[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 21 NEXT
 

TheIronRuler:
I don't compare her to the SA. I used it as an example for organized political violence. I don't know her, I only read some of her posts here, and her incessant use of the derogatory term 'Nazi' combined with Trump-hysteria.

EDIT: It was a bad decision to include that in the post. I am tired of the flippant use of the term 'Nazi' because it's reducing it to a slur... which it was, a derogatory term to refer to the members of National-Socialist party of Germany, and the people from Germany when it was ruled by it... not too different from the term 'Jap' the Americans used in the Pacific...

Yet it seems I've done it myself, even without realizing it, because it was the easiest comparison to make... I still think it was a valid comparison, but truthfully, this was in poor taste.

I disagree that to refer to one as being a "Nazi" has to mean that they were from WW2 Germany, If someones ideology, actions, align with Nazi Beliefs, they too would be considered a "Nazi". Simply because those who agree with Hitler's views have not yet started sending people to gas chambers does not somehow mean that everything Hitler did prior to that point was okay. People were socially conditioned to accept hatred for it to get to that point and that is exactly what we are experiencing now in the US due to the promotion of hatred against "them". "Them" can be Jewish people, Muslims, Latino's, Blacks.. anyone who is " different" than "us". That is what we are currently experiencing here and it matters not who "them" actually is, what matters is the irrational promotion of hatred and promotion of misinformation to demonize a group. That is not okay, nor should it be tolerated. It has to be corrected before it ever gets to the point that people are okay with murdering people to "keep them away" from " us".

As for " Trump Hysteria", what exactly do you think that is? People having genuine issues with the very bad practices and policies is not "hysteria". When we had public officials saying Obama was a "gay prostitute" and a "Muslim terrorist", that was " Hysteria" claiming Trump sexually assaulted women is not, he was recorded admitting such and women included everyone from former business partners to aids and contestants. Saying Trump is a conman is not "Hysteria", he has had thousands of people sue him for that reason. He had a fake scam school That if he had not paid off people to drop the suit, he would have been charged with fraud and could face 10 years in prison. The man literally stole from charity and had to shut down his charity due to it being fake.

https://apnews.com/43033e7cb9974faf879b51251c3a0d07
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/
https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/nyregion/ny-ag-underwood-trump-foundation.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/

None of this is " Trump Hysteria" It is just Trump has actually done so very many bad things and is continuing to do so many more bad things that just to attempt to discuss them all makes it look like no one person could seriously have done this much bad shat that it cannot possibly be real. The reality is it is actually real and people put this scum bag into the highest office in the US.

Trump keeps doing all the guilty things.

Also calling people who call themselves Nazis 'Nazis' is a totally reasonable thing, and it is absurd to argue otherwise.

Also Trump is a conspiracy theorist nutjob.

Saelune:
If the default position is 'innocent until proven guilty', that applies to both sides. If I have to believe Kavanaugh is not a rapist until proven he is one, I also have to believe Ford is not a liar until proven one. Same goes for you.

You'd do well to note that I've never accused her of perjury. Because I don't think there's enough proof to back that up either. That everyone she claimed was at this party doesn't recall the party or the conduct in question (including her friend who didn't know Kavanaugh and claimed to have never been at any party with him at all) suggests that her testimony is probably not accurate. 30 years is a long time, and memory is tricky (there's a reason witness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence).

Saelune:
The world all agreed he was a sexist gropey pig until suddenly he was representing Republicans.

I won't argue about "sexist gropey pig" or "narcissist" or anything else negative you might call him that isn't a direct accusation of a crime that there is insufficient evidence of at this time. He's a shitty president, but he's a lawfully elected shitty president that there is some measure of evidence may have committed a crime, but nothing thorough or solid enough to impeach on without further investigation. Which is happening.

There's also the possibility that they won't impeach, and just arrest him when he leaves office. I half suspect his odds of impeachment depend a lot on his odds of winning a second term.

If it makes you feel any better, Facebook started purging far right influencers from all their platforms before election season gets rolling too hard. Deeming them "dangerous."

Saelune:
And men constantly get away with rape. ... and the fact that men, especially men with power get away with tons of horrible things,

Ah, OK, he's male, and his maleness is itself proof (or even the slightest evidence) towards his being a rapist? Weird, if I were to say something like that implicating the other approximate half of humanity in a similar fashion for something far less serious, it would violate COC.

Saelune:
You want to pretend this all happens in a vacuum without all the surrounding contextual evidence.

OK, what's the contextual evidence that Kavanaugh committed rape? How does it get around the other people named as allegedly being there not recalling the event at all, including her own friend saying she's never been at any party with Kavanaugh and had never met him?

Saelune:
You throw 'innocent until proven guilty' at me while ignoring it yourself for Ford and while ignoring all the rest of the guilt already proven.

What was it proven Kavanaugh was guilty of, again? Not keeping the meanings of slang terms he used as a teen straight in his 50s? Being kind of a skeezy drunken party boy at the end of his teens?

Saelune:
All you have is misguided sound bytes and a blind faith in a corrupt and ineffectual legal system.

Misguided sound bytes? You make it sound like I'm quote mining, or avoiding the relevant context. But there's not some context in their statements that changes the meaning.

As for a corrupt and ineffectual legal system, as far as I can tell, you want one where people are investigated based on second hand accounts (and yes a media recording of testimony is exactly that), and are automatically guilty unless they can conclusively prove their innocence, well, at least for straight white men. I suspect you'd apply different standards to some other groups.

Saelune:
You don't need to stick your hand personally into lava to know its going to melt your hand.

Right, but you're arguing that you shouldn't touch red things because someone told you red things are like lava, and promptly disappeared the moment selling green paint was no longer worthwhile. Because that's what happened here - the moment it was no longer politically valuable to accuse Kavanaugh, everyone dropped it. It will get brought back publicly in the future if, and only if attacking Kavanaugh becomes a useful political tool.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
If the default position is 'innocent until proven guilty', that applies to both sides. If I have to believe Kavanaugh is not a rapist until proven he is one, I also have to believe Ford is not a liar until proven one. Same goes for you.

You'd do well to note that I've never accused her of perjury. Because I don't think there's enough proof to back that up either. That everyone she claimed was at this party doesn't recall the party or the conduct in question (including her friend who didn't know Kavanaugh and claimed to have never been at any party with him at all) suggests that her testimony is probably not accurate. 30 years is a long time, and memory is tricky (there's a reason witness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence).

Saelune:
The world all agreed he was a sexist gropey pig until suddenly he was representing Republicans.

I won't argue about "sexist gropey pig" or "narcissist" or anything else negative you might call him that isn't a direct accusation of a crime that there is insufficient evidence of at this time. He's a shitty president, but he's a lawfully elected shitty president that there is some measure of evidence may have committed a crime, but nothing thorough or solid enough to impeach on without further investigation. Which is happening.

There's also the possibility that they won't impeach, and just arrest him when he leaves office. I half suspect his odds of impeachment depend a lot on his odds of winning a second term.

If it makes you feel any better, Facebook started purging far right influencers from all their platforms before election season gets rolling too hard. Deeming them "dangerous."

Saelune:
And men constantly get away with rape. ... and the fact that men, especially men with power get away with tons of horrible things,

Ah, OK, he's male, and his maleness is itself proof (or even the slightest evidence) towards his being a rapist? Weird, if I were to say something like that implicating the other approximate half of humanity in a similar fashion for something far less serious, it would violate COC.

Saelune:
You want to pretend this all happens in a vacuum without all the surrounding contextual evidence.

OK, what's the contextual evidence that Kavanaugh committed rape? How does it get around the other people named as allegedly being there not recalling the event at all, including her own friend saying she's never been at any party with Kavanaugh and had never met him?

Saelune:
You throw 'innocent until proven guilty' at me while ignoring it yourself for Ford and while ignoring all the rest of the guilt already proven.

What was it proven Kavanaugh was guilty of, again? Not keeping the meanings of slang terms he used as a teen straight in his 50s? Being kind of a skeezy drunken party boy at the end of his teens?

Saelune:
All you have is misguided sound bytes and a blind faith in a corrupt and ineffectual legal system.

Misguided sound bytes? You make it sound like I'm quote mining, or avoiding the relevant context. But there's not some context in their statements that changes the meaning.

As for a corrupt and ineffectual legal system, as far as I can tell, you want one where people are investigated based on second hand accounts (and yes a media recording of testimony is exactly that), and are automatically guilty unless they can conclusively prove their innocence, well, at least for straight white men. I suspect you'd apply different standards to some other groups.

