The days had darkened
warnings were hearkened
and terrors lurked not so faint
Horrors haunted
and dangers vaunted
and evil spirits did haint
an accursed and eldritch madness
had removed the men's gladness
what hope they had was dimmin'
For a fear had fallen
false charges would come callin'
Oh, to be safe, like all those fair women!
67 comments:
I’m not scared. Are you scared?
I'm not afraid of lightning strikes, being falsely accused of abuse by a woman or any other million to one rarities.
So I’m not scared. You’re not scared. Who’s left?
If you're not concerned that this charade threatens the notion of "innocent until proven guilty", then you're both foolish as well as ignorant of the impact false charges of sexual assault can have on a person. I'm quite certain, without ever having known them, that Kavanaugh, the Duke Lacrosse team, Daniel Holtzclaw, Steven Avery, Richard Alexander and a host of others, never had any particular fear of being falsely accused of a sex crime. And that's just sex crimes. Many have been sentenced and served lengthy prison terms while being innocent of the crimes for which they were accused. That is to say, they were guilty without actually having been proven so. What's worse in the case of Kavanaugh is that his life was upended on mere unsubstantiated accusation.
But you tough guys aren't afraid. Impressive, given the odds, but based on arrogant assumption that it will never...COULDN't ever...happen to you. From your hateful mouths to God's ear, may it never be so.
Ah, Marshall is scared. But we've known that for years: from the first time we encountered his irrational anxious, whiteness defending bigotry. It's the sharia-like bully that's always scared.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal parameter, not one for job interviews.
It is entirely appropriate and reasonable to decline jobs to people because, while they may not by able to be convicted of a crime, you suspect that they are likely guilty.
If you were aware of a trial of a man accused of child molestation and he seemed pretty guilty, the people accusing him were convincing... and yet, he were not convicted for a lack of hard evidence... if THAT man came to your day care, would you hire him?
Probably (hopefully) not. If you did, you'd be a negligent manager.
Does your decision to not hire him mean that you reject "innocent until proven guilty..."? No, of course not. That's a legal requirement, not a hiring one.
Don't say anything else, Marshall, unless you can agree to this reasonable principle. Or, make it clear that you DON'T agree with the principle... that you think "innocent until proven guilty" applies in every walk of life.
""Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal parameter, not one for job interviews."
The presumption of innocence is a default position of all honorable men. The concept goes back to ancient times and is brought to the fore by the crucifixion of Christ, the most innocent Being who ever walked the earth. He, too, was wrongly accused without evidence. The numbers of people calling for His death didn't change the fact that He was innocent of the wrongdoing.
As such, the "this is a job interview, not a trial" doesn't wash, particularly when in this particular case, Kavanaugh's desire to win confirmation became a need. Had he not been confirmed, he would be facing a very real possibility of serious difficulty securing a job elsewhere as a judge, not being able to coach girl's basketball and who knows what else given this whole travesty being broadcast around the country.
What's more, we're always on trial any time our actions are questioned. A job interview is indeed a form of trial, and trying to win a gig after such a heinous allegation has been leveled against you doesn't dispel suspicion by all people simply because no verdict of guilt came your way. A boy just turned 18 having had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend can suffer from having a rape conviction and his name recorded as a sex offender.
"If you were aware of a trial of a man accused of child molestation..."
Your penchant for presenting extremes to make your case fails once again. The problem here is that despite one's conviction that the accused wasn't a true child molester would have no bearing on the decision to deny the man a position at the child care center. The reason, though, is that those children do not belong to the man doing the hiring, and his duty is to keep the safety and well being of his charges in mind. So the denial is appropriate in that situation regardless of how unjust it is for the applicant.
But even if Kavanaugh actually copped a cheap feel off of Ford during a drunken episode at 17 years old, how exactly does that matter to this particular job of Supreme Court Justice 36 years of scandal-free life later? And you're suggesting that he should be denied when there's absolutely nothing that stands as evidence affirming the charges against him? Really? You're really that given over to your hatred for all things Trump related?
But in all other cases of hiring, an unproven accusation should not be held against an applicant, especially if he has no criminal record. You're really going to deny a guy on hearsay? How is it you choose to believe the accuser over the accused insisting he's innocent? Because you like the way the accuser told the story? There are "good liars" out there, Dan. As I said, honorable men default to the presumption of innocence.
So, have I been clear enough that I believe the presumption of innocence applies in every walk of life...at least for honorable men? As a Christian I can do no other.
Shows what a shallow moral standard Marshall keeps and how little he knows the big world outside his bunker.
There are many ethical means of weighing accountability from leaders and/or organizations that have a stricter standard than guilt and, if grievous enough, can stop a candidacy, a job applicant:
Appearance of impropriety
Conflict of Interest
Commingling
Scandal if other areas of public/private life
These are the sorts of things that made Al Franken and John Conyers, and others resign. But, then, they answered to Democrats. Roy Moore, Brett Kavanaugh, and Donald Trump do not.
Marshall, why can't you just answer a simple question directly?
it SOUNDS like you agree with the principle that I'm making.
The principle is: Hiring for someone for a job is different than a court of law. One might reasonably suspect that someone is guilty of something that they can't be convicted for, but because you think they are reasonably suspect, you wouldn't hire them. An employer would not hire someone who they suspect MIGHT be an embezzler to manage the business' money. An employer would not hire a person who MIGHT be a pedophile to work at a Day Care.
