Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:00 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I think ALL accusations against Presidential candidates should be investigated fully, and the results published for the voting public to see.

How does that sound?
Sounds fine, did you expect a different answer?
  #202  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:05 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Sounds fine, did you expect a different answer?
Actually, yeah. Usually when I suggest that in other social media, the topic gets switched to emails or Obama.

Thanks for agreeing though.

When do you think everyone talking about Biden will be clamoring to investigate the 25 or so sexual assault accusations against President Trump?
  #203  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:15 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Actually, yeah. Usually when I suggest that in other social media, the topic gets switched to emails or Obama.

Thanks for agreeing though.

When do you think everyone talking about Biden will be clamoring to investigate the 25 or so sexual assault accusations against President Trump?
The difference being their respective stances on the #metoo movement.

I personally stand how I stated, investigate any claim and judge based upon guilt, not some media trial.

When this becomes problematic is when those who only excoriate the opponent but refuse to when it happens to their guy. (See this thread for a whole lot of that)
  #204  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:24 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The difference being their respective stances on the #metoo movement.

I personally stand how I stated, investigate any claim and judge based upon guilt, not some media trial.

When this becomes problematic is when those who only excoriate the opponent but refuse to when it happens to their guy. (See this thread for a whole lot of that)
So you actually don't care about the investigations (aside from the rare criminal investigations) into sexual assault allegations, just about pointing out supposed hypocrisy among liberals (and only liberals, apparently)?

I guess everyone's gotta have a hobby...

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-21-2020 at 08:28 AM.
  #205  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:28 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So you actually don't care about the investigations into sexual assault allegations, just about pointing out supposed hypocrisy among liberals (and only liberals, apparently)?

I guess everyone's gotta have a hobby...
Somehow you missed my middle sentence.

"I personally stand how I stated, investigate any claim and judge based upon guilt, not some media trial."


But I understand, my post was a whole 3 sentences.

Pointing out the liberal hypocrisy is at best a third rate hobby(like a 25 piece puzzle). Far too easy.
  #206  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:28 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
When this becomes problematic is when those who only excoriate the opponent but refuse to when it happens to their guy. (See this thread for a whole lot of that)
Do you consider this stance problematic when it is taken by Trump supporters? Or only those who support Biden?
  #207  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Somehow you missed my middle sentence.

"I personally stand how I stated, investigate any claim and judge based upon guilt, not some media trial."
You missed my edit.

Quote:
Pointing out the liberal hypocrisy is at best a third rate hobby(like a 25 piece puzzle). Far too easy.
You've spent an awful lot of effort at trying (and failing, IMO) at this "third rate hobby". Maybe try a new one? May I suggest pointing out conservatives who ignore sexual assault and rape by conservatives (and especially by Trump)? Much easier, and a whole lot of fun!
  #208  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:53 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So you actually don't care about the investigations into sexual assault allegations, just about pointing out supposed hypocrisy among liberals (and only liberals, apparently)?

I guess everyone's gotta have a hobby...
Somehow you missed my middle sentence.

"I personally stand how I stated, investigate any claim and judge based upon guilt, not some media trial."


But I understand, my post was a whole 3 sentences.

Pointing out the liberal hypocrisy is at best a third rate hobby(like a 25 piece puzzle). Far too easy.
  #209  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:56 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
That's an amusingly late duplicate!
  #210  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:40 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You missed my edit.



You've spent an awful lot of effort at trying (and failing, IMO) at this "third rate hobby". Maybe try a new one? May I suggest pointing out conservatives who ignore sexual assault and rape by conservatives (and especially by Trump)? Much easier, and a whole lot of fun!
No iiandyiii, I don't particularly care about heresy, I care about proof. And so should you all.

I have already answered as to Trump, the other guys et al. You just don't want to see it.

