possible so he can clear his name?
No, because even if he thought he was innocent you don't want anything else used as dirt.
Dig enough and you will find something.
This doesn’t make sense. Ford has offered to be interviewed by the FBI and be kept out of the limelight. The investigation can be done without public theatrics. His and the GOP denial and their attempt at publicly discrediting her by having her testifying in front of them is turning this into Anita Hill v2.
Something worst than attempted rape? Because that's what's over his head right now.
Trump has relented and he is now going after the accuser.
He continues to plumb new depths.
I never said something worse. No-one would want law enforcement investigating them when the alternative reality is to not have an investigation into your actions.
However, there is the benefit of being cleared following investigation but let's face it, he probably has something to hide even if it isn't this specific case.
But in this case the alternative is having a suspicion of attempted rape. It's not some financial crime or corruption that people would eventually forget about.
I just find it weird, but then again these guys seem to have no shame whatsoever, so maybe he can live with it.
What a cnut
Was only a matter of time before he showed his true colours.
That should be the first question a democrat senator puts to him?
Twat!
to be fair I expected something more along the lines of Dr ford does not know what a real sexual assault is - chuck her in my rape shed for 2 hours and Ill show her
clearly its probably up there in his top 10 un-presidential moments ... but as I say better than I expected of him
Already attacking Ford. He's a scumbag.
Now....if Murkowski says the same the nomination could be in trouble.