Saelune:
You don't need to stick your hand personally into lava to know its going to melt your hand.

Right, but you're arguing that you shouldn't touch red things because someone told you red things are like lava, and promptly disappeared the moment selling green paint was no longer worthwhile. Because that's what happened here - the moment it was no longer politically valuable to accuse Kavanaugh, everyone dropped it. It will get brought back publicly in the future if, and only if attacking Kavanaugh becomes a useful political tool.

They have plenty of "solid evidence" of crimes to impeach Trump. at the tip of it, Fraud is a federal offense, so is lying under oath and he has done both. Trump agreeing to pay the money back to over 3000 people does not mean he did not commit fraud in the first place and should be charged criminally not just in civil court.

https://apnews.com/43033e7cb9974faf879b51251c3a0d07

https://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797

Sexual assault is a crime. Groping women without their consent is a crime. Kissing women without their consent is a crime. Many women have now accused him of this and Trump has admitted to grabbing women's genitals and kissing them without their consent. Yes, that is a crime and should be treated as such. Then of course we have his stealing from a charity and having a fraudulent charity that was shut down. Then we can get into him repeatedly ordering people to break the law while he is president. Any one of these things should be grounds for impeachment, however the combination of them should prove him to be the most "unfit" president we have ever seen.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mexico-border-asylum-seekers-el-paso-kirstjen-nielsen-a8860996.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/25/trump-isnt-just-violating-norms-hes-also-breaking-law/

EDIT: BTW Trump misrepresenting his wealth and the projects they were investing in to investors as he has done repeatedly is also a crime and a real estate mogul here in Dallas went to prison for that very thing a while back. Trump is a con man, and has managed top con his way to the highest office through blatant lies and misrepresentation.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
If the default position is 'innocent until proven guilty', that applies to both sides. If I have to believe Kavanaugh is not a rapist until proven he is one, I also have to believe Ford is not a liar until proven one. Same goes for you.

You'd do well to note that I've never accused her of perjury. Because I don't think there's enough proof to back that up either. That everyone she claimed was at this party doesn't recall the party or the conduct in question (including her friend who didn't know Kavanaugh and claimed to have never been at any party with him at all) suggests that her testimony is probably not accurate. 30 years is a long time, and memory is tricky (there's a reason witness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence).

Saelune:
The world all agreed he was a sexist gropey pig until suddenly he was representing Republicans.

I won't argue about "sexist gropey pig" or "narcissist" or anything else negative you might call him that isn't a direct accusation of a crime that there is insufficient evidence of at this time. He's a shitty president, but he's a lawfully elected shitty president that there is some measure of evidence may have committed a crime, but nothing thorough or solid enough to impeach on without further investigation. Which is happening.

There's also the possibility that they won't impeach, and just arrest him when he leaves office. I half suspect his odds of impeachment depend a lot on his odds of winning a second term.

If it makes you feel any better, Facebook started purging far right influencers from all their platforms before election season gets rolling too hard. Deeming them "dangerous."

Saelune:
And men constantly get away with rape. ... and the fact that men, especially men with power get away with tons of horrible things,

Ah, OK, he's male, and his maleness is itself proof (or even the slightest evidence) towards his being a rapist? Weird, if I were to say something like that implicating the other approximate half of humanity in a similar fashion for something far less serious, it would violate COC.

Saelune:
You want to pretend this all happens in a vacuum without all the surrounding contextual evidence.

OK, what's the contextual evidence that Kavanaugh committed rape? How does it get around the other people named as allegedly being there not recalling the event at all, including her own friend saying she's never been at any party with Kavanaugh and had never met him?

Saelune:
You throw 'innocent until proven guilty' at me while ignoring it yourself for Ford and while ignoring all the rest of the guilt already proven.

What was it proven Kavanaugh was guilty of, again? Not keeping the meanings of slang terms he used as a teen straight in his 50s? Being kind of a skeezy drunken party boy at the end of his teens?

Saelune:
All you have is misguided sound bytes and a blind faith in a corrupt and ineffectual legal system.

Misguided sound bytes? You make it sound like I'm quote mining, or avoiding the relevant context. But there's not some context in their statements that changes the meaning.

As for a corrupt and ineffectual legal system, as far as I can tell, you want one where people are investigated based on second hand accounts (and yes a media recording of testimony is exactly that), and are automatically guilty unless they can conclusively prove their innocence, well, at least for straight white men. I suspect you'd apply different standards to some other groups.

Saelune:
You don't need to stick your hand personally into lava to know its going to melt your hand.

Right, but you're arguing that you shouldn't touch red things because someone told you red things are like lava, and promptly disappeared the moment selling green paint was no longer worthwhile. Because that's what happened here - the moment it was no longer politically valuable to accuse Kavanaugh, everyone dropped it. It will get brought back publicly in the future if, and only if attacking Kavanaugh becomes a useful political tool.

Again, I remind you for someone who is 'not pro-Trump' you sure do break your back to defend him as much as possible.

So you think Ford was raped then?

He is not lawful anything. Seriously, you will admit he is all the bad things short of criminal? We KNOW he is a criminal. His first act as was to lie about his wealth so he could become wealthier. We all used to agree he was a criminal until he started appealing to bigots. Trump has done ALL THE WRONG THINGS, and it is just absurd to think he isnt guilty. I also think you do think he is guilty and just want to defend him. Or you never think anyone is guilty of anything. You dont make 400 page reports about how innocent someone is.

The world is too far gone for me to be happy with how fucked up it is.

He is a man with power who was accused of rape in a society where men who are accused of rape usually are guilty of it but get away with it. And women are constantly sexually assaulted and abused, and people think it is ok cause it is just 'boys being boys'.

That also answers the context. That he is a Republican and multiple republicans are rapists and get away with it, like Trump and Moore is also context.

Guilty of being a rapist and an incompetent pathetic sack of shit. Guilty or Innocent he has no place on the Supreme Court. (Or any court)

I want one where justice is sought evenly and for the sake of justice, and where accused rapists arent running the country. I want one where we dont say stupid shit like 'innocent until proven guilty (despite all the evidence of guilty)' and go 'We dont know and we should make sure we do'

I would apply equality. Equality means equal. It doesnt mean we treat rapists the same as people who stand up to rapists, it means we punish rapists fairly, and dont excuse rapists with an (R) next to their name. Trump, Kavanaugh and Moore deserve to rot with Cosby and Weinstein.

Kavanaugh is protected by a corrupt government. If we want to fix the government, we need to rethink the protections of evil people in government. Kavanaugh needs to be toppled along with Trump, McConnel, Pence, Graham and Putin.

Anyone who thinks Trump is innocent is lying.

TheIronRuler:
...combined with Trump-hysteria.

"Trump hysteria" (or "Trump derangement syndrome") doesn't really exist. It is just a term made up by Trump supporters - many of whom were acting in a similar fashion when Obama was in charge - to rhetorically delegitimise criticism of Trump and his policies.

It's also effectively just ad hominem abuse: a veiled way of calling other people stupid, ignorant or irrational.

Agema:

"Trump hysteria" (or "Trump derangement syndrome") doesn't really exist. It is just a term made up by Trump supporters - many of whom were acting in a similar fashion when Obama was in charge - to rhetorically delegitimise criticism of Trump and his policies.

It's also effectively just ad hominem abuse: a veiled way of calling other people stupid, ignorant or irrational.

Only tangentially related, but I saw some silly article on the internet the other day where the author claimed they were afraid that Trump wouldn't relinquish power if he lost in 2020, and it was like deja vu. That was stupid when they said it about Obama and it's still stupid now. Just, on the topic of people acting like that when Obama was in charge, there's a fun little example of history repeating itself.

And we've got new legal opinions on the Mueller report. Several hundred former Justice Department officials released an open letter several hours ago, posted to Medium, wherein the signatures and credentials can also be viewed. The signatories vary in both administration and experience. In terms of their roles with the DoJ, the range goes from Senior Trial Counsel and Assistant US Attorney to the Assistant Director, to the Chief of Criminal Division Northern District of California, the Deputy Chief Public Corruption and Organized Crime, to the Chief of the Narcotics Division...there are even a few judges on there. In terms of when they served, collectively the signatories have had roles in every administration since Eisenhower.

The factor uniting them all is a shared sentiment, written as follows:

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming.