And yeah, for some reason this board only has trouble loading, edits and responses take forever and I end up having to reload the whole page.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 05-21-2020 at 09:41 AM.
  #211  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:47 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No iiandyiii, I don't particularly care about heresy, I care about proof. And so should you all.
I care about fighting sexual assault and rape, and fighting for the decent treatment of women (including women who accuse powerful men of sexual assault or rape). So far we treat those powerful men extremely well -- very few of them actually suffer anything serious for their misdeeds. I'm not just talking about criminal prosecution -- a just and decent society wouldn't allow an admitted sexual abuser to be in any political office, much less President. The Democratic party is pretty bad at this -- up until the last few years, my party was an F on sexual assault and treatment of women, just like the Republicans. They've improved a bit, but only a little bit -- maybe now they get a D+ at best. But the Republicans have somehow gotten even worse -- if before Trump they were an F (50 out of 100) now they're an F (20 out of 100).

That's where our society is -- and with respect to politics, we have two parties who largely don't treat women properly, but one is trending in the right direction and one is trending in the wrong direction.
  #212  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:03 PM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No iiandyiii, I don't particularly care about heresy, I care about proof. And so should you all.
But there's almost never going to be proof. Even the cases against Cosby and Weinstein were, (I think? could be wrong here) decided based on overwhelming weight of testimony, not smoking gun proof. What proof could there be?

So instead we're left to do the best we can based on credibility of he-said she-said, circumstantial evidence, patterns of behavior, credibility of accusers, and a myriad of other things. And yes, it's 100% the case that people are not perfectly objective. If your goal in life is to find cases where liberals don't apply 100% the exactly same standards when accusations come out against liberals as they do when accusations come out against conservatives, that's both incredibly easy (because people aren't perfectly objective) and also totally meaningless (because people don't _claim_ to be perfectly objective, so what do you think you're accomplishing, but also because no two situations are ever really exactly enough the same that you can really fully make the point you think you're making anyhow).


Can you find a quote from some genuine leader of the liberal moment (Obama? Jon Stewart?) back during the Kavanaugh hearings which says "any accusation against anyone is 100% disqualifying period"? If so, well, I guess that's a standard that is not being followed wrt Biden. If not, then, fundamentally, what the fuck is your point?
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #213  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:26 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Can you find a quote from some genuine leader of the liberal moment (Obama? Jon Stewart?) back during the Kavanaugh hearings which says "any accusation against anyone is 100% disqualifying period"? If so, well, I guess that's a standard that is not being followed wrt Biden. If not, then, fundamentally, what the fuck is your point?
I'm pretty sure the point is "Some actresses and some people on Twitter are hypocrites, therefore all liberals everywhere are hypocrites"

It's pretty much the same as almost every political argument. People can post hundreds of wrong things actual Republican/conservative members of government do, and someone posts a tweet from some liberal moron and says "See! Both parties are the same!"
  #214  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Ahh yes, I understood it perfectly. How many of you are pushing for investigation?
....
Investigation is good, and it has been investigated. Investigations have shown:

There is no place in that route where that attack could have occured.

That she changed her story after Biden was the presumptive nominee.

That she has a history of being a liar. And she needs money.

That the GOP has a proven history of bribing women to lie for political reasons.

That her story matches almost word for word a paragraph self-published novel her Father wrote.

That every other woman who worked for Biden has said Joe would never do anything like that.

That Biden does have a history of hugging etc, without checking first to see if wanted.

That her lawyers have worked for the GOP and Kremlin. *

That there is some verification she made a complaint about harassment timely, but no mention of forcible rape.

That she only worked for Biden a short time, and had unsatisfactory performance.

That her story about being asked to serve drinks has been debunked.

That she was a diehard Sanders supporter and has a sexual fantasy about Putin.

That Biden categorically denies the assault happened.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/91331...sputnik-editor

* Her main attorney is Douglas Wigdor, a supporter of President Trump — he donated $55,000 to Trump's 2016 campaign — who has also represented women in sexual assault cases against Harvey Weinstein and Fox News hosts. Wigdor told AP his firm is currently representing Reade without charge, and the firm denied any political motivation.