To my question about that principle, you appear to be saying...
"The reason, though, is that those children do not belong to the man doing the hiring, and his duty is to keep the safety and well being of his charges in mind. So the denial is appropriate in that situation regardless of how unjust it is for the applicant..."
? The first sentence above makes no real sense, given what you've already said. You seem to be talking about both sides of your mouth. But it comes down to this: You AGREE with me that the principle "One might not hire someone for a job based only on suspicions, even if they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and one can't prove their guilt in a court of law..."
Am I understanding right? Do you agree with the principle? By saying "the denial is appropriate regardless if it might be unjust [IF they are innocent...]," it sure sounds like you agree with me.
Can you answer that directly and clearly?
How much more direct can I be? I said, "I believe the presumption of innocence aplies in every walk of life." I allowed that a REASONABLE exception might be to deny to an innocent man accused of child molesting a job at a day care center. But to deny anyone else a job based merely on an accusation? He's innocent. Was evidence offered? If he was found not guilty, then the evidence doesn't matter and the applicant is an innocent man. What a given HR person does in the real world is irrelevant in a discussion about a principle. But one either believes in and lives according to a principle, or one does not.
You seem to be saying something entirely different. If I have personal knowledge of the acquitted, that knowledge may indeed stand as reliable evidence. But you need to be more clear about the parameters of the premise you put forth...which provoked by the Kavanaugh situation in which NO evidence, NO corroboration, NO NOTHING is offered along with the accusation. An honorable person can't just choose between the two competing claims---"He did this" vs "No I didn't"---and judge the accused guilty based solely on the claim against him. Frankly, you're saying all your past talk about slander was crap, because that's what this is without evidence or reliable corroboration.
Marshall’s NO EVIDENCE, NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, NO NOTHING.
Marshall knows nothing.
Dr Ford: Mark and Brett were drunk and forced me into a room where Brett tried to rape me but couldn’t because I had a one-piece swim suite on.
[Mark Judge admits to having no memory of this and to a pattern of blackouts from drinking at parties.]
Corroborative evidence: documented conversations with her therapist years ago and to her husband years ago.
Corroborative evidence: Deborah Ramirez: “he exposed himself to me in college. I have corroborating witnesses willing to speak but the FBI was not allowed to speak to them.”
Corroborative evidence: Julie Swetnick: Brett Kavanaugh participated in lining up vulnerable young women for sex at parties. Uninvestigated.
Corroborating evidence: More than a dozen people know Kavanaugh to have a drinking problem and, when drunk, to be a mean, aggressive drunk.
Feodor said...
"A son has a:
0.0035% chance of being falsely accused.
0.0083% chance of being struck by lightening.
A daughter has a 25% chance of being sexually assaulted by someone in her lifetime."
So by your logic, it is perfectly fine to say to one's daughter, "Gosh, kid, you only have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted by someone in your lifetime, so your fears are foolish." Is this the attitude parents of sons should have in your mind?
You need also keep in mind (to borrow from the financial world) past performance is no guarantee of future experience. The argument here (or "fear", if you prefer) is that due to the uncorroborated allegations by Kavanaugh accusers, and more so had he been denied the Justice position on the SCOTUS, the likelihood of false allegations would go up. Given the penchant of the left to use whatever means necessary to gain and maintain positions of power, as well as to demonize the opposition, anyone seeking positions in a GOP administration, or anyone nominated for a position by a GOP politician requiring Senate approval, will be more likely to face such unfounded allegations.
It's worked like this in recent decades: any allegation, regardless of the strength of that allegation, is to be dismissed if it is leveled against a left-wing figure. Any allegation, regardless of the strength of that allegation, is to be accepted as gospel truth if it is leveled against a right-wing figure.
Yet the position being defended by right-wing people is as it should be: the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct regardless of the political affiliation of the accused. It is the default position in every area of life.
And once again, because the implication being made is so important to overturn, the "chances" of being falsely accused are irrelevant...completely and totally...to an accusation leveled against an accused who swears innocence. It would be absolutely irresponsible and unjust to presume anything about either the accuser or accused based upon any such stats at the time an accusation is leveled. Only leftists behave in such a way. People of honor suspend judgement until such time as allegations can be proven.
To your very first point, no. No. No. By my logic, you have a one-in-a-billion chance of being hit by lightning and so therefore it is foolish to worry about being hit by lightning. Likewise you were even less likely to be accused of a false crime like this. So yes it is foolish to worry.
Now, I've given you one chance. Answer the question that is asked of you. Do it directly, clearly, succinctly. Answer the question being asked of you. Now. Or go away.
I keep hearing this 25% chance figure thrown around, but all the evidence I’ve been able to find puts the chance at 20% or lower. Would it be asking too much to see something that supports the claim?
1. Most rapes go unreported.
2. Given that reality, we simply don't know authoritatively how many women are raped or have an attempted rape.
3. The people who research this and who have the most data available put the number at somewhere between one in four and one in six. That is an estimate. See point 1.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
The point as it relates to this post is that women daily, regularly and horrifically are attacked, abused, raped, assaulted, and otherwise harassed. This affects all women.
Conversely, having an allegation that is false about sexual assault is extremely extremely rare. Like the odds of being struck by lightning.