They go on to explain some select points, but which they note is not intended to be an exhaustive list. They conclude as follows, in what seems to be in part a repudiation of not only Trump and his base's claims of exoneration but also Barr's characterization of the report:

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice - the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution - runs counter to logic and our experience.

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction - which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished - puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

The entire thing clocks in at a little over 900 words (minus the signatory names and credentials), so it's not an especially long read.

tstorm823:

Agema:

"Trump hysteria" (or "Trump derangement syndrome") doesn't really exist. It is just a term made up by Trump supporters - many of whom were acting in a similar fashion when Obama was in charge - to rhetorically delegitimise criticism of Trump and his policies.

It's also effectively just ad hominem abuse: a veiled way of calling other people stupid, ignorant or irrational.

Only tangentially related, but I saw some silly article on the internet the other day where the author claimed they were afraid that Trump wouldn't relinquish power if he lost in 2020, and it was like deja vu. That was stupid when they said it about Obama and it's still stupid now. Just, on the topic of people acting like that when Obama was in charge, there's a fun little example of history repeating itself.

Except Trump has constantly broken laws and rules and often refuses to submit to proper authority.

Obama did not do those things.

Trump actively obstructs and attempts to obstruct justice and law.

Saelune:
Except Trump has constantly broken laws and rules and often refuses to submit to proper authority.

Obama did not do those things.

Trump actively obstructs and attempts to obstruct justice and law.

Putting that aside, Trump has also spoken about being PotUS for longer than his theoretical maximum 2 terms, and encourages violence from his supporters. Fight back, play rough, second amendment solution etc. Now, that's probably just in the hopes that some of his deplorables will commit terror acts for him against journalists and the like, though.

Thaluikhain:

Saelune:
Except Trump has constantly broken laws and rules and often refuses to submit to proper authority.

Obama did not do those things.

Trump actively obstructs and attempts to obstruct justice and law.

Putting that aside, Trump has also spoken about being PotUS for longer than his theoretical maximum 2 terms, and encourages violence from his supporters. Fight back, play rough, second amendment solution etc. Now, that's probably just in the hopes that some of his deplorables will commit terror acts for him against journalists and the like, though.

If Trump wants his '2 years back' he needs to give back all the years he stole from children who he took from their families. Going to be real difficult to give back the years from the kids Trump MURDERED by neglecting them in custody until they died.

Thaluikhain:

Saelune:
Except Trump has constantly broken laws and rules and often refuses to submit to proper authority.

Obama did not do those things.

Trump actively obstructs and attempts to obstruct justice and law.

Putting that aside, Trump has also spoken about being PotUS for longer than his theoretical maximum 2 terms, and encourages violence from his supporters. Fight back, play rough, second amendment solution etc. Now, that's probably just in the hopes that some of his deplorables will commit terror acts for him against journalists and the like, though.

Trump had members of the militia group that took over government buildings in Oregon (Oregon standoff) who were charged with sedition against the US working for his campaign, then he pardoned them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44775113
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jimdalrympleii/former-trump-campaigner-sent-to-prison-for-conspiring-with
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396273-trump-pardons-oregon-ranchers-at-center-of-40-day-standoff

It was Trumps long time friend and Attorney who said he worries Trump won't leave office peacefully.

President Donald Trump?s former lawyer Michael Cohen on Wednesday says he fears that Trump will not concede the White House if he loses the 2020 presidential election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/michael-cohen-i-fear-trump-wont-give-up-the-white-house-if-he-loses-in-2020.html

I dunno, I think he will be forced to leave peacefully... hell may even take his "Trump force one" to Russia so he can't be extradited. He seems to have plenty of friends there. Once he is out of office he no longer has "executive privilege" and charges can move forward.

Saelune:
So you think Ford was raped then?

I don't know, and I don't think I can know. It's very likely that her testimony was inaccurate, however. It might be as simple as misidentifying her assailant, or her mixing up the circumstances in such a way that explains why the others she claims were present all deny it. Or it could have been fabricated, in whole or in part.

Hence innocence by default, all around.

Saelune:
He is not lawful anything.

He achieved sufficient votes to receive enough electoral votes, therefore he is the lawfully elected president unless you have evidence that the vote was tampered with in some fashion, and no people making Clinton look bad on Facebook or Twitter is not vote tampering.

Besides, you should be happy - Facebook is already on track with purging "dangerous" users, with an almost transparent goal of trying to steer public discourse.

Saelune:
Seriously, you will admit he is all the bad things short of criminal?

I've always admitted he is a more or less shitty president and a narcissist and all kinds of awful in a personal sense.

Saelune:
I also think you do think he is guilty and just want to defend him. Or you never think anyone is guilty of anything. You dont make 400 page reports about how innocent someone is.

I think we don't have enough evidence to convince the GOP majority Senate to vote that he's guilty, which is ultimately all that matters until he leaves office. Maybe 2020 will change the Senate in such a way as to make that much more likely should Trump win a second term, or if he doesn't win a second term there's always the possibility of simply arresting him if there's enough to get a DA to charge him.

Saelune:
He is a man with power who was accused of rape in a society where men who are accused of rape usually are guilty of it but get away with it. And women are constantly sexually assaulted and abused, and people think it is ok cause it is just 'boys being boys'.

That also answers the context. That he is a Republican and multiple republicans are rapists and get away with it, like Trump and Moore is also context.

Just to clarify, you are saying that being male and being Republican are evidence that he is a rapist?

Saelune:
Guilty or Innocent he has no place on the Supreme Court. (Or any court)

There are arguments for why he shouldn't be on the court that aren't about an unprovable rape accusation. If R&P hadn't been killed, I could even point to my saying as much (and also predicting they were going to ram him through as soon as they could due to Gamble v US) back during the confirmation hearings.

Saelune:
I would apply equality. Equality means equal.

Oh, so you support harsher criminal punishments for women? About half again worse than at current? Because there's a noticeable gender gap there (bigger than the one for race) and you *clearly* don't want men as a class punished less.

Saelune:
It doesnt mean we treat rapists the same as people who stand up to rapists,

Instead, it means that if accused of a crime, you should have to conclusively prove you couldn't possibly have done it or else face punishment. Even if so, that might not be enough, because anyone accusing you of a crime might just have the details wrong, and should be allowed to leave as many vague spots as they want and their statement should be subject to as many modifications as they desire.

Imagine I asked you to prove that you didn't steal a cookie form a cookie jar that time when you were 8ish. When? I'm not sure. Whose cookie jar? Not sure. But you need to prove conclusively that you couldn't have stolen any cookie from any cookie jar that might exist anywhere you could reasonably have been or you are guilty. Because justice means we don't treat cookie thieves the same as we do people accusing others of stealing cookies, we assume they stole the cookies unless they can conclusively prove otherwise (or else they wouldn't have been accused!) and punish them appropriately!

It's a silly analogy, but by dragging it away from such an emotionally charged crime I'm hoping you might see why that's not justice.

Saelune:
it means we punish rapists fairly, and dont excuse rapists with an (R) next to their name. Trump, Kavanaugh and Moore deserve to rot with Cosby and Weinstein.

Sure, punish away! But only after you can prove that they committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats the sticky part that you want to replace with public accusations leading directly to punishment.

Lil devils x:
I disagree that to refer to one as being a "Nazi" has to mean that they were from WW2 Germany, If someones ideology, actions, align with Nazi Beliefs, they too would be considered a "Nazi".

...or if they wear a red hat, or don't give the right answer when you ask if they're proud...

Lil devils x:
As for " Trump Hysteria", what exactly do you think that is? People having genuine issues with the very bad practices and policies is not "hysteria".

My personal favorite example for "Trump Hysteria" or "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or what have you comes from the elections:

image

4 hour gap between the tweets - the first was when she was still expecting Clinton to win.

Lil devils x:

I dunno, I think he will be forced to leave peacefully... hell may even take his "Trump force one" to Russia so he can't be extradited. He seems to have plenty of friends there. Once he is out of office he no longer has "executive privilege" and charges can move forward.

Fleeing to Russia (or somewhere else that won't extradite him) just before the end of his term to avoid arrest was another thing I suggested he might do back on R&P before it was shuttered, whether that's in 2020 or 2024. I still stand by that being far more likely than his trying to hold the office regardless of normal succession, or demand unprecedented emergency powers or what have you that people who see him as a second coming of Hitler rather than just a shitty president are wont to predict.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
So you think Ford was raped then?

