Yeah. Wow, you nailed her. Good job.
ETA: :rolleyes:
Glad you brought that up. Why is it that to the left nothing is ever bad enough on its own? Things always have to be exaggerated and made to seem worse than they already are no matter how bad they really are happens to be. The fact is almost all sexual assault victims survive their encounters, so the use of ‘survivor’ to describe them seems both superfluous and manipulative.
For one thing, the right to be believed doesn’t mean every accusation is true no matter the evidence; it means that accusations should be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. Who says she didn’t take these accusations seriously?
It’s also impossible to take seriously conservatives who spout family values and then criticize her for staying with her husband.
That’s some pretty legalistic parsing there, but still ineffective since she didn’t treat the accusations seriously either.
Who criticized her for staying with her husband?
There’s nothing wrong with her actions in regards to her husband. At least until she said that sexual assault survivors have a right to be believed. And despite the bad argument iiandyiiii tried to make, “believe” is a word that means something. It does not mean merely “take seriously” or “keep an open mind”. It means to accept the account of the victim as true.
It may be a popular sentiment among the PC crowd, and universities now seem to be putting that concept into action with the administration’s full support. But it should be offensive to the Doper community as an assault against truth and the rights of the accused, as well as rank hypocrisy.
It would be if it were what you described, but it’s not. No one denied that false accusations exist.
How do you know? She said victims should be believed, not accusers – do you disagree? I think actual victims should be believed as well. How do you know she didn’t take them seriously and determine that they were not victims?
You’re joking, right? This is the entire conservative modus operandi. Every little thing is a cause for massive public hysteria - saying “Happy Holidays” is a War on Christmas, Kim Davis’ arrest is a sign that Christians will be rounded up and purged, Obama’s deal with Iran is going to lead to this, etc, etc. The left can certainly be ridiculous handwringing ninnies but they’re amateurs compared to the right, where Fear and Hysteria are always on tap.
It goes off on a tangent that we probably do not want to go on, but really isn’t that true for every crime? That ideally an actual victim should be believed and someone making a false accusation not? Duh. The issue of course is how to tell the two apart as someone who does not know: does (s)he float?
It becomes a meaningless throw-away.
Very possibly. Politicians say similar meaningless throw-aways all the time.
I’m content to just leave it at that then. It was obviously a message intended for female college students, a group Clinton needs to win that has been drifting towards Sanders. If you read the rest of her tweets in that group, she was referring mainly to campus rape.
Could you summarize his argument? Because what I got from it amounted to “other groups cost the Dems even more votes than Nader, so you can’t blame Nader.” But it was confusing reading, so I’m not going to rebut that unless you think that’s his real point.
Hmm, that was at the bottom of a basically point form article. Regardless, It’s a valid point
-Exit polls sbowed that the Nader voters were split evenly or wouldn’t have showed up.
-191 000 self described liberals voted for Bush over Gore
-340 000 self described Democrats voted for Bush over Gore
So it’s not just “other groups”. Gore lost voters from his own group directly to Bush in numbers doubling and tripling Nader’s total vote count. So they were more decisive even if you cling to the belief that those Nader votes were rightfully all Gore’s.
How many Nader voters in Florida were included in this exit poll? (Your link’s ‘cite’ for the Nader claim is a table in a My Firedoglake blog post from 2012 whose numbers don’t make much sense.)
This time, your link’s cite is a Jim Hightower column that doesn’t contain the numbers 191,000 or 340,000. (Or 308,000, which is the number in your link.) But even if those numbers were substantiated, that some other group might’ve tipped the election even more definitively doesn’t negate the fact that the Nader voters still did so by themselves.
Look, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. We don’t have to “cling to the belief that those Nader votes were rightfully all Gore’s” to notice that these votes might’ve affected the outcome. Hell, if half the Nader voters would’ve stayed home (or voted for other third-party candidates) if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot, and the remaining half broke only 51%-49% for Gore, Gore still wins Florida by over 400 votes.
Anyway, who the fuck is (your source) gjohnsit, other than some guy who posted a Daily Kos diary, which any bozo can do? What are you doing, just taking his numbers as gospel, without vetting them yourself first? This is Facebook-level passing-on of glurge.
The Daily Kos guy cites an earlier article which was based on a particular guy’s research on exit polls.
Where’s your evidence? Never seen anything to back up the “of course Nader cost the Dems Florida” (gimme a break, it’s not “might have affected the outcome”) I thought the Dems were the reality based party, not faith/gut feeling based one.
I went to his cites. A screwy MyFiredoglake post for the ‘exit polls’ (“a particular guy’s research” - some guy posting on what has been for years a genuinely lunatic fringe lefty site, sure, whatever! Solid stuff there!), and a Hightower column that doesn’t have any of the numbers it’s being cited for.
And WTF do you mean, what’s my evidence? Look, a third-party candidate of either extreme will, for obvious reasons, draw more votes from the party on that side of the spectrum. (If you’re asking me to prove that, then forget it. I’m not going to prove that east is east, west is west, water is wet, or the sun rises in the east.) And I showed that that assumption had to be only very, very, very weakly true to prove my argument.
You’re only right if it’s flat-out wrong.
Ok ok. It had nothing to do with Gore’s campaign, Lewinsky scandal, or how Clinton ran the government. They lost Florida because of Nader. It’s all so obvious there’s no need to prove it.
I mean, it is pretty obvious. You’re not even responding to RTFirefly’s argument.
It was an extremely unfortunate throw-away line for her to make. Given her husband’s history and the history of her defense of him during those allegations she essentially put a sign on her back that said “Kick me.”
I don’t know enough details to have a problem with her having defended him against the allegations but boy I am a bit surprised that went there of her own free will. What was she thinking?