Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?



So now the alleged victims are not in the position of weakness and vulnerability because they are thirty years older? Or because they found someone who will turn their weakness into strength and vulnerability into impunity? The someone who didn't care two, five, seven years ago and now he does?



If I didn't do it back then I don't see why I should do it now. Otherwise it will look very much like concealing a crime aka complicity.



I'm the last person to take Kava's side in this story. I can readily believe that he must have done all the things he is charged with. Yet I don't buy that if something surfaces after decades of silence just at the right (or wrong, for the alleged perpetrator) moment it happens just because victims have finally plucked up their hearts and made a step.

No. They are still in a vulnerable position because they will be physically and politically attacked and threatened, will put their careers at risk, etc., for unclear results. Though obviously a professional adult woman will usually be more prepared than a 15-year-old girl.

The answer is probably pretty simple: Supreme Court justice is one of the most important positions in the land, and the culture surrounding sexual assault has only in recent years been trending toward promoting disclosure under any circumstances. Anita Hill came out in 1991 against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, and she was eviscerated by both sides despite the apparent merit of her claims. So why try, right?

Let's imagine (I'm not saying this ever happened) that you sexually assaulted a girl in gymnasium. Let's say, 15 years later, you are approved to the position of teacher or professor at some school somewhere. Is this woman whom you assaulted half a lifetime ago supposed to be stalking you, ready to pounce and lay down large amounts of her own time and money in trying to prevent you from getting a job? To put her reputation on the line, to be labeled as a troublemaker in her own circles? A thousand men could assault a thousand women, and this kind of scenario would play out maybe once. The circumstances change, though, if you are running for a major national political office under public scrutiny. The costs for the accuser are higher, but so are the costs of not speaking up and allowing a predator into office. These deliberations are always very difficult, and you have to see how culture plays a role. Before a few decades ago, adultery would have been seen as far worse than any number of rapes so long as the victims were "loose women", so coming out until historically recently would have been madness irrespective of the strength of the claims. Can you imagine a woman contacting the newspaper Pravda with a report that Premier Khrushchev had groped and digitally penetrated her (I'm not saying this ever happened)? They would have laughed in her face.

Your position of skepticism could not yet reasonably apply even to today's actual social climate going forward, let alone retroactively to erase the uncountable millions of sexual assaults that have been perpetrated up to the present day and within living memory.

If neoliberalism-caused problems lead people to elect someone who promises to fix the problems with more neoliberalism, then I guess that someone can be both a symptom and a cause. And yes, Hillary would not have been too different from that angle, the mainstream democrats just go for neoliberalism light while the republicans want it stronger with much more libertarianism.

I'm not sure how this reflects on what Seamus said in his post. Anyway, a Clinton administration would be better for the country and its people in almost every way, unless you take a wildcard Zizek approach and speculate that the world needs a tragic shock to awaken popular internationalism. Well, we'll get to find out over the next decade if a few years of international fascism on 5 continents can be easily overturned.