I don't know, and I don't think I can know. It's very likely that her testimony was inaccurate, however. It might be as simple as misidentifying her assailant, or her mixing up the circumstances in such a way that explains why the others she claims were present all deny it. Or it could have been fabricated, in whole or in part.

Hence innocence by default, all around.

Saelune:
He is not lawful anything.

He achieved sufficient votes to receive enough electoral votes, therefore he is the lawfully elected president unless you have evidence that the vote was tampered with in some fashion, and no people making Clinton look bad on Facebook or Twitter is not vote tampering.

Besides, you should be happy - Facebook is already on track with purging "dangerous" users, with an almost transparent goal of trying to steer public discourse.

Saelune:
Seriously, you will admit he is all the bad things short of criminal?

I've always admitted he is a more or less shitty president and a narcissist and all kinds of awful in a personal sense.

Saelune:
I also think you do think he is guilty and just want to defend him. Or you never think anyone is guilty of anything. You dont make 400 page reports about how innocent someone is.

I think we don't have enough evidence to convince the GOP majority Senate to vote that he's guilty, which is ultimately all that matters until he leaves office. Maybe 2020 will change the Senate in such a way as to make that much more likely should Trump win a second term, or if he doesn't win a second term there's always the possibility of simply arresting him if there's enough to get a DA to charge him.

Saelune:
He is a man with power who was accused of rape in a society where men who are accused of rape usually are guilty of it but get away with it. And women are constantly sexually assaulted and abused, and people think it is ok cause it is just 'boys being boys'.

That also answers the context. That he is a Republican and multiple republicans are rapists and get away with it, like Trump and Moore is also context.

Just to clarify, you are saying that being male and being Republican are evidence that he is a rapist?

Saelune:
Guilty or Innocent he has no place on the Supreme Court. (Or any court)

There are arguments for why he shouldn't be on the court that aren't about an unprovable rape accusation. If R&P hadn't been killed, I could even point to my saying as much (and also predicting they were going to ram him through as soon as they could due to Gamble v US) back during the confirmation hearings.

Saelune:
I would apply equality. Equality means equal.

Oh, so you support harsher criminal punishments for women? About half again worse than at current? Because there's a noticeable gender gap there (bigger than the one for race) and you *clearly* don't want men as a class punished less.

Saelune:
It doesnt mean we treat rapists the same as people who stand up to rapists,

Instead, it means that if accused of a crime, you should have to conclusively prove you couldn't possibly have done it or else face punishment. Even if so, that might not be enough, because anyone accusing you of a crime might just have the details wrong, and should be allowed to leave as many vague spots as they want and their statement should be subject to as many modifications as they desire.

Imagine I asked you to prove that you didn't steal a cookie form a cookie jar that time when you were 8ish. When? I'm not sure. Whose cookie jar? Not sure. But you need to prove conclusively that you couldn't have stolen any cookie from any cookie jar that might exist anywhere you could reasonably have been or you are guilty. Because justice means we don't treat cookie thieves the same as we do people accusing others of stealing cookies, we assume they stole the cookies unless they can conclusively prove otherwise (or else they wouldn't have been accused!) and punish them appropriately!

It's a silly analogy, but by dragging it away from such an emotionally charged crime I'm hoping you might see why that's not justice.

Saelune:
it means we punish rapists fairly, and dont excuse rapists with an (R) next to their name. Trump, Kavanaugh and Moore deserve to rot with Cosby and Weinstein.

Sure, punish away! But only after you can prove that they committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats the sticky part that you want to replace with public accusations leading directly to punishment.

Lil devils x:
I disagree that to refer to one as being a "Nazi" has to mean that they were from WW2 Germany, If someones ideology, actions, align with Nazi Beliefs, they too would be considered a "Nazi".

...or if they wear a red hat, or don't give the right answer when you ask if they're proud...

Lil devils x:
As for " Trump Hysteria", what exactly do you think that is? People having genuine issues with the very bad practices and policies is not "hysteria".

My personal favorite example for "Trump Hysteria" or "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or what have you comes from the elections:

image

4 hour gap between the tweets - the first was when she was still expecting Clinton to win.

Lil devils x:

I dunno, I think he will be forced to leave peacefully... hell may even take his "Trump force one" to Russia so he can't be extradited. He seems to have plenty of friends there. Once he is out of office he no longer has "executive privilege" and charges can move forward.

Fleeing to Russia (or somewhere else that won't extradite him) just before the end of his term to avoid arrest was another thing I suggested he might do back on R&P before it was shuttered, whether that's in 2020 or 2024. I still stand by that being far more likely than his trying to hold the office regardless of normal succession, or demand unprecedented emergency powers or what have you that people who see him as a second coming of Hitler rather than just a shitty president are won't to predict.

You don't know? You seemed pretty sure before, now you don't know? Crazy idea, but maybe instead of 'Innocent (despite all the evidence) until proven guilty' why not 'We don't know and will do everything we can to find out and punish who needs to be punished fairly'.

The evidence is that Russia meddled. Regardless if Trump 'knew', it is not questioned that Russia meddled. Well, not questioned by anyone reasonable.

You defend him constantly. Just as Trump does a bad job of proving he is innocent, you do a bad job of proving you arent pro-Trump.

We do have enough evidence though. We punished both Clintons more for less.

No, that the Republican party is run by male rapists and he is now a top Republican accused of rape is why he is likely a rapist. Kind of like how friends of KKK members are probably also racist.

I miss my 'civility' topic from R&P. It is still so relevant. I wish I saved it, some of my best writing. I also lost alot of evidence I had been holding of people saying some fucked up shit.

Thats a strawman right there and you know it. I support fair punishment, and our current system of punishment is unfair and erratic. I think people are being unevenly punished for the same things, and others not being punished at all when they should be. Black MEN are punished too severely by our legal system. But MRAs never want to defend the rights of BLACK or GAY men, do they?

Eating cookies is not the same as raping someone.

We are far beyond reasonable doubt. The people who think he is innocent are the unreasonable doubters.

You dont want to play the 'Before and After' game with Trump. He literally has a subreddit dedicated primarily to pointing out his hypocrisy before and after he became President.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

Also here is Lindsey Graham before and after Trump's Presidency.

Schadrach:
My personal favorite example for "Trump Hysteria" or "Trump Derangement Syndrome"...

Not bothering to rewrite:

Agema:

"Trump hysteria" (or "Trump derangement syndrome") doesn't really exist. It is just a term made up by Trump supporters - many of whom were acting in a similar fashion when Obama was in charge - to rhetorically delegitimise criticism of Trump and his policies.

It's also effectively just ad hominem abuse: a veiled way of calling other people stupid, ignorant or irrational.

Schadrach:
Besides, you should be happy - Facebook is already on track with purging "dangerous" users, with an almost transparent goal of trying to steer public discourse.

...to the centre, presumably, considering they banned a load of left-wing contributors too. But it's only noticed or a problem when Alex Jones and Milo get banned, eh?

Trump supporters have no right to bitch about shutting people up. Trump supporters are by definition anti-free speech. The real problem is that they pretend otherwise.

Hypocrisy is one of if not the geatest sin, because you cant REASON with a hypocrite, because they literally defy it. A reasonable person, even with horrible views, atleast follows a logic to it.

Agema:

Not bothering to rewrite:

I used Laci as an example of a phenomenon though, there were a lot of folks talking about how "regardless of the outcome" we needed to unite and heal from the divisive election, right up until the results, then turned hard, started the screaming and gnashing of teeth and many of them haven't let up since.

It happened with Obama as well, but not on the same scale or severity. It wasn't really a thing before Obama, at least not on any scale. I actually worry if Trump wins 2020 that those same folks are going to do something stupid and violent -- it's far more likely than Trump refusing to leave office if he loses.

Agema:

...to the centre, presumably, considering they banned a load of left-wing contributors too. But it's only noticed or a problem when Alex Jones and Milo get banned, eh?

Weird that basically no one that reported on the "dangerous" accounts banned from all Facebook owned services included them, just some of the typical far right accounts I've come to expect that to happen to and Louis Farrakhan. Given I read about it on MIT Technology Review and cross referenced against BBC and NPR, I'm guessing that's *not* because I read it in a far right rag. Then again, I suspect you're counting left accounts who explicitly broke TOS on one service being banned from just that service, and for it to be "a bunch", I'm guessing you're probably including temp bans too.

It's also worth noting that the "dangerous" bans were announced to the press ahead of being banned, and it was Facebook who called them "dangerous individuals."