Reade's other new lawyer is William Moran, who "previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya," AP reports. As Reade noted in her interview with Megyn Kelly, skeptics of her allegation sometimes bring up her recent, now-deleted quasi-erotic writings praising Russian President Vladimir Putin to suggest she's "a Russian agent."
  #215  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:43 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
But there's almost never going to be proof. Even the cases against Cosby and Weinstein were, (I think? could be wrong here) decided based on overwhelming weight of testimony, not smoking gun proof. What proof could there be?

So instead we're left to do the best we can based on credibility of he-said she-said, circumstantial evidence, patterns of behavior, credibility of accusers, and a myriad of other things. And yes, it's 100% the case that people are not perfectly objective. If your goal in life is to find cases where liberals don't apply 100% the exactly same standards when accusations come out against liberals as they do when accusations come out against conservatives, that's both incredibly easy (because people aren't perfectly objective) and also totally meaningless (because people don't _claim_ to be perfectly objective, so what do you think you're accomplishing, but also because no two situations are ever really exactly enough the same that you can really fully make the point you think you're making anyhow).


Can you find a quote from some genuine leader of the liberal moment (Obama? Jon Stewart?) back during the Kavanaugh hearings which says "any accusation against anyone is 100% disqualifying period"? If so, well, I guess that's a standard that is not being followed wrt Biden. If not, then, fundamentally, what the fuck is your point?
Cosby and Weinstein were convicted of a criminal offense. So Proof!

Kavanaugh and now Biden = no proof! No proof, no foul! Carry on

That is and always has been my point.
  #216  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:46 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Cosby and Weinstein were convicted of a criminal offense. So Proof!

Kavanaugh and now Biden = no proof! No proof, no foul! Carry on

That is and always has been my point.
So, your point is without proof, there are no criminal offense convictions?
  #217  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I think ALL accusations against Presidential candidates should be investigated fully, and the results published for the voting public to see.

How does that sound?
It sounds contradictory to other posts you have made.

Post 126, 128, 140, and especially 143 "It's a good case for landlord information to be confidential."
  #218  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:49 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It sounds contradictory to other posts you have made.

Post 126, 128, 140, and especially 143 "It's a good case for landlord information to be confidential."
I think you may have me confused with another poster.
  #219  
Old 05-21-2020, 02:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I think you may have me confused with another poster.
I do, sorry, my bad.
  #220  
Old 05-21-2020, 03:07 PM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post

Pointing out the liberal hypocrisy is at best a third rate hobby(like a 25 piece puzzle). Far too easy.
They're not liberals, just Democrats.
  #221  
Old 05-21-2020, 03:07 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I do, sorry, my bad.
No worries
  #222  
Old 05-21-2020, 03:13 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 547
I get that you really don't want to believe her and that you'd still vote for Biden even if you did believe her (against Biden's advice). But it looks really bad to pile up little circumstantial evidence to try to prove she didn't do it. It looks Republican. Yes, it looks that bad.

I can't believe a Democrat leaning person would use the words of landlords or think its wrong to lie to richer people to get their money.

Don't use the landlord stuff or Biden's denial for a start - we know Biden is either senile or just full of shit when it comes to topics he chooses to lie or is confused about.

And Biden's team worked to keep Harvey Weinstein out of jail - the smears against Reade look very suspicious.

Also, who knows, Reade's claims have all kinds of reasons to doubt.
  #223  
Old 05-21-2020, 03:36 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
I can't believe a Democrat leaning person would use the words of landlords or think its wrong to lie to richer people to get their money.
You may be mixing up Democrats with Maoists.
  #224  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:02 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
You may be mixing up Democrats with Maoists.
Your politics is so confusing with all your squabbling factions these days.
  #225  
Old 05-22-2020, 07:26 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,469
Wow! That animal shelter is going after Tara on Twitter big time!
https://twitter.com/mare_rescue/stat...974958593?s=21

‘Go change your panties now!’
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #226  
Old 05-22-2020, 07:31 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 20,033
Lawyers fear that Reade misrepresented herself as an expert in legal cases where people went to prison and are potentially seeking to reopen cases.
Quote:
Defense lawyers in California are reviewing criminal cases in which Tara Reade, the former Senate aide who has accused Joseph R. Biden Jr. of sexual assault, served as an expert witness on domestic violence, concerned that she misrepresented her educational credentials in court.