And yet, conservatives are going nuts playing up this crazy, irrational fear that simply is not something to be seriously worried about. Just like with lightning, you can reasonably take precautions.
But it's nothing like the very real threat that women face day in and day out. So conservatives need to quit trembling in fear about little ghosties and Boogeyman and need to take more seriously the very real threat of rapists and sexual assailants.
By grotesquely overplaying the risk that a woman would lie about something like this, conservatives make it even less likely that women will report rapes and assaults. Conservatives therefore and thereby are lending Aid and comfort to rapists and sexual creeps. Shame on them.
Returning to Marshall's atrocious, sexist remarks (although, no doubt, he doesn't recognize why what he's saying is atrocious and sexist... or perhaps more likely, he doesn't care if it is or not)...
by Kavanaugh accusers, and more so had he been denied the Justice position on the SCOTUS, the likelihood of false allegations would go up.
So, what you are suggesting, Marshall, is that women will increasingly gladly make false claims about sexual assaults as a political game. Thus, in your mind, these women are willing liars. Also, since false claims make things worse for women, you're suggesting that women are too stupid and/or immoral to care that they're making things bad for sexual assault victims, as long as they score some slanderous political points.
This demonstrates a low view of women (as does ALL of this shrill emotional hysteria from the Right about their poor, little boys), that there might be large numbers of women who would engage in this terrible practice of false rape allegations.
So, no, there is no serious likelihood that false allegations would go up significantly... UNLESS you think that women (and/or liberals) gladly engage in the worst sort of deliberate lying. There is no data to support the claim, it is the partisan, baseless and mindless emotional fear-mongering at its worst. Just like the sort that Trump regularly engages in.
Shame on you.
the position being defended by right-wing people is as it should be: the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct regardless of the political affiliation of the accused. It is the default position in every area of life.
This is, of course, pure nonsense. You don't believe it yourself. There are different standards for different areas.
The presumption of criminal innocence IS sacrosanct in a court of law. And yet, Trump and conservatives regularly try to convict people in the court of public opinion ("lock her up!" etc, etc), betraying any serious commitment to the notion of presumption of innocence on their part.
But criminal innocence is not required assumption for every area. We all make judgment calls every day with data that would not be enough to convict. It's just a nonsensical comment/claim on every front.
Also, to be clear: I/we liberals DO tend to give people the benefit of the doubt (the more proper term outside of a courtroom) generally across the board, it's part and parcel of progressive/liberal philosophy. If I'm approached by a person asking for change, I weigh the circumstances and may give them some money because I presume innocence/give them the benefit of the doubt... sometimes... and yet, I also make a judgment call there. AND SO DO YOU, I'd be willing to bet.
You make judgment calls that don't meet criminal standards on a daily basis, I'd be willing to bet. Tell me I'm wrong (but not before you answer the question clearly that has been asked of you).
Thanks for confirming what I’ve been seeing that the 25% is not a precise, accurate statistic.
That is not what I said. Please learn to read better or, if you're going to be picky about words, then be nitpicky about your own words. The point is we do not know if it is precise or precisely accurate. It is the best estimate we have of something that is hard to estimate.
Department of Justice.
1 in 4 women report sexual assault. (That’s 25% Craig.)
1 in 6 women report attemptrdvir completed rape. (That’s 16.5% Craig.)
The numbers are low because frequent independent research finds most women fear to report their experience. They cannot trust brutality colluding men like Marshall and Craig: as Craig’s callous diversion for “accuracy” evidences his callous disregard.
Dan, I fail to see anything but the slightest distinction between what Marshall and Craig write and what these guys say:
“The Daily Stormer has also aggressively pushed an anti-Jewish story line about the Kavanaugh accusations, alleging they appeared as part of a plot orchestrated by Jewish senators and Hungarian American philanthropist George Soros. (The Soros conspiracy has even been echoed in the mainstream by GOP lawmakers and pundits on Fox News).
Career racist and antisemite David Duke also picked up the anti-Jewish storyline, tweeting Sunday: “Justice Kavanaugh. Thank God you are now on the Supreme Court. Because of the vicious, hateful media Cabal and the political ziogarchy, no matter how nobly and brilliantly you serve on the Court, their stain on U and family will never be erased. Never forget who did this to you!”
The self-described intellectual force behind the alt-right, Richard Spencer, views Kavanaugh’s confirmation as the latest shot in an ongoing battle in America. “Underlying it all is simply an attack on Kavanaugh as a White male," Spencer tweeted Saturday. "The ‘culture war’ isn’t about ‘hot button’ issues like abortion or the death penalty. It is a ‘race war,’ which is mostly non-violent but extremely impactful.”
On the podcast “Fash the Nation,” co-host “Jazzhands McFeels” claimed that non-white men want to remove white men from power because of their race and gender. The fight against Kavanaugh’s nomination was just the latest representation of that, McFeels said. “We’ve been saying for the past couple of weeks that the fight against Brett Kavanaugh has been a proxy war on white men,” McFeels said. “White heterosexual men in America and now it is pivoting into a war on white women.”
Dan, thanks. I appreciate your desire to parse the statistics in a way that allows you to “round up” the number to maximize the problem. I guess that assuming that “don’t know” means a higher percentage is helpful.