Saelune:
You don't know? You seemed pretty sure before, now you don't know? Crazy idea, but maybe instead of 'Innocent (despite all the evidence) until proven guilty' why not 'We don't know and will do everything we can to find out and punish who needs to be punished fairly'.

I don't know, but it's more likely Ford's testimony is inaccurate. But then all the evidence against Kavanaugh is her testimony, and the evidence against her is Kavanaugh's testimony and the other three people she named as being at the party (all of whom said they don't recall such a party at all, and the friend went so far as to say she'd never met Kavanaugh and had never been at any party with Kavanaugh ever), as well as his shitty calendar (which if we had any idea when the party happened would tell us what he was supposedly doing then, which would in turn tell us who (if anyone) could corroborate that).

The whole reason for the presumption of innocence is sometimes you don't or can't know, and if you can't know it's better to let the guilty go than to punish the innocent. Because in the other direction lies clear injustice and tragedy.

If you allow for a single testimony to determine guilt, or presume guilt unless the accused can conclusively prove they aren't guilty, that way lies literal witch trials. Perhaps we should start accepting spectral evidence of rape too? We've already had someone convicted of rape who spent nearly 3 decades in prison before being exonerated because the accuser identified him in a dream (Clarence Moses-EL, in CO).

EDIT:

Saelune:

The evidence is that Russia meddled. Regardless if Trump 'knew', it is not questioned that Russia meddled. Well, not questioned by anyone reasonable.

Sure, Russia posted stuff online that made Clinton look bad, and apparently stole Clinton campaign data to decide where and when to target it. They obtained the evidence of the "funding agreement" that was basically Clinton buying the nomination and passed it to Wikileaks (which in turn turned off a lot of Dem voters, especially Bernie fans).

But that doesn't change what I was getting at - he was legally elected unless you have evidence of someone tampering with the voting process, which there's a lack of - just evidence of a Russian propaganda campaign involving both typical smear ads against Clinton and stuff like "Black Businesses Matter" from accounts like "Black 4 Black." Accounts like "Feminism_Tag" and "Rainbow_Nation_US" are also known Russian accounts that are part of that propaganda campaign, but so were accounts like "Back the Badge" and "Army of Jesus". They just shotgunned anything they thought might be divisive where they thought it would get a reaction.

Saelune:
No, that the Republican party is run by male rapists and he is now a top Republican accused of rape is why he is likely a rapist.

OK, so you aren't arguing based on the available testimony and limited evidence, you're arguing for collective guilt based on what demographics you belong to.

That would be akin to me saying ObsidianJones (sorry for using you as an example) is a killer and a robber because statistically people of his particular demographics constitute just over half of the total rate of arrest for each of those crimes (per FBI UCR stats). To be clear, I'm explicitly *NOT* saying that about him, because I don't believe in collective guilt on the basis of demography.

Saelune:
Black MEN are punished too severely by our legal system. But MRAs never want to defend the rights of BLACK or GAY men, do they?

You'll notice that MRAs are all about the gender gaps in the justice system. There are also racial gaps in the justice system, as well. Interestingly, despite how social justice types like using racial gaps in the justice system as evidence that blacks are oppressed, the gender gaps are larger, harm men and are mysteriously not worth talking about.

Interestingly, the gender gaps in the justice system are actually larger than the racial ones, so gender equality in sentencing would do more to help black men than racial equality in sentencing. Social justice types tend not to give a fuck about the gender gap there though, since it goes the "wrong" way.

Saelune:
Eating cookies is not the same as raping someone.

Literally why I chose it for the hypothetical - the whole point was to draw you away from the emotional impact of rape and over to something where we can talk about what should be required for guilt and innocence more generally and abstractly. Unless you are making the argument rape should be treated differently than any other crime and for rape and rape alone guilt should be presumed, and accuser testimony should be unassailable absolute proof.

Saelune:
You dont want to play the 'Before and After' game with Trump. He literally has a subreddit dedicated primarily to pointing out his hypocrisy before and after he became President.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

Yes, in addition to being a shitty president, Trump is also a hypocrite. That doesn't justify so many people following suit and switching from calmly talking about the need to heal from the divisive election "regardless of the result" to gnashing of teeth and screaming about the rise of another Hitler in the course of a few hours.

Let's hope he doesn't win another term. Hell, maybe the world will go completely mad and that guy running against Trump will end up the GOP nominee. It's wildly unlikely, but one can hope - Trump could always have a heart attack before the next election.

Schadrach:
It happened with Obama as well, but not on the same scale or severity.

[citation needed]

I suppose the birther movement, Kenyan Muslim, Obama's a socialist tyrant trying to bring down the USA and ominous "2nd amendment solutions" stuff was totally not at all hysterical.

Weird that basically no one that reported on the "dangerous" accounts banned from all Facebook owned services included them, just some of the typical far right accounts I've come to expect that to happen to and Louis Farrakhan.

No, it's not weird. It's a representation of the grip that right wing commentators had attained in terms of public notice, both in terms of viewership and sensationalist nature of their content, and how good they've been at attracting attention and portraying themselves as if they're unique victims of political suppression.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
You don't know? You seemed pretty sure before, now you don't know? Crazy idea, but maybe instead of 'Innocent (despite all the evidence) until proven guilty' why not 'We don't know and will do everything we can to find out and punish who needs to be punished fairly'.

I don't know, but it's more likely Ford's testimony is inaccurate. But then all the evidence against Kavanaugh is her testimony, and the evidence against her is Kavanaugh's testimony and the other three people she named as being at the party (all of whom said they don't recall such a party at all, and the friend went so far as to say she'd never met Kavanaugh and had never been at any party with Kavanaugh ever), as well as his shitty calendar (which if we had any idea when the party happened would tell us what he was supposedly doing then, which would in turn tell us who (if anyone) could corroborate that).

The whole reason for the presumption of innocence is sometimes you don't or can't know, and if you can't know it's better to let the guilty go than to punish the innocent. Because in the other direction lies clear injustice and tragedy.

If you allow for a single testimony to determine guilt, or presume guilt unless the accused can conclusively prove they aren't guilty, that way lies literal witch trials. Perhaps we should start accepting spectral evidence of rape too? We've already had someone convicted of rape who spent nearly 3 decades in prison before being exonerated because the accuser identified him in a dream (Clarence Moses-EL, in CO).

EDIT:

Saelune:

The evidence is that Russia meddled. Regardless if Trump 'knew', it is not questioned that Russia meddled. Well, not questioned by anyone reasonable.

Sure, Russia posted stuff online that made Clinton look bad, and apparently stole Clinton campaign data to decide where and when to target it. They obtained the evidence of the "funding agreement" that was basically Clinton buying the nomination and passed it to Wikileaks (which in turn turned off a lot of Dem voters, especially Bernie fans).

But that doesn't change what I was getting at - he was legally elected unless you have evidence of someone tampering with the voting process, which there's a lack of - just evidence of a Russian propaganda campaign involving both typical smear ads against Clinton and stuff like "Black Businesses Matter" from accounts like "Black 4 Black." Accounts like "Feminism_Tag" and "Rainbow_Nation_US" are also known Russian accounts that are part of that propaganda campaign, but so were accounts like "Back the Badge" and "Army of Jesus". They just shotgunned anything they thought might be divisive where they thought it would get a reaction.

Saelune:
No, that the Republican party is run by male rapists and he is now a top Republican accused of rape is why he is likely a rapist.

OK, so you aren't arguing based on the available testimony and limited evidence, you're arguing for collective guilt based on what demographics you belong to.

That would be akin to me saying ObsidianJones (sorry for using you as an example) is a killer and a robber because statistically people of his particular demographics constitute just over half of the total rate of arrest for each of those crimes (per FBI UCR stats). To be clear, I'm explicitly *NOT* saying that about him, because I don't believe in collective guilt on the basis of demography.

Saelune:
Black MEN are punished too severely by our legal system. But MRAs never want to defend the rights of BLACK or GAY men, do they?

You'll notice that MRAs are all about the gender gaps in the justice system. There are also racial gaps in the justice system, as well. Interestingly, despite how social justice types like using racial gaps in the justice system as evidence that blacks are oppressed, the gender gaps are larger, harm men and are mysteriously not worth talking about.

Interestingly, the gender gaps in the justice system are actually larger than the racial ones, so gender equality in sentencing would do more to help black men than racial equality in sentencing. Social justice types tend not to give a fuck about the gender gap there though, since it goes the "wrong" way.