Then known as Alexandra McCabe, Ms. Reade testified as a government witness in Monterey County courts for nearly a decade, describing herself as an expert in the dynamics of domestic violence who had counseled hundreds of victims.

But lawyers who had faced off against her in court began raising questions about the legitimacy of her testimony, and the verdicts that followed, after news reports this week that Antioch University had disputed her claim of receiving a bachelor’s degree from its Seattle campus.
In addition to lying about her degree, she apparently misrepresented her role while describing her work for Biden:
Quote:
Reade, the former Joe Biden staffer who recently accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1993, stated she had an undergraduate degree that her college says she never earned and appears to have exaggerated her role in Biden’s office, according to trial transcripts in two court cases reviewed by POLITICO
  #227  
Old 05-22-2020, 07:42 AM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 547
Agreed, looks like the Weinstein tacitcs might work on her. Without Hollywood money and power she will be easily crushed.

And truth shall lie fallen, in a forest, unknown.
  #228  
Old 05-22-2020, 07:48 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So, your point is without proof, there are no criminal offense convictions?
My point is without enough VALID proof, there are no criminal charges …

But it has been shown that there are lots of people willing to utilize public opinion as their hammer (and a lot of people on this board agree!), right up until it's their guy.
  #229  
Old 05-22-2020, 07:49 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 20,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
And truth shall lie fallen, in a forest, unknown.
Poetic, but meaningless. Everyone could treat her as a saint and it would still be a "She said, he said" debate without any actual evidence.

With the lack of actual evidence, credibility matters. You can forever say "Yeah but he still coulda done it" as we learn more and more about her history as a serial grifter and the accumulating flaws in her account but, at some point, her words simply have no weight in truth.

Last edited by Jophiel; 05-22-2020 at 07:49 AM.
  #230  
Old 05-22-2020, 07:53 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Poetic, but meaningless. Everyone could treat her as a saint and it would still be a "She said, he said" debate without any actual evidence.

With the lack of actual evidence, credibility matters. You can forever say "Yeah but he still coulda done it" as we learn more and more about her history as a serial grifter and the accumulating flaws in her account but, at some point, her words simply have no weight in truth.
Agreed, as I agreed with the same in the flimsy Kavanaugh hearing.
  #231  
Old 05-22-2020, 08:15 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
My point is without enough VALID proof, there are no criminal charges …

But it has been shown that there are lots of people willing to utilize public opinion as their hammer (and a lot of people on this board agree!), right up until it's their guy.
It has also been shown that a lot of people don't care if their guy has 25 or more sexual assault accusations as long as they get to attempt to point out hypocrisy from a few people who don't matter.
  #232  
Old 05-22-2020, 08:31 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
It has also been shown that a lot of people don't care if their guy has 25 or more sexual assault accusations as long as they get to attempt to point out hypocrisy from a few people who don't matter.
Except, it's you and I talking right? And I already agreed that if proof was found for that other guy with 25 or more accusations, then he should be dismissed as well.

Are you saying that it needs to be any different for Biden?

