Can you show me any prominent democrat who said they are against any investigation?
Consistency and corroboration means they shouldn’t be dismissed
Independent investigations with full transparency
Political parties holding their own members accountable to a standard of ethical behavior instead of the opposing having to do it for them.
That’s where it breaks down because any system will lean in bias towards the accuser or the accused. I would prefer a world where we target the factors that tend to enable sexual assault to begin with. Zero tolerance alcohol policies for athletes, fraternities and sororities would be a start.
I am saying that we shouldn’t politically weaponize sexual assault allegations.
Both Reade and Dr. Ford are credible. In both cases, there are also other factors that extend a benefit of the doubt to the accused.
I will say both cases were not handled consistently, and that is the failing in all of this.
Both women are victims of political tribalism.
Consistency and corroboration means they shouldn’t be dismissed
Independent investigations with full transparency
Political parties holding their own members accountable to a standard of ethical behavior instead of the opposing having to do it for them.
That’s where it breaks down because any system will lean in bias towards the accuser or the accused. I would prefer a world where we target the factors that tend to enable sexual assault to begin with. Zero tolerance alcohol policies for athletes, fraternities and sororities would be a start.
They clearly support investigating Reade. It’s easy to say you are for an investigation while not defining what that investigation should entail while your surrogates actively attack the accuser. Standard playbook.Can you show me any prominent democrat who said they are against any investigation?
Jurisdiction and process will vary by situation, there isn’t a one sized answer.Can you be more specific here? Who does the investigation, and to whom are the findings presented?
The whole point of the #metoo movement was to recognize that the burden of proof standard can prove insurmountable for many victims, and also the notion of holding sexual predators accountable even when the statute of limitations is past. This idea is valid, defendable and righteous when applied to say a Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby, but it can also go too far, as was the case with Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, etc. Since we live in a society that values due process, I reject the idea of social media tribunals and mobs.And it is also not what is meant by "burden of proof". I'm referring to a standard to which the claim should be judged, e.g. beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence.
Again, varies by situation.Ok. Again, please clarify in what manner the parties should obtain the evidence, how it is presented, to whom, what burden of proof does the evidence need to meet, and what action should be taken as a result of meeting that burden.
I want to live in a world where a political party don’t advocate for things when its politically convenient.I think you want to live in a world where inevitable complexity gets simplified out no way helping reduce problems but instead allowing you to live under the fantasy that you have enacted definitive solutions.
They clearly support investigating Reade. It’s easy to say you are for an investigation while not defining what that investigation should entail while your surrogates actively attack the accuser. Standard playbook.
No, they support an investigation in general and this is exactly what we’ve gotten. PBS for example went and interviewed almost six dozen people from Biden’s office.They clearly support investigating Reade. It’s easy to say you are for an investigation while not defining what that investigation should entail while your surrogates actively attack the accuser. Standard playbook.
65 women signed a letter in defense of Kavanaugh and that wasn’t good enough for DemocratsNo, they support an investigation in general and this is exactly what we’ve gotten. PBS for example went and interviewed almost six dozen people from Biden’s office.
We learned that Reade has had a difficult life, people who are down on their luck are easy to kick. You’re just worried that your lame horse may stumble out of the starting gate, same as the last one.This is the main way we learned Reade was a liar, through exactly the sort of investigation we all claimed we wanted. You’re just mad because it turned out to exonerate Biden.
She is an unsympathetic victim.Really? Which prominent Democrats have called for that? It's the media she attracted that has investigated her. You know, the fake news, man. All her lying & conniving? They just made it up! She's the real victim! Blah, blah, blah.
65 women signed a letter in defense of Kavanaugh and that wasn’t good enough for Democrats
No, we learned that a significant number of people throughout her personal and professional life described her as someone who would lie for money or attention. When someone’s entire claim rests on their personal credibility due to zero independent corroboration this discovery renders their accusation no longer credible.We learned that Reade has had a difficult life, people who are down on their luck are easy to kick. You’re just worried that your lame horse may stumble out of the starting gate, same as the last one.