Saelune:
Eating cookies is not the same as raping someone.

Literally why I chose it for the hypothetical - the whole point was to draw you away from the emotional impact of rape and over to something where we can talk about what should be required for guilt and innocence more generally and abstractly. Unless you are making the argument rape should be treated differently than any other crime and for rape and rape alone guilt should be presumed, and accuser testimony should be unassailable absolute proof.

Saelune:
You dont want to play the 'Before and After' game with Trump. He literally has a subreddit dedicated primarily to pointing out his hypocrisy before and after he became President.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

Yes, in addition to being a shitty president, Trump is also a hypocrite. That doesn't justify so many people following suit and switching from calmly talking about the need to heal from the divisive election "regardless of the result" to gnashing of teeth and screaming about the rise of another Hitler in the course of a few hours.

Let's hope he doesn't win another term. Hell, maybe the world will go completely mad and that guy running against Trump will end up the GOP nominee. It's wildly unlikely, but one can hope - Trump could always have a heart attack before the next election.

Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Until Kavanaugh is formally tried and found innocent, he should not be on the top judicial court of the whole country. If you really cared about law, you would support an actual trial.

Unfortunate. Doesn't make up for all the women raped and murdered and no one believing them. Funny how people suggest 'one example doesn't mean its true' until one example supports them.

If Trump's presidency is legal, then the law is shitty. Legal doesn't equal justified. Only robots think otherwise. Slavery was legal once.

Republicans argue that all the time. I am just treating Republicans the way they treat other people then.

Progressives don't try to sugar coat men's rights as only straight white men's rights. We fight for men's rights by fighting for the rights of LGBT people and people of color. Gay rights IS men's rights. And go figure, work to make women and men equal, you're also fighting for men's rights. MRA's arent for men equality, they are for men's superiority. And you know that.

As long as we live in a country run by rapists, and the law defends and protects rapists, I am not going to take the word of accused rapists. When the law is equal and fair, I will adjust, but until then, I see how things are and I wont play dumb.

If you believed that, you would be mad at Trump. Trump is an uncivil, vile, insulting piece of divisive garbage. Turnabout is fair play.

Saelune:
Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Until Kavanaugh is formally tried and found innocent, he should not be on the top judicial court of the whole country. If you really cared about law, you would support an actual trial.

So basically, since Ford accused him publicly but refused to report a crime to the state police (which she could have done at any time, even now - Kavanaugh is not immune to the law, especially state law), he should just be permanently barred from the position? You see, that's the thing, when it stopped being politically valuable, suddenly everyone decided it wasn't worth pursuing, Ford included. Montgomery County Department of Police is even on record saying that they stand ready to investigate should any alleged victim file a complaint. Though it's noteworthy that because attempted rape and assault were misdemeanors in that state in 1982 (and you don't get to apply law that wasn't on the books at the time of the conduct), the statute of limitations has long since passed on those, though he could possibly be charged with assault with the intent to rape (which was a felony in 1982).

At the same time, I do support an actual trial, all Ford has to do is report it to the state police - state police don't act on media statements or statements before Congress. And then after investigation a district attorney has to decide there's a chance in hell of a conviction (which unless they get way more info than was made public which uniformly makes Kavanaugh look guilty, is itself unlikely). But that would imply that anyone (even Ford herself) cares one whit about the accusation beyond its political value.

Oh, speaking of "he was accused, so he shouldn't be allowed to have the position until he can conclusively prove otherwise", there were two "feminist art projects" back in the 90s worth some attention. At Oberlin, "Rapist of the Month" posters went up declaring a randomly selected male student to be a rapist. At University of Maryland, it was a listing of nearly every male student under the heading "NOTICE: THESE MEN ARE POTENTIAL RAPISTS." What jobs should they be banned from?

Saelune:
Unfortunate. Doesn't make up for all the women raped and murdered and no one believing them. Funny how people suggest 'one example doesn't mean its true' until one example supports them.

I just happened upon an example that was conveniently recent. It's far from the only example of presumed guilt going wrong. The problem is that I can find tons and tons of examples of wrongful convictions for sex crimes, and tons of examples of people being subjected to violence for being accused of sex crimes. Also, to be fair, if someone told me they were murdered, I wouldn't believe them either.

I'd make a joke about how we could improve conviction rates for rape by allowing spectral evidence ala 17th century witch trials, but there was a fairly recent case where a guy spent 28 years in jail because a woman identified him as her rapist after she dreamed his face (turns out he didn't do it). Though that's a good example of why presuming innocence for Kavanaugh is not presuming guilt for Ford -- no one argued that the woman in the dream case wasn't raped and just made the whole thing up, but she still managed to get someone who did not rape her thrown in prison for nearly 3 decades. By misidentifying him, based on a dream.

Saelune:
If Trump's presidency is legal, then the law is shitty. Legal doesn't equal justified. Only robots think otherwise. Slavery was legal once.

He got enough electoral votes to win the election, and no one has shown any real proof of tampering with the vote (and no, social media propaganda [Russian or otherwise] is not tampering with the vote). So, shitty as he is, he's who we elected and who we're stuck with until either A) he serves two terms, B) he does not get reelected after this term, C) both houses of congress can be convinced to vote to remove him from office, D) he dies or becomes otherwise incapable of holding office or E) he resigns. I'm listing those in what I think is the order of likelihood.

Personally, I'm hoping for B because C is highly unlikely with a GOP congress (which could but is unlikely to flip in 2020), D is either an assassination or blind luck, E is extremely unlikely. But B requires either the other GOP candidate (who is comparatively quite moderate and reasonable) to miraculously beat Trump in the primaries or the Dems to put forth a candidate who can actually win enough electoral votes (which means not totally alienating everyone who isn't in a coastal metro area).

On the upside, once he's out of office, he could be arrested and charged with anything there's enough evidence for, and that process is very much less a matter of party politics than impeachment.

Saelune:
Progressives don't try to sugar coat men's rights as only straight white men's rights.

No, instead they only care about men's rights at *all* when those men happen to be in another demographic they actually care about and what they're fighting for is primarily about benefiting that other demographic, some of whom just happen to be men. Literally an afterthought, an accident of intersectionality.

You'll notice MRAs don't pretend it's only straight men's rights, they just only focus on things that effect men related to gender. For example the gender sentencing gap effects black men specifically more than other men, simply because black men have worse crime stats. If tomorrow the racial sentencing gap were to vanish but the gender sentencing gap were to remain (men of all colors receiving similar sentences but longer sentences than women of any color), fighting the sentencing gap would suddenly and sharply cease to be "progressive" and magically become "reactionary."

Saelune:
And go figure, work to make women and men equal, you're also fighting for men's rights. MRA's arent for men equality, they are for men's superiority. And you know that.

You mean like the idea that in contested custody cases, courts should start from a position that shared custody is best for the child, unless there's a good reason it should be otherwise? Because the largest feminist lobby organization in the US refers to those who promote that idea as the "abuser's lobby" and essentially argues that the only reason men would want custody of their children is to use them as an instrument to abuse their ex. Definitely male supremacy there, wanting the courts to start from the position of assuming they should have equal access to their children unless there's a good reason otherwise.

I'd remind you that the recent court decision regarding selective service was the result of a suit brought by one of the oldest MRA groups in the US (the National Coalition For Men).

Maybe opening services for abused men, and expecting the same support by the government offered to services for women? Definitely supremacy there.

Or hell, maybe just trying to have a speaker talk at a college campus without anyone threatening violence or pulling fire alarms to silence them? Again, definitely supremacy there.

Hell, a surprising number of MRA issues are "law, policy, or the execution thereof harms men or benefits women disproportionately."

Saelune:
If you believed that, you would be mad at Trump. Trump is an uncivil, vile, insulting piece of divisive garbage. Turnabout is fair play.

Yes, Trump is a lot of kinds of awful. But I'm not willing to destroy the system over one shitty president. That's really the fundamental difference here. He won the office by the rules under which the election is conducted, and there are limited ways to get him out of it. Personally, I'm hoping for "loses the election, arrested by New York police immediately after the inauguration", but there's no guarantees there - it's just the mostly likely possibility that doesn't involve two terms of him in office.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Until Kavanaugh is formally tried and found innocent, he should not be on the top judicial court of the whole country. If you really cared about law, you would support an actual trial.