Because if it's ok for one, then it better be ok for the other.
  #233  
Old 05-22-2020, 08:40 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Except, it's you and I talking right? And I already agreed that if proof was found for that other guy with 25 or more accusations, then he should be dismissed as well.
Great! Now all you need to do is call out Republicans/conservatives for their hypocrisy and you'll avoid the hypocrisy charge yourself.
  #234  
Old 05-22-2020, 10:47 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Hopefully this episode has reinforced to everyone that serious and thorough investigations are always positive and should always be encouraged for allegations of sexual assault and rape.
  #235  
Old 05-22-2020, 11:48 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 20,033
Reade's lawyer has dumped her.
  #236  
Old 05-22-2020, 12:22 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
Your politics is so confusing with all your squabbling factions these days.
I know, right? It's one endless brawl between the Democrats who think it's OK to lie to richer people to take their money and those who insist it's mandatory.
  #237  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:08 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
Agreed, looks like the Weinstein tacitcs might work on her. Without Hollywood money and power she will be easily crushed.

And truth shall lie fallen, in a forest, unknown.
Looks like the truth is working on her. She misrepresented her credentials as an expert witness, raising the possibility that she wrongly helped convict people.
  #238  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:27 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
I get that you really don't want to believe her and that you'd still vote for Biden even if you did believe her (against Biden's advice). But it looks really bad to pile up little circumstantial evidence to try to prove she didn't do it. It looks Republican. Yes, it looks that bad.

I can't believe a Democrat leaning person would use the words of landlords or think its wrong to lie to richer people to get their money.
What does that even mean? I mean, I'm a landlord, why would I think that owning a property and allowing someone to rent a part of it would make one less trustworthy?

And lying to rich people to get their money is called scamming or conning, and it is wrong to do.

I have no idea why or how you would get these completely counterfactual impressions.

Do you distrust anyone who owns property? Do you scam rich people?
Quote:
Don't use the landlord stuff or Biden's denial for a start - we know Biden is either senile or just full of shit when it comes to topics he chooses to lie or is confused about.
We know this, eh?
Quote:
And Biden's team worked to keep Harvey Weinstein out of jail - the smears against Reade look very suspicious.
Cite, please
Quote:
Also, who knows, Reade's claims have all kinds of reasons to doubt.
Yeah, the fact that she is proven to have committed perjury, misrepresenting herself, her credentials, her education, and her experience while giving sworn testimony in a court should either destroy her credibility or qualify her for the Supreme Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
Agreed, looks like the Weinstein tacitcs might work on her. Without Hollywood money and power she will be easily crushed.

And truth shall lie fallen, in a forest, unknown.
Yeah, the truth fell when she started lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
My point is without enough VALID proof, there are no criminal charges …

But it has been shown that there are lots of people willing to utilize public opinion as their hammer (and a lot of people on this board agree!), right up until it's their guy.
There could be no criminal charges either way.

This is about our choices, a preponderance of evidence at best. There will never be proof, as there really is almost never proof of anything.

What has been shown is a consistent and rational approach to allegations of sexual abuse or harassment, and that is to take such charges seriously and investigate them to the best of our ability. That is what we ask when it is your guy, that is what we ask when it is our guy.

This really isn't that complicated. Do you think that you could articulate what it is that seems to be confusing you on this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Hopefully this episode has reinforced to everyone that serious and thorough investigations are always positive and should always be encouraged for allegations of sexual assault and rape.
I doubt it has done so for everyone.

It would make sense that those who thought that #believewomen meant that we should always believe all women no matter the circumstances, as it was accused at the time, now would see a more rational and nuanced approach, the approach that we ask them to take, and learn from it.

However, since it conflicts with their accusation, they will not change the accusation, but rather, since we are not acting in the way that they insist that we act, they call it hypocrisy.

There may be a bit to be learned, but most of us already know it, and most of those who don't are resistant to learning anything that would interfere with their biases.
  #239  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:28 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Great! Now all you need to do is call out Republicans/conservatives for their hypocrisy and you'll avoid the hypocrisy charge yourself.
You realize of course, that I refer to people in this very thread … Not random Democrats.
  #240  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:32 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What does that even mean? I mean, I'm a landlord, why would I think that owning a property and allowing someone to rent a part of it would make one less trustworthy?

And lying to rich people to get their money is called scamming or conning, and it is wrong to do.