Again, I appreciate your clarification.
1. It's not parsing numbers or rounding up to vote the various numbers out there.
2. The problem IS serious, and maximized, deviant man, defender of rapists.
3. It is maximized because of the evil actions of rapists and the people like you who lend them support.
Stop doing that.
4. The experts do know that the problem is serious, unlike the fake problem of false accusations being stirred up by rapist defenders like you and the MAGA types.
Pleasant people you ally yourself with.
Learn how words work.
1. By your own admission the 25% number is likely at least 5% higher than reality, possibly as much as 9%.
2. Trying to arrive at an accurate number of women who are sexually assaulted is in no way denying, trivializing, or minimizing to reality. It’s trying to accurately reflect the reality. If you’re going to accuse me of things, at least have the spine to prove your accusations.
3. Exaggerating the numbers doesnt help the real issue. Again, if you’re going to make claims and accusations, have the character to provide proof.
I’m doing no such thing.
4. I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m merely trying to reconcile your 25% claim with the 16-20% claimed by most of the sexual assault victims support websites. Except the false accusation issue is real, it happens, to pretend otherwise is foolish. It’s not an either/or situation.
Yes, you should learn about how proving your claims works.
It’s probably redundant, but if you’re going to claim I’ve defended rapists, you should probably be able to back up your claim.
But, maybe making false accusations doesn’t bother you.
Seriously, Craig. Learn how words work. Learn how communication happens. This is just tiresome having to explain things to you over and over again. And given that I'm not even sure you're real person, given that you won't give you a real name and you talk like a troll, I'm just not so inclined to spend the time to explain how you keep misunderstanding things. But quickly...
1. It is not, "by my own admission." You have misunderstood my words. I did not "admit" anything like that. I stayed the reality that no one sure knows for sure the number of rapes, that experts usually give a range as a best estimate based on their research.
We do not know that the number is "likely higher." It's possible the higher estimate is correct. It's possible the lower estimate is correct. It's possible that are both too low. We don't know, they are estimates based upon research.
Thus...
3. It is not "exaggerating" to cite the higher number.
Beyond that, I'm not sure that I did cite the 25% figure. I know I have cited the one in six, it's possible I cited the one in four... But I don't see it right off.
Regardless it's not exaggerating to cite it.
You're acting as if you know reliably that the higher number is incorrect. You do not know that.
Do you understand that reality?
More later.
1. Yes, you admitted that the 25% figure you keep citing is likely wrong. Most of the research I've seen puts the percentage significantly lower than that. But either way, I asked you for some proof that the 25% number was correct, you've been quite clear that it's not. Thank you for clarifying.
3. If the percentage is actually 16% or 20% then, it seems logical to call using the 25% figure as exaggeration. I understand why you do it, but it's clearly just an approximation that is likely high based on the research.
"A daughter has a 25% chance of being sexually assaulted by someone in her lifetime." I've seen."
Given that these are your exact words, I guess you did use the 25% figure. Whoops.
Yes, I do understand that reality. I (and you) don't know if the 25% figure is correct, yet you use it as if it is. I've never claimed to know the excat figure, and have been quite clear that I've found a wide range of numbers cited by groups who are supportive of sexual abuse survivors, and have no reason to report lower numbers.
I also understand the reality that making claims about others, should be supported by facts and evidence. You are quick to make slanderous claims, slow to provide proof. (By slow I mean that your proof is nonexistent)
So, thank you. I appreciate you answering my one question and clarification.
Embrace grace.
Okay, Craig. Because I suspect you're just a Spambot or troll of some sort and not a real person, this is truly the last time. Imma give you a chance to see if you recognize reality and can admit to reality and can recognize how what you're saying is annoyingly obtuse and finally, apologize for being obtuse. Answer these questions that follow clearly and directly. Or no more commenting year. Ever.
Last chance.
You said, "you admitted that the 25% figure you keep citing is likely wrong."
1. It is not likely wrong, not that you know of. Do you recognize that reality?
2. I literally have not "admitted" that it is "likely wrong." I have not done this. Do you recognize that reality?
3. As a point of reality, I do not necessarily think that it is likely wrong. I don't know. It appears to be in the range that I have provided. Given that it is in the range, and we don't know specifically, I do not think it is likely wrong. Do you recognize that reality?
This should not be difficult. There are no trick questions. I'm just seeing if you are grounded in reality, can recognize reality, and then can apologize for the obtuse statements you keep making, given reality.
So to be clear and to make it easy for you, I'm just looking for three yes answers, a recognition - "oh I see how that sounds pretty obtuse!"... and an apology. Just to demonstrate that you are a real person operating in a conversation in good faith.
Jesus God. Can Craig need to grow a heart and an ability to do simple internet searches? Then he needs to admit that his diversions are just asocial callous morality.
Unwanted sexual contact (that means sexual assault, Craig): 27.2%
Attempted or completed rape: 18.3%
[page 18. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report. Retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf]
--------------
Women reporting sexual harassment in the workplace: 25%
Harassment victims experiencing retaliation when they reported it: 75%
Employees experiencing harassment do not file a formal complaint: 87% to 94%
[SELECT TASK FORCE ON THE STUDY OF HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE - A Report of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/upload/report.pdf
Don't bother until you answer the question, clearly, directly. Any comments that do not begin with that will be deleted.