So basically, since Ford accused him publicly but refused to report a crime to the state police (which she could have done at any time, even now - Kavanaugh is not immune to the law, especially state law), he should just be permanently barred from the position?

Arguing you is really tedious because you keep adding bullshit. I will summarize it with this very point you make here. Because you added the word 'permanently'. Because that is not what I said at all and you threw that word in there as a BS way to dismiss me.

Have a trial. Have a fucking trial. Kavanaugh did not have a trial. If he can be proven innocent in a fair trial, then sure, give him the seat, but UNTIL THEN, he should not be allowed to. But that's not as easy for you to argue against, so you add in something that I did not actually say or mean.

Schadrach:

Yes, Trump is a lot of kinds of awful. But I'm not willing to destroy the system over one shitty president.

Mitch McConnel is though.

Saelune:
Arguing you is really tedious because you keep adding bullshit. I will summarize it with this very point you make here. Because you added the word 'permanently'. Because that is not what I said at all and you threw that word in there as a BS way to dismiss me.

Have a trial. Have a fucking trial. Kavanaugh did not have a trial. If he can be proven innocent in a fair trial, then sure, give him the seat, but UNTIL THEN, he should not be allowed to. But that's not as easy for you to argue against, so you add in something that I did not actually say or mean.

I'm not adding anything, you're simply discarding how the legal system works because you don't like it.

  1. Trial requires the DA to start prosecution.
  2. That requires a police investigation that discovers enough evidence for the DA to believe there is a significant chance of winning.
  3. That requires a crime be reported to the police, as they do not act off of media statements or statements made to other jurisdictions.
  4. In the case of Ford's accusation, this would be her reporting the crime to Montgomery County, MD police. Which she still has every right to do, and all the opportunity she could ever want.

So let's go through this, your trial requires complaint->investigation->charges->trial. This means the whole thing hinges ultimately on Ford making a complaint to Montgomery County, MD police department. You are literally arguing that he should have been barred from the position until she deigns to make said complaint. If she chooses never to (which seems likely, since everyone seems to have simply dropped it when it stopped having political value), then you are arguing he should have been barred from the position permanently.

Even barring all that, with scant few very specific exceptions, no one is proved innocent at trial. The only thing typically determined at trial is if there is sufficient evidence to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

So not only are you arguing that he should be barred from the position until the end of a process that cannot begin until Ford makes a complaint, you are arguing that he should be barred from the position until that process ends in a result that it cannot have. So yes, saying he should be barred from a position until someone who is unlikely to starts a process and that process yields a result it cannot have is in every meaningful way tantamount to saying he should be barred permanently.

It would be like if I said you should be barred from posting until Elon Musk demands an FBI background check on you that shows you are in fact 15th century French scribe Nicolas Flamel - it's totally out of your hands if it even happens, and if it does it's impossible for it to give that result.

Saelune:
Mitch McConnel is though.

McConnell is awful. And up for reelection this time. All that's needed is a Democrat candidate in Kentucky that can actually beat him. There's the challenge - a Democrat that can sell themself to Kentucky. Hint: Gun control sells *really* badly in rural areas, in no small part because of hunting as a cultural phenomenon, nuisance animals and long police response times (it doesn't help that left wingers who want to write gun control laws are often blatantly ignorant of what they're legislating and that is often trivial to demonstrate). Being overtly against the biggest exports from the state is also a bad idea and something you might want to deemphasize.

To be fair, I didn't vote for Shelley Moore Capito either. She was the first woman WV ever sent to Congress, and was more notable than that for being the first Republican WV sent to Congress for a full term since 1942. To be fair, Swint wasn't the best foot the Dems could have put forward. She's also up for reelection and I likely won't vote for her unless the Dems bring someone entirely unpalatable to challenge her.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
Arguing you is really tedious because you keep adding bullshit. I will summarize it with this very point you make here. Because you added the word 'permanently'. Because that is not what I said at all and you threw that word in there as a BS way to dismiss me.

Have a trial. Have a fucking trial. Kavanaugh did not have a trial. If he can be proven innocent in a fair trial, then sure, give him the seat, but UNTIL THEN, he should not be allowed to. But that's not as easy for you to argue against, so you add in something that I did not actually say or mean.

I'm not adding anything, you're simply discarding how the legal system works because you don't like it.

  1. Trial requires the DA to start prosecution.
  2. That requires a police investigation that discovers enough evidence for the DA to believe there is a significant chance of winning.
  3. That requires a crime be reported to the police, as they do not act off of media statements or statements made to other jurisdictions.
  4. In the case of Ford's accusation, this would be her reporting the crime to Montgomery County, MD police. Which she still has every right to do, and all the opportunity she could ever want.

So let's go through this, your trial requires complaint->investigation->charges->trial. This means the whole thing hinges ultimately on Ford making a complaint to Montgomery County, MD police department. You are literally arguing that he should have been barred from the position until she deigns to make said complaint. If she chooses never to (which seems likely, since everyone seems to have simply dropped it when it stopped having political value), then you are arguing he should have been barred from the position permanently.

Even barring all that, with scant few very specific exceptions, no one is proved innocent at trial. The only thing typically determined at trial is if there is sufficient evidence to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

So not only are you arguing that he should be barred from the position until the end of a process that cannot begin until Ford makes a complaint, you are arguing that he should be barred from the position until that process ends in a result that it cannot have. So yes, saying he should be barred from a position until someone who is unlikely to starts a process and that process yields a result it cannot have is in every meaningful way tantamount to saying he should be barred permanently.

Saelune:
Mitch McConnel is though.

McConnell is awful. And up for reelection this time. All that's needed is a Democrat candidate in Kentucky that can actually beat him. There's the challenge - a Democrat that can sell themself to Kentucky. Hint: Gun control sells *really* badly in rural areas, in no small part because of hunting as a cultural phenomenon, nuisance animals and long police response times (it doesn't help that left wingers who want to write gun control laws are often blatantly ignorant of what they're legislating and that is often trivial to demonstrate). Being overtly against the biggest exports from the state is also a bad idea and something you might want to deemphasize.

To be fair, I didn't vote for Shelley Moore Capito either. She was the first woman WV ever sent to Congress, and was more notable than that for being the first Republican WV sent to Congress for a full term since 1942. To be fair, Swint wasn't the best foot the Dems could have put forward. She's also up for reelection and I likely won't vote for her unless the Dems bring someone entirely unpalatable to challenge her.

I am arguing that law without morality is tyranny. If all you have is the law as your excuse for evil men to do evil things, then you're defending evil.

The US is a country founded on taking issue with the current legal system, opposing it, and replacing it with a better one.

Saelune:
I am arguing that law without morality is tyranny. If all you have is the law as your excuse for evil men to do evil things, then you're defending evil.

The US is a country founded on taking issue with the current legal system, opposing it, and replacing it with a better one.

OK, but the parts you seem to want to throw away are kind of important and are there for very very good reasons. And it's not because you actually have an issue with those parts in general, but because in this specific case you want a specific result and those things (like having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) are in the way of the result that you want.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
I am arguing that law without morality is tyranny. If all you have is the law as your excuse for evil men to do evil things, then you're defending evil.

The US is a country founded on taking issue with the current legal system, opposing it, and replacing it with a better one.

OK, but the parts you seem to want to throw away are kind of important and are there for very very good reasons. And it's not because you actually have an issue with those parts in general, but because in this specific case you want a specific result and those things (like having to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) are in the way of the result that you want.

Innocent until proven guilty has let many guilty people go free. Our legal system has always been shit, cause it is not one dedicated to truth. That it is now being used to defend people like Kavanaugh who are directly ruining this country from the top down is what is so infuriating.

A good legal system should want to ensure the guilty are punished fairly and the innocent protected. But our legal system is not about who IS guilty, but who can convince people is the most guilty via manipulation and loop holes. My criticism of the US legal system is not a sudden occurrence, but my volume about it is much louder now.

Saelune:
Innocent until proven guilty has let many guilty people go free.

The reverse punishes the innocent. And it will *never* be perfect, so do you feel it's better to punish the innocent or let free the guilty? If you prefer punishing the innocent, then let me ask you this - is there ever any point in your entire life that you don't have conclusive evidence of where you were and what you were doing then?

Look at the Tracy West / Louis Gonzales case as an example, she accused him of rape, something *clearly* happened to her, if he hadn't had an exceptionally thorough alibi he'd probably be in prison now. Literally, if he hadn't decided to get a sandwich at that deli that day (and instead had set quietly in his car waiting for his kid to get out of school, where he wouldn't have been able to prove he was) there's a good chance he'd be in prison for rape.