I have no idea why or how you would get these completely counterfactual impressions.

Do you distrust anyone who owns property? Do you scam rich people?

We know this, eh?

Cite, please


Yeah, the fact that she is proven to have committed perjury, misrepresenting herself, her credentials, her education, and her experience while giving sworn testimony in a court should either destroy her credibility or qualify her for the Supreme Court.



Yeah, the truth fell when she started lying.



There could be no criminal charges either way.

This is about our choices, a preponderance of evidence at best. There will never be proof, as there really is almost never proof of anything.

What has been shown is a consistent and rational approach to allegations of sexual abuse or harassment, and that is to take such charges seriously and investigate them to the best of our ability. That is what we ask when it is your guy, that is what we ask when it is our guy.

This really isn't that complicated. Do you think that you could articulate what it is that seems to be confusing you on this?




I doubt it has done so for everyone.

It would make sense that those who thought that #believewomen meant that we should always believe all women no matter the circumstances, as it was accused at the time, now would see a more rational and nuanced approach, the approach that we ask them to take, and learn from it.

However, since it conflicts with their accusation, they will not change the accusation, but rather, since we are not acting in the way that they insist that we act, they call it hypocrisy.

There may be a bit to be learned, but most of us already know it, and most of those who don't are resistant to learning anything that would interfere with their biases.
Should I go back through this thread and copy and paste all those who replied with "I'm going to vote for him anyway, even if he did it"

In my recollection, there were quite a few.
Those are the people I was talking to. If you are not one of them who would vote for Biden regardless the situation, then goodie
  #241  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
Agreed, looks like the Weinstein tacitcs might work on her. Without Hollywood money and power she will be easily crushed.
She has the whole of the GOP bank accounts and the kremlin's behind her.
  #242  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post


Our Firm no longer represents Tara Reade. Our decision, made on May 20, is by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” Wigdor wote. “On that point, our view — which is the same view held by the majority of Americans, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll — has not changed.”

Wigdor, a 2016 donor to President Trump and the Republican National Committee .....



Note that apparently that lawyer thinks that guilt or innocence should be decided by a poll.
  #243  
Old 05-22-2020, 02:21 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Should I go back through this thread and copy and paste all those who replied with "I'm going to vote for him anyway, even if he did it"

In my recollection, there were quite a few.
Those are the people I was talking to. If you are not one of them who would vote for Biden regardless the situation, then goodie
Please do. You claim that there were quite a few, and you made a claim that we are all being hypocrites, but you have not actually backed your claim one iota, just made the assertion that it was true, with absolutely no evidence.

So, since you say that there were quite a few people saying "I'm going to vote for him anyway, even if he did it", then give me some examples. I'm actually very curious as to what you will say is equivalent to what you have claimed.
  #244  
Old 05-22-2020, 02:43 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,259
I was among those who said I'd vote for Biden anyway, and I don't regret saying it.

When I vote for president, I am not strictly voting for one individual; I'm voting for the party and its political interests, which are my political interests.

Yes, you could rightly point out that Republicans make that same justification for supporting Kavanaugh - I don't care. And the reason I don't care is because Kavanaugh was appointed for life, whereas Biden won primary elections and thus is a direct representation of 11 million or so people. Whether to put him down as the official nominee - not a done deal yet, I'd add - is strictly a matter of whether he's electable, in my view.

But the other reason I don't care is that the presidency is a damn powerful institution and it needs to be in the hands of someone who supports public institutions. The balance of power between oligarchs and ordinary people hangs in the balance.
  #245  
Old 05-22-2020, 03:01 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
I'll grant that Christine Blasey Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh weren't damning. After so many years, it'd be very difficult for any allegations to be damning.