Marshall’s at-all-costs, politically corrupt refusal to morally encounter the terrible plight of women in our society tells us everything about his abandonment of Jesus.
1 in 4 women experience sexual harassment.
Most women do not report it because of our refusal to believe them or the blowback of harassment. Marshall covers both bases. Literally base.
"We conservatives treat both sides equally."
Muslim ban.
No service if you're not heterosexual.
Fake investigation into allegations of Kavanaugh's sexual and drinking behavior.
Prosecutor represents all Republicans in asking questions of Dr Ford; totally abandoned for Kavanaugh's questions.
No hearing for Merrick Garland.
Obama disrespected the Oval Office when he wore a tan suite and put his feet on the desk.
Trump grabs pussy.
Yeah, sure Marshall. "We conservatives treat both sides equally."
Marshall, the question you must answer IF you want to comment here:
Am I understanding right?
Do you agree with the principle (that it's okay to not hire someone because you THINK they may be unfit for the position - EVEN THOUGH there is insufficient evidence to convict them of a crime... as in the fella who was acquitted of child molestation)?
By saying "the denial is appropriate regardless if it might be unjust [IF they are innocent...]," it sure sounds like you agree with me.
Can you answer that directly and clearly?
"So, no, there is no serious likelihood that false allegations would go up significantly... UNLESS you think that women (and/or liberals) gladly engage in the worst sort of deliberate lying. There is no data to support the claim, it is the partisan, baseless and mindless emotional fear-mongering at its worst."
Nonsense. When you make something "OK", you get more of it. Were Kavanaugh have fallen to the false allegations against him, more conservatives would be blocked for government positions on similar charges, or at the least, it would be a weapon at the ready by Dems until such time it is deemed useful to use it. I put nothing past the left, regardless of the sex of the leftist. They've proven themselves capable of all manner of lie, many of which are part of their party initiatives. The willingness of Dems, male and female, to railroad BK makes that abundantly clear.
"This is, of course, pure nonsense. You don't believe it yourself. There are different standards for different areas."
I believe it and I practice it. If you were honest, and truly trying to understand my positions on...anything...you would recall that I've stated that I would defend Hitler against false accusations. A person's bad reputation doesn't guarantee that accusations against him are true or even possible. Honorable people consider only the facts. This is not to say that the accused's history is ignored completely, but one cannot pretend it proves anything about a current accusation. Hitler did a lot of horrible things. That does not mean that he's guilty of, say, eating babies alive.
What the issue is here...that is, the Ford v Kavanaugh situation, is one where a person neither of us knows accuses another person neither of us knows. You chose to believe Ford (assuming you actually watched the entire proceeding from start to finish as I did), based solely on her testimony even after the lawyer who specializes in prosecuting sex cases exposed the many inconsistencies in it. I waited for something substantial to emerge that would make her story ACTUALLY credible...you know...evidence, corroborating testimony from eye witnesses...things like that. There was none. Thus, there is no way, no matter how I might personally feel about the compelling tone of Ford's initial statement, that I could pretend she was telling the truth or relating actual facts that indicts BK. Without evidence, it's just a story. It doesn't matter how common sexual assaults are. It doesn't matter about so-called "repressed memories". It doesn't matter how hard it is for women, even actual victims with perfect recall, to come forward. None of that matters in the least when it comes to whether or not the accuser should be believe over the accused.
The same is true in everyday life. That guy who blows off his work on a regular basis might not be guilty of having blown off a given job on a given day. His reputation doesn't mean jack regardless of how likely his reputation might make it seem to be so. An honorable boss will seek more than just the guy's rep. He may from that point on monitor the dude's work, but if he can't prove the guy blew off the job, he is unjustified in handing out a disciplinary response.
What YOU are trying to do is pour unrelated "facts" into cases to justify your knee-jerk response to the given situation. I'm saying that an honorable man pulls back on the reins and looks only at the facts of the situation before rendering a judgement. Any time you want to say, "But if you know..." then you've gone beyond the initial "he said/she said" to a point where info is as yet not in hand.
"Also, to be clear: I/we liberals DO tend to give people the benefit of the doubt (the more proper term outside of a courtroom) generally across the board, it's part and parcel of progressive/liberal philosophy."
YOU do not. You certainly haven't done it with Kavanaugh. Much closer to home, you've clearly not done it with either Craig or myself. The most egregious recent case is accusing Craig of attacking/insulting your daughter because he posed a hypothetical based on YOUR words to see just how convicted in your position you were. On what basis exactly did you have for accusing Craig of thinking badly of your daughter? On what basis do you dare pretend that asking "what if YOUR daughter did what YOU said?" is an attack of any kind on your daughter. At worst, it was an attack on your position regarding how badly a woman can behave in public and still be free of people encouraging her against behaviors that put her at risk? Name one thing in Craig's history that justifies your lying attack on his character.
And I'll bet there's not one negative thing of which another could accuse Trump that you wouldn't take as gospel truth. You probably still think he pee'd on Russian whores.
As to libs in general, they corrupt every position a conservative takes to demonize. The desire to protect the innocent unborn is somehow an misogynistic "War On Women". Indeed, this notion of warning women against engaging in behaviors that put themselves at risk is "victim shaming". It's absurd to suggest that you lefties given people the benefit of the doubt. You're very selective about to whom you grant that and do so AFTER having denied political/ideological opponents that benefit of doubt.
