Trump Thread

[rory_20_uk]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

[Gilrandir]

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

Fair enough. I on the other hand refer judges to be not to perjure themselves in their assessment for the role.

The charges appeared right at the point it was televised he was being considered. Surely more interesting is the FBI were prevented from investigating? Ascertaining the truth and all that?

[Montmorency]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?



How come that they decided to speak out now? They are ready to put their careers at stake NOW? Is there anyone at power to protect their careers NOW? What about two years ago when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (see above)? Was it OK for a molester to become a D.A.?



1991 =/= 2010, 2013, 2015.



Thus you admit that sexual crimes are no bar for promotion on any under the national level?



You are underestimating the power of the dark side of the force. Laughing was not the thing meant for those who slander the perfect leaders of the best in the world state.

So you totally deny the spinning momentum of the issue under discussion?

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?

Yes. The threshold - again, the threshold for an individual publicly coming out, putting themselves on the line to block the accused perpetrator - is and has always been very high. In recent years, the threshold may have been reduced with cultural change, though even this will affect younger women more intensely than older ones. And yes, the position of Supreme Court justice is almost as important as Prime Minister of most European countries.

More generally, if you haven't noticed, when sexual assault allegations come at against political figures, they often do so when these figures are attempting to elevate their office. The reasons for this should be obvious: the stakes are higher, and the allegations are more visible and more likely to be acted upon (for example, a politician is unlikely to be investigated if you as a victim go to the police to report it quietly). In the end, victims as a group usually just want to move on with their lives. They're not interested in fighting a war, in almost all cases, unless provoked or afforded a unique opportunity. So people who do receive allegations of this type will tend to be influential, rich, high-level in politics and industry - again, because the stakes are higher. And the victims are more likely to be educated professionals anyway, which potentially affords an impetus and advantage.

And in all this, I'd like you to keep the timeline in mind: The allegations were kept undisclosed for weeks because the accuser contacted her representatives with it and explicitly asked them not to publicize it. Ford only revealed herself once the material was leaked. Because Ford understood what she would have to endure if identified, what she will now have to endure for the rest of her working life. And the subsequent accusations were submitted largely because of Ford's example. The metaphors are obvious: a breaking dam, forging a trail... You can expect that there were more (there are always more) who did not come forward because they believed it to be futile (they were correct), or because their fear and discomfort of going under public scrutiny was too great.

Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

If you had someone interviewing for a job, and you pointed out some unsavory things you had heard about their past, and they started crying and screaming about how this is all a conspiracy to smear their perfect name, that they like beer, they LIKE beer, but so does everyone and they were always paragons of virtue and virgins until late at life, lying about basic details of their lives and exaggerating others, sneering at or evading your questions and mocking you for them, basically demanding the job as an entitlement -

a normal interviewer would tell them something like, "Get out of here or I'm calling the cops." This is what I mean when I say Kavanaugh was held to a lower standard than a security guard or fast food manager.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Gilrandir]

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?

Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.

Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.

My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

[Montmorency]

Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.



My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

Gilrandir, I'm not sure I quite understand you. It should be obvious that in a political context sexual assault allegations will always have a political valence. This is by definition almost. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise, unless there were some robust law enforcement/investigative mechanism to automatically investigate every possible angle with non-political expertise, and all political groups have the utmost faith in these.

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.

Questioning the (assumed) victim on their motives defies reason. Humans make odd choices all the time when it comes to emotional trauma, and my brain certainly can't justify judging a woman for waiting three decades to speak out when I still wake up from nightmares of myself forgetting a final (test), and I've been out of college for years!

[Gilrandir]

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.

I'm well into All the kings men by R.P.Warren. Reading it and having seeing how things are done in Ukraine I tend to believe that politicians interested in the issue are always alert for misconducts of any persons liable for a big appointment and are absolutely indifferent to those misconducts if a big appointment never comes. And if this appointment is going to happen/has just happened they are likely to call a Jack Burden and ask him to find all he can on a Judge Irwin (see the mentioned book). So "generated" is too strong a word, but dug out and fanned out of proportions is what I guess is happenning in such cases. The ultimate purpose of such people in the issue under discussion would be to topple Trump (or at least to hurt him as much as possible). So their aims seemed to chime with the victims' coming out. One could argue if it was started by victims and then carried on by political actors or vice versa, but it really doesn't matter much (to me anyway).

Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.

If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

[Husar]

Blablabla, if all the time spent bickering over assumptions had been spent on a proper investigation...

[a completely inoffensive name]

If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

Not if that person is the victim.