But Kavanaugh's response to them absolutely was damning. When the best defense you have against "He tried to rape me at an underaged drinking party" is to produce a list of all of your many underaged drinking parties during that time frame, that's a problem. And when your best answer to "Are you an alcoholic?" is "I like beer. Do you like beer?", it should be clear that you have no place in any courtroom, much less the Supreme Court.
  #246  
Old 05-22-2020, 03:09 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'll grant that Christine Blasey Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh weren't damning. After so many years, it'd be very difficult for any allegations to be damning.

But Kavanaugh's response to them absolutely was damning. When the best defense you have against "He tried to rape me at an underaged drinking party" is to produce a list of all of your many underaged drinking parties during that time frame, that's a problem. And when your best answer to "Are you an alcoholic?" is "I like beer. Do you like beer?", it should be clear that you have no place in any courtroom, much less the Supreme Court.
Exactly. I have opinions and inclinations about Ford's allegations, but what should have stopped his nomination was his own words and actions in response to those allegations and questioning. He didn't demonstrate the temperament and character necessary to be a hall monitor, much less a SCOTUS justice.
  #247  
Old 05-22-2020, 03:09 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 36,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
But the other reason I don't care is that the presidency is a damn powerful institution and it needs to be in the hands of someone who supports public institutions.
And needs to be occupied by someone who clearly understands what the office entails. Trump's understanding is limited to "Democrats bad! Democrats named 'Obama' really bad!"
  #248  
Old 05-22-2020, 03:19 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
You realize of course, that I refer to people in this very thread … Not random Democrats.
I see. Do you also go into to other threads and call out the Republicans in them for hypocrisy?
  #249  
Old 05-22-2020, 03:42 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Exactly. I have opinions and inclinations about Ford's allegations, but what should have stopped his nomination was his own words and actions in response to those allegations and questioning. He didn't demonstrate the temperament and character necessary to be a hall monitor, much less a SCOTUS justice.
Exactly. I understand why Jim Jordan acts like a pompous ass. But he still has to face the electorate every 2 years even in a heavily gerrymandered district.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #250  
Old 05-22-2020, 03:59 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I was among those who said I'd vote for Biden anyway, and I don't regret saying it.

When I vote for president, I am not strictly voting for one individual; I'm voting for the party and its political interests, which are my political interests.

Yes, you could rightly point out that Republicans make that same justification for supporting Kavanaugh - I don't care. And the reason I don't care is because Kavanaugh was appointed for life, whereas Biden won primary elections and thus is a direct representation of 11 million or so people. Whether to put him down as the official nominee - not a done deal yet, I'd add - is strictly a matter of whether he's electable, in my view.

But the other reason I don't care is that the presidency is a damn powerful institution and it needs to be in the hands of someone who supports public institutions. The balance of power between oligarchs and ordinary people hangs in the balance.
Hmmm, of course you would. I tend to kinda skim across your posts.

I personally would have difficulty voting for him if the worst of the allegations, as given were entirely true. I don't know 100% that I wouldn't but it would make that a very difficult choice. I imagine it would be similar to a conservative having to make the choice of voting for Trump. Dismissing the horrificness of the man in order to get the judges that I want?

Put Biden against Trump, if the allegations against Biden is completely true, it's still gonna be hard. Such things are not just a mistake. If it came out that while he was on some sort of prescribed medication, he accidentally groped her, then she may have reason to feel aggrieved towards him, but it doesn't speak to his character.

If he actually pushed her up against a wall and violently shoved his fingers inside of her, then that is not the character of a man that I want in the whitehouse, and I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump, but the third parties would be getting a new temporary member.

Though I'd rather see a brokered convention, where we get a new candidate that I could vote for.

I can understand supporting him in spite of his alleged actions, that one may feel that the overarching issues are greater than the man, but when the man is the symbol of those overarching issues, we need to do better.

But, no, her allegations are not credible, and I wll have no problem* voting for Biden in the fall.



To save Kearsen1 some trouble, do you know who else in this thread has said that they would vote for Biden even if they knew that he had committed sexual assault?

*by no problem, I mean from my ethical perspective. I do think that we may have some problems with voting in general in the fall.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017