Nonsense. The people PBS interviewed were staff members in the same office, some of whom could speak directly to the events in the office described by Reade. Not a single person who signed the letter for Kavanaugh could do that. Trying to equate the two is either ignorant or dishonest.
No, we learned that a significant number of people throughout her personal and professional life described her as someone who would lie for money or attention. When someone’s entire claim rests on their personal credibility due to zero independent corroboration this discovery renders their accusation no longer credible.
We had just the sort of investigation you claimed you wanted, you’re just mad it exonerated Biden. This is because you never actually cared about the investigation, you just wanted to concern troll about Biden.
Yes, it is funny how the same people lament that they totally wanted to vote for the democrat but unfortunately democrats once again nominated the worst possible person because that person was too liberal/too moderate/too much of an insider/doesn’t have enough experience. Mix and match as needed.The fun part - he would have voted for "blank" if they hadn't chosen " blank" as their candidate.
/lol.
She is an unsympathetic victim.
And there are thousands of women who would write a letter in defense of Trump who is a serial sex offender. get fucked son.65 women signed a letter in defense of Kavanaugh and that wasn’t good enough for Democrats
There is of course a third explanation, that I presented inconvenient facts you have to dismiss because it dismantles your assertion.Nonsense. The people PBS interviewed were staff members in the same office, some of whom could speak directly to the events in the office described by Reade. Not a single person who signed the letter for Kavanaugh could do that. Trying to equate the two is either ignorant or dishonest.
Her claim rests on her corroborate accounts. The rest is an attack on her character.No, we learned that a significant number of people throughout her personal and professional life described her as someone who would lie for money or attention. When someone’s entire claim rests on their personal credibility due to zero independent corroboration this discovery renders their accusation no longer credible.
No we haven’tWe had just the sort of investigation you claimed you wanted, you’re just mad it exonerated Biden. This is because you never actually cared about the investigation, you just wanted to concern troll about Biden.
Edgy. The peanut gallery liked your post.And there are thousands of women who would write a letter in defense of Trump who is a serial sex offender. get fucked son.
I am holding Biden to the standard he advocated for.Or does this call for different standards on your part?
Jurisdiction and process will vary by situation, there isn’t a one sized answer.
The whole point of the #metoo movement was to recognize that the burden of proof standard can prove insurmountable for many victims, and also the notion of holding sexual predators accountable even when the statute of limitations is past. This idea is valid, defendable and righteous when applied to say a Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby, but it can also go too far, as was the case with Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, etc. Since we live in a society that values due process, I reject the idea of social media tribunals and mobs.
Again, varies by situation.
I want to live in a world where a political party don’t advocate for things when its politically convenient.
The allegations against Biden are credible. The only acceptable response is an independent probe of documents related to his tenure as Senator. That those documents remain screened from the public domain is absurd to begin with. There is either documentation of her complaint or there isn’t. That is the only relevant fact to investigate. Not how many landlords a woman with financial troubles managed to piss off.This thread is shot one situation. Why don't you start there?
Sanders, Gabbard, Bloomberg or Yang.Who would you vote for President if your vote was the only one that mattered?
That you see this as unrealistic is a function of the tribalism infused throughout this thread.I could easily laugh at your response, but framed as an ideal instead of a reasonable expectation, it is one I agree with. What that leads to, in my mind, is a society who needs to be free thinking and to reward through votes those who act on principle and with transparency even when it is not politically expedient.
They clearly support investigating Reade. It’s easy to say you are for an investigation while not defining what that investigation should entail while your surrogates actively attack the accuser. Standard playbook.
There is of course a third explanation, that I presented inconvenient facts you have to dismiss because it dismantles your assertion.
Those corroborative accounts being 100% things she told people. If we know things she tells people are frequently untrue, these accounts are not reliable.Her claim rests on her corroborate accounts. The rest is an attack on her character.
No we haven’t