"You make judgment calls that don't meet criminal standards on a daily basis, I'd be willing to bet. Tell me I'm wrong..."
You're wrong. It's a "Golden Rule" thing for me. I'm not saying I don't feel compelled at times...especially where I work. But like I said, I pull back on those reins because I don't wish to falsely accuse anyone. I'd go so far as to say I'm far more likely to let someone get away with murder before I'll make the judgements you apparently make with no evidence.
And finally, once again, I answered you question and if I haven't, just ask it again and cut the baby crap. I have no fear of answering any question you ask.
"Do you agree with the principle (that it's okay to not hire someone because you THINK they may be unfit for the position - EVEN THOUGH there is insufficient evidence to convict them of a crime... as in the fella who was acquitted of child molestation)?"
To almost use language you'll understand, I F**KING answered that question. But I'll do it yet again because you're a sniveling little girl:
No, I don't, not as you word the question. The case of the alleged child molester is a caveat due to the greater need with regard to protecting other people's children.
On what basis could I justifiably THINK someone committed a crime for which evidence for conviction was insufficient? What kind of Christian denies a job to someone because without evidence, the "Christian" THINKS the job applicant is guilty? How is that in any way consistent with Christian teaching?
Now that I've answered your question, restore my comments.
“It’s a golden rule thing for me, you sniveling little girl.”
Hypocrisy and brutalizing corruption in less than a dozen words.
I asked my daughter, my mother, my sister - have you ever been sexually assaulted? Two of three said yes, one said no; but was made to feel extremely uncomfortable on more than one occasion. I asked all three - after witnessing the hearings, do you believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed? Two of three said yes, one said no; but only because she doesn't want another conservative on the court.
My point? I believe a majority of women have been subjected to, what I consider to be unacceptable behavior by men. But - it has no bearing on Kavanaugh's "fitness" to be a supreme court justice.
Like so, so, many other issues that are favored by the left and media it was really a non-issue (in regards to his confirmation).
Just like practically every issue in today's discourse concerning left vs right, you have a bored shepherd crying wolf. (feel free to substitute, disturbed, agenda ladened, uninformed self-righteous, or misinformed, etc., for "bored").
The whole process was a colossal waste of taxpayer money. An obvious set-up by a coached individual. If justice were to be served, Ford would be prosecuted.
AND I might add, it is going to backfire on the left.
White women vote against their interests. 53% of white somen didn’t care about Trump’s misogyny. Too many still serve the Master.
“So many were shocked earlier this week when a poll found that while minority voters overwhelmingly believe Ford over Kavanaugh, a breakdown of the data by gender revealed white women were nearly as likely to believe Kavanaugh as Ford.
Clinton was pilloried for saying on the campaign trail that she came across women “under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’”.
But plenty of social science backs her up. There’s a study from the Institute for Social and Economic Research which found that wives in general vote in ways that support their husband’s economic interests. As well as the research showing that white women are particularly likely to do so – after all, the white men they typically marry still earn more than any other demographic.
Clinton’s comment about white women voting their husband’s interest has (ungenerously) been interpreted as meaning white women can’t think for themselves, but Kohler pushed back on that notion, as Clinton herself did at the time. “I don’t think it’s a matter of women not thinking for themselves. It’s about the way that larger structural inequalities are driven through institutions like marriage,” Kohler said.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/women-arent-a-monolith-and-the-white-women-supporting-kavanaugh-prove-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Marshall, I hope you get a sense of understanding of WHY it is so difficult to talk with you, when you obfuscate, avoid and give indirect answers - or non-answers - over and over again.
Dan: Marshall, do you sometimes eat candy?
Marshall (as he is stuffing his mouth with a candy bar): No! Never do!
Dan: But you're eating candy right now. you're eating a candy bar, right?
Marshall: No! I already answered, i never eat candy of any sort! Ever!
Dan: But I can see you. You're eating candy right now. Look, there's the Three Musketeers wrapper in your right hand and half of a bar in your left hand and the other half in your mouth.
Marshall (chewing): mmmbbumt, this's not candy. I never eat candy. This is a caveat. chomp chomp.
Dan: A caveat? You mean an exception? That SOMETIMES you DO eat candy, like right now?
Marshall: No! I never eat candy. You're just hating on conservatives! I am eating this 3 M bar, but it's a justified exception.
Dan: I didn't ask if you had exceptions, but IF you have exceptions, THEN the answer is, "Yes, I sometimes eat candy."
Marshall: But I don't (wiping the chocolate off his hands on to his stained T-shirt.) I already answered, directly. Clearly. The answer is No. I never eat candy. That 3M bar was a caveat.
Dan: [Rolls eyes] IF you have caveats, or exceptions, THEN the answer is, YES, I eat candy sometimes.
Marshall: No!
And so it goes.
Marshall, another question I would like for you to answer BEFORE you say anything else. ANYTHING other than an answer to THIS question will be deleted. That's the rule. If you don't like it, you can leave.
QUESTION:
When people approach you on the street and ask for money (they say they have run out of gas and are late for work or some other explanation for why they need the money), DO you give them money?
Simple question. Please answer.
Do you EVER give such a person money?
Are there times when you DON'T give them money?
