Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| The Kavanaugh hearings were a test. A test of how far identity politics could be taken — can an accusation by a traditionally-marginalized person be taken as immediate guilt, such that due process and evidence are themselves offensive? Could an allegation against a privileged person from a less privileged person be enough to comdemn immediately? This is what the Democrats wanted, and it comes after years of ratcheting up the hurling of labels like “racist” and “sexist” at thos with opposing virwpoints, censorship discussions, and microaggressions. It didn’t work this time, largely because people by and large still believe in fairness and other principles of democracy. What Democrats wanted was free reign to destroy anyone, especially political opponents, by simply alleging accusations that fit the anti-privilege story. |
Anonymous
Seriously? Apparently you and the above poster DGAF about truth since there are lies above and you treat them as fact. |
Anonymous
AND, he has worked with scores of women over the past 30 years. How many claims of sexual harassment or unfair treatment has been made by them? AND, what about the four women who joined him on his staff at the SCOTUS? It's surprising they haven't been harassed for accepting those positions. After all, eviscerating women who side with someone like him seems to be the norm of late. Didn't they in fact endorse him? Were they just ignorant of the facts? |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
They can't respond to my post in a meaningful way. The thought of their son being buggered by a fellow player in a locker room or at a post game party, or a by a coach or a priest upsets them, as it should--but they can't or won't see the parallel to the exact same fact pattern with a female. I wonder why? |
Anonymous
| To the #boymoms out there: if your sons are accused of sexual assault, would you feel that applying a presumption of innocence in a criminal proceeding is still appropriate? Or should society rethink the standard of proof? In a Title IX non criminal proceeding, should the burden of proof still be on the accuser to meet a preponderance of the evidence, or a clear and convincing standard? In a job interview context, how should these dynamics play out? Does this dovetail with ban the box? |
Anonymous
|
Is there ever any proof or witnesses when a boy is raped by a fellow player or a teacher, coach, priest, etc.?
Aren't those allegations usually decades old? Why do you believe the boys and not Dr. Ford who was 15 at the time? |
Anonymous
I think the catholic stuff reached a critical mass, so to speak. |
Anonymous
exactly |
Anonymous
When the Republicans had no hope in hell of passing bills, they still worked on them, used media, and otherwise energized their base to keep issues at the forefront. If the perjury charge were serious, Democrats could be doing exactly the same. They are not, and yet their base would love it. That they are not pursuing this is telling. I'm not asking why Ford and Swetnick didn't go to the police then. I'm asking why they don't go to the police now. The police who have explicitly said they will follow up on their complaints. That Ford and Swetnick don't go to the police now is telling. |
Anonymous
Don't try to be clever, Sparky. Confirmation hearings are not courtrooms. None your above cited standards apply here. Go back to your online 1L textbooks. |
Anonymous
I posed serious questions. You are obviously unable to answer them. The last question applies to job interviews. Susan Collins applied a “more likely than not” standard? Was that an appropriate standard? |
Anonymous
Are you suggesting that Democrats behave in the same unconscionable way Republicans did and go on FOX and spread lies about the ACA to conspire to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans even though they didn't have the votes to overturn it? You may be on to something with that... |
Anonymous
In situations 1-3 you have power dynamic issues. Relationship, admired peers, admired coaches. In Swetnick's situation, there is no such thing. She was, by her account, an older woman attending parties where younger boys were repeatedly drugging and raping girls and women. And she did nothing. She was not in a relationship with these boys. She was not beholden to them. She was, in fact, in a position of power as an older, college woman. She did nothing to save the girls and women. Nothing to save herself, not even staying away when she realized what scum these boys were. In fact, she continued going to these parties, by her own account. Continued to do nothing while girls and women were being drugged and raped. What she did do was associate with rapists, helping them drug and rape unsuspecting girls and women. And in present day, she continues to do nothing by not reporting the crime to the police, who would follow up on it. Which should be trivial, since she says the entire county knew of these parties (which no one seems to know anything about, so perhaps she's saving herself criminal charges by not making a police report). |
Anonymous
|
By the way it isn't up to Dr. Ford, et al, to bring charges, you ninnies. The prosecutor's office can bring charges on any case they like, whether or not the victim comes in to their offices
*sigh* |