What about cases where there's no way of actually determining the truth. Say because it happened a long time ago, the only supporting testimony is missing nearly every relevant detail except that it happened, and testimony from others who were allegedly present say they don't recall the events around the incident happening at all?

A justice system cannot operate on "but he was accused, and I don't like his gender or politics so he needs to face some kind of penalty even if nothing can be proven!"

Saelune:
Our legal system has always been shit, cause it is not one dedicated to truth.

No, it's been based on the requirement that guilt needs to be proven, rather than assumed unless disproven. Because most of the time, you can't conclusively prove the truth.

I've brought this up before and you always dodge it, so I assume you'll do os again but - Imagine the Ford accusation got the investigation and trial you want. What would the investigation look like? What would they investigate and how? What would be enough evidence to go forward to trial, what evidence would be necessary to convict, or what evidence would be needed to exonerate?

Saelune:
A good legal system should want to ensure the guilty are punished fairly and the innocent protected. But our legal system is not about who IS guilty,

No, it's not about who IS guilty, it's about who can be PROVEN guilty before a group of people from the general population. And even then it often fails and punishes parties who were not actually guilty, especially for crimes where there has been a consistent push to make it easier to convict because "too many guilty people go free".

Schadrach:

Saelune:
Innocent until proven guilty has let many guilty people go free.

The reverse punishes the innocent. And it will *never* be perfect, so do you feel it's better to punish the innocent or let free the guilty? If you prefer punishing the innocent, then let me ask you this - is there ever any point in your entire life that you don't have conclusive evidence of where you were and what you were doing then?

Look at the Tracy West / Louis Gonzales case as an example, she accused him of rape, something *clearly* happened to her, if he hadn't had an exceptionally thorough alibi he'd probably be in prison now. Literally, if he hadn't decided to get a sandwich at that deli that day (and instead had set quietly in his car waiting for his kid to get out of school, where he wouldn't have been able to prove he was) there's a good chance he'd be in prison for rape.

What about cases where there's no way of actually determining the truth. Say because it happened a long time ago, the only supporting testimony is missing nearly every relevant detail except that it happened, and testimony from others who were allegedly present say they don't recall the events around the incident happening at all?

A justice system cannot operate on "but he was accused, and I don't like his gender or politics so he needs to face some kind of penalty even if nothing can be proven!"

Saelune:
Our legal system has always been shit, cause it is not one dedicated to truth.

No, it's been based on the requirement that guilt needs to be proven, rather than assumed unless disproven. Because most of the time, you can't conclusively prove the truth.

I've brought this up before and you always dodge it, so I assume you'll do os again but - Imagine the Ford accusation got the investigation and trial you want. What would the investigation look like? What would they investigate and how? What would be enough evidence to go forward to trial, what evidence would be necessary to convict, or what evidence would be needed to exonerate?

Saelune:
A good legal system should want to ensure the guilty are punished fairly and the innocent protected. But our legal system is not about who IS guilty,

No, it's not about who IS guilty, it's about who can be PROVEN guilty before a group of people from the general population. And even then it often fails and punishes parties who were not actually guilty, especially for crimes where there has been a consistent push to make it easier to convict because "too many guilty people go free".

I guess it is good I am not advocating for the reverse. Both versions lead to innocent people suffering. I want a version where we don't make assumptions before we actually investigate. Ya know, a sort of 'moderate' position?

I want a system where we ya know, investigate and work together to find out the truth and punish fairly and accordingly. Where it is not two sides who are not only allowed, but SUPPOSED to do everything they 'legally' can to shit on the other side. A defense attorney is by law required to take their client's side, even if they know they are guilty. That's fucked up.

It would look similar to the job hearing, but without corrupt Republican senators being judge and jury. Probably also involve the FBI investigating the crime. See, its part of their job to do that, despite what Trump or Barr says.

You keep claiming to want to protect innocents and not make assumptions yet defend assumptions that hurt innocent people.

Saelune:
I guess it is good I am not advocating for the reverse. Both versions lead to innocent people suffering. I want a version where we don't make assumptions before we actually investigate. Ya know, a sort of 'moderate' position?

You ultimately have to bias one way or the other. In your "moderate" position, what happens when it's not possible to know one way or the other? Because that's ultimately the problem - sometimes there's lots of evidence and it's obvious one way or the other barring very unlikely circumstances, but often there's not much to go on, or it's impossible to know for sure.

Saelune:
It would look similar to the job hearing, but without corrupt Republican senators being judge and jury. Probably also involve the FBI investigating the crime. See, its part of their job to do that, despite what Trump or Barr says.

Kavanaugh wasn't accused of a crime in federal jurisdiction, so no it's not the FBI's job to do anything with it. Their involvement with Kavanaugh starts and ends with what is essentially an extra-thorough background check. Kavanaugh was accused of committing something that is a violation of Maryland state law and is in Maryland's jurisdiction. Maryland state police typically pass cases to the relevant county agencies, which means (say it with me now) Montgomery County, MD police is the agency that would have authority over the case, if Ford only bothered to make a complaint.

Federal law enforcement doesn't normally investigate or prosecute state crimes.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
I guess it is good I am not advocating for the reverse. Both versions lead to innocent people suffering. I want a version where we don't make assumptions before we actually investigate. Ya know, a sort of 'moderate' position?

You ultimately have to bias one way or the other. In your "moderate" position, what happens when it's not possible to know one way or the other? Because that's ultimately the problem - sometimes there's lots of evidence and it's obvious one way or the other barring very unlikely circumstances, but often there's not much to go on, or it's impossible to know for sure.

Saelune:
It would look similar to the job hearing, but without corrupt Republican senators being judge and jury. Probably also involve the FBI investigating the crime. See, its part of their job to do that, despite what Trump or Barr says.

Kavanaugh wasn't accused of a crime in federal jurisdiction, so no it's not the FBI's job to do anything with it. Their involvement with Kavanaugh starts and ends with what is essentially an extra-thorough background check. Kavanaugh was accused of committing something that is a violation of Maryland state law and is in Maryland's jurisdiction. Maryland state police typically pass cases to the relevant county agencies, which means (say it with me now) Montgomery County, MD police is the agency that would have authority over the case, if Ford only bothered to make a complaint.

Federal law enforcement doesn't normally investigate or prosecute state crimes.

It all depends on the context and situation and what evidence CAN be found.

Supreme Court Justices should not be sitting in power with a plausible rape accusation hanging over them. People who dictate the law should be provenly innocent of destroying the law.

Saelune:
It all depends on the context and situation and what evidence CAN be found.

So, let's just say that evidence points fairly heavily towards a person having committed a crime. Context looks pretty bad. What then? What would happen in your 'moderate position'?

People who dictate the law should be provenly innocent of destroying the law.

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Proven to be an absolute? Does this tie into your 'moderate position'?

Leg End:

Saelune:
It all depends on the context and situation and what evidence CAN be found.

So, let's just say that evidence points fairly heavily towards a person having committed a crime. Context looks pretty bad. What then? What would happen in your 'moderate position'?

People who dictate the law should be provenly innocent of destroying the law.

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Proven to be an absolute? Does this tie into your 'moderate position'?

Is this supposed to be a 'gotcha'? If someone is found guilty of wrongdoing, you punish them fairly.

Saelune:
Is this supposed to be a 'gotcha'? If someone is found guilty of wrongdoing, you punish them fairly.

I'm not talking about someone having already been found guilty, I'm talking about someone who has been accused of a crime. What you've been arguing is that we should not assume someone's innocence until they are found guilty, just because they may "go free". Are you prepared to punish the innocent in your quest to attempt to ensure no guilty man or woman walks free?

Leg End:

Saelune:
Is this supposed to be a 'gotcha'? If someone is found guilty of wrongdoing, you punish them fairly.

I'm not talking about someone having already been found guilty, I'm talking about someone who has been accused of a crime. What you've been arguing is that we should not assume someone's innocence until they are found guilty, just because they may "go free". Are you prepared to punish the innocent in your quest to attempt to ensure no guilty man or woman walks free?

Innocent people are punished already with 'Innocent until proven guilty'. They are punished when the guilty go free and many times get to continue to victimize the actual innocent.

Every case that Kavanaugh gets his and thus Republican's way on is punishing millions if not more innocent people.

Innocent until proven guilty presumes ONE SIDE is right already.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here