Oh, also:
If sometimes you DON'T give them money, why don't you?
Answer all of these directly and clearly.
"Blamin," May I ask you your actual name?
You stated, "But - it has no bearing on Kavanaugh's "fitness" to be a supreme court justice."
If a man had sexually assaulted a woman, it has NO bearing on his fitness for office? Why in the hell not?
I think a majority of people would disagree with that suggestion. It sounds horrifying for an adult person to take that position.
Also, if a man had sexually assaulted a woman, THEN under oath he LIED about it, breaking the law, surely you'd recognize that this makes him unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice?
And how is it a waste of money to check into credible claims that a candidate has sexually assaulted a woman?
These are rather astounding and horrifying positions to take. I hope you recognize that probably the majority of good and rational people would disagree with such positions.
You also state, without one shred of evidence, that "An obvious set-up by a coached individual..." Are you suggesting that you know that Ford was lying and that this was part of a plot? If so, where is your evidence?
I am fucking tired (sorry for the language, but this is a fucking serious matter) of anyone - and especially the morally compromised right and religious right (I don't know if you're in either category, but they are the ones doing the lion's share of it these days) making ridiculously and slanderously false and unsupported claims and expecting to be taken seriously. You all routinely are following the example of the (according to his OWN PEOPLE, apparently) amoral and clueless president and just making up false charges, unsupported claims and just throwing them out there... and THEN complaining about the "fake news" (itself a slanderous and unsupported charge) about the mainstream media.
No more. You all can NOT make false and unsupported claims. IF you have evidence of a vast conspiracy, present it. IF you do not, THEN ADMIT that it's a guess, not anything based on hard data.
Please do not comment here further unless you are prepared to answer questions such as these. I have lost patience for slander and false claims and the trolls who engage in such.
"When people approach you on the street and ask for money (they say they have run out of gas and are late for work or some other explanation for why they need the money), DO you give them money?"
Sometimes.
"Do you EVER give such a person money?"
Sometimes.
"Are there times when you DON'T give them money?"
Sometimes.
"If sometimes you DON'T give them money, why don't you?"
There are any number of reasons. How many would you like me to list? Maybe you'd just like to get to the point.
The point is, almost certainly there are times when you don't give money. Almost certainly the reason some of the time is that you suspect that they're bums trying to take advantage of you... That they might use the money to buy drugs or alcohol.
And while you have no evidence of it, that's just your suspicion. And you make the judgement in those cases that it would be better not to give them money.
The point being you make judgments in all kinds of areas without having a criminal investigation turning up proof of Innocence. Am I right?
I was right. You're conflating making judgements with a rejection of the principle of the presumption of innocence.
(And it dawns on me that we don't seek proof of innocence if we're presuming innocence. We regard a person innocent UNTIL proven guilty.)
I would also insist that a beggar brings some "evidence" that factors into one's ultimate decision as to whether or not to give. Yet, my very first inclination is to assume nothing one way or another. Should suspicions arise, they're the result of something...evidence...that provokes those suspicions. Even having been scammed before, however, I'm not one to assume I'm about to be scammed again. I assume innocence until a reason to suspect manifests. Do you really do it any differently?
I would also add, that the presumption of innocence and forming judgements are inextricably tied together, so that as in your beggar scenario, there is not always an accusation about which one is faced with the choice to presume either guilt or innocence. For example, why would I presume ANYTHING about the beggar in question? Of what is he accused? The way he looks...ragged, worn clothes for example...can't help but suggest he's either a beggar or slumming. But that's not a "judgement" that's relevant to the issue of presumption of innocence. Still, given things like appearance can compel notions about a person, those are the very things that one is obliged to set aside until a legitimate reason (evidence) can justify the suspicion.
Dan,
My actual name is Ed James.
There were many topics thrown at me from you and Feodor, I’ll attempt to respectfully answer all. I certainly don’t want to be “banned” from your site, when I was hoping I’d actually found people that would openly discuss and address a point of view that differs from their own. My experience has been it's damn hard to find anybody from the left or right that will discuss disagreements without letting their emotions overtake their intellect.
You asked -
“If a man had sexually assaulted a woman, it has NO bearing on his fitness for office? Why in the hell not?”
My point was (as I stated) it had no bearing on Kavanaugh’s fitness to be a judge. I never said what you presented. Because you’re presenting as facts an uncollaborated allegation. You do not want this to become the new norm, because I promise there are a whole host of allegations (some with strong circumstantial evidence) that could be made against most democrats in leadership positions. The left has routinely dismissed the unproven allegations (rightly so), just apply the same standards – that’s all I’m asking. Because what’s truly horrifying is a country that routinely destroys people’s careers and lives over unproven claims.
As far as my claim about Ford, and being coached – I have no evidence. Which means I wouldn’t find her guilty if I sat on a jury hearing a slander case, without actual evidence. What I do have is common sense that is suggesting a women of her position, age, and background (a psychology professor), that her whole demeanor, dress, speech, appearance, and inability to answer questions, or even understand certain words, was a show. A show put on to draw out certain emotional responses from those watching.
I respectfully suggest this statement by you pertaining to the Kavanaugh spectecal: – “The Right”…”making ridiculously and slanderously false and unsupported claims and expecting to be taken seriously”. Well… it’s a very confusing comment coming from anybody that believes Kavanaugh shouldn’t have been confirmed because of Ford’s allegations.
Not trying to be a troll, I just have a curiosity about the thought processes of people whom I disagree with.
We all imagine ourselves as deep thinkers who have come to the correct conclusion based on evidence and thought processes. And we can all get snarky with those who disagree with ourselves, it can be infuriating when we are so sure of our “rightness”
To me this whole case is pretty basic. Nothing new under the sun; and therefore requiring that thinking people apply the standards we as a civilized society have agreed on.
Mr James - how refreshing to find here someone who is willing to defend his/her opinions and ideas with reason and respect. Dan doesn't often get mature respondents. And that you seek engagement with with to reflect for yourself is rare on blogs.
I would raise two issues. 1. Corroborative evidence is not evidence that proves a case. It is evidence that parallels testimony and possibly agrees with it - and certainly cannot oppose testimony. Dr Ford's therapists notes from some years ago is, therefore, the definition of corroborative evidence. Her years ago conversations with her husband is as well. The other women reporting his sexual aggression/assault, if not disproved, are corroborative evidence. The two dozen friends, acquaintances, witnesses to his being a mean and heavy drunk in high school. college (there is a police report), and graduate school are all corroborative testimonies to aspect of Dr Ford's testimony: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk, more than the others at the party. Corroborative evidence never proves anything. Corroborative evidence just supports by implication or repetition various parts of what is claimed.
2. Her reticence to talk about her experience reflects what all psychologists and research have found to by typical. The vast majority of women who are victims of attempted or completed rape do not report it. Most of those who do report are met with disbelief and harassment, incredibly. However, the specificity of Dr Ford herself, both personally and professionally, in her testimony about what she remembers clearly and what she doesn't agrees absolutely with how the brain encodes memory of trauma, namely that central things are sharp in memory and peripheral things are lost. That's because the brain narrows in the moments of trauma and only the most central aspects are locked in. You can find this them of research both in rape victims, soldiers, bomb victims, and other victims of violence.
What corroborative evidence does Kavanaugh have? Mr Judge? He himself admits to a long history from high school on of blacking out from so much drinking.
These points make indicate her credibility. The fact that she tried hard to avoid being known, that she knew what it would mean to be known, that she hoped by giving information anonymously before when he was only on the short list, before he was picked, and then followed through when her name was revealed against her choice... that she endured what she did, put her family through what it has been through (still unable to return home because of enduring death threats)... that she stood to gain nothing but pain and a long, harried interruption of her life... also stands as credibility of her character.
She is believable. Her story fits the pattern of millions of assaulted women.
And he fudged about his level of drinking. He was out of control in defense of what? his boyhood calendars? Beer?
He was far from a merited pick. He has never been known as a superb judicial candidate. The American Bar withdrew it's support. His tone and manner are immature at best.
Republican leadership should have found someone of impeachable character and supple mind.
Feodor –
Your very first sentence about white women is based on extremely subjective evidence and claims. Who defines “white women’s interests”? What you’re suggesting is absurd! Who are you to claim to know more about their self-interests than the women themselves? The women in my life are extremely intelligent and independent.
In addition, your statement about “Trump’s misogyny” is your opinion. Despite what you or anyone else may believe, Trump is an intelligent man, he wouldn’t be in his position if he weren’t. Intelligent people don’t hold half the population in contempt. I find these types of arguments tiresome. You, or anyone that routinely supports democrats, automatically assuming racist or bigoted intent on the behalf of your opponents means you’ll never, ever, have a clue about what motivates conservatives.
Either that, or you don’t want to understand, because maybe, just maybe that tact is easier than having to take a hard look at some of your own deeply held convictions.
“There’s a study from the Institute for Social and Economic Research…”. I’ve got news for you, most husbands also vote in a way that aligns with their wives beliefs. But regardless, this study from a highly partisan organization, is ultimately falling back on the whole tired argument of a bigoted society… “larger structural inequalities are driven through institutions like marriage,”… give me a break. Maybe in certain middle eastern countries.
I can understand the attraction this study would have for some on the left – it gives an “easy” excuse to dismiss why certain women think and vote the way they do.
We may be approaching a point in our history where the conservative point of view will be in the majority for a very long time. And it is exactly because many on the left (and most of the left’s leadership) refuse to actually try to understand other’s point of view, without attaching some nefarious mental flaw.
Several not very intelligent men have been President. Buchanan. Pierce. Johnson. Hundreds of thousands of dumb men have made fortunes. Any idiot can do well if his father supports him forty million dollars to start and connections all throughout the riches city in the country, as Trump did.
That you can listen to the tape of Trump from ET and contend that he is not a misogynist makes me far less secure in the thought that you are thoughtful. Such massive denial does not speak well of you.
As for white women, if 53% of them voted for a callous misogynist, they did not vote for their best interest. But let me give you some reading besides myself:
"Clinton was pilloried for saying on the campaign trail that she came across women “under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl’”. But plenty of social science backs her up. There’s a study from the Institute for Social and Economic Research which found that wives in general vote in ways that support their husband’s economic interests. As well as the research showing that white women are particularly likely to do so – after all, the white men they typically marry still earn more than any other demographic. Clinton’s comment about white women voting their husband’s interest has (ungenerously) been interpreted as meaning white women can’t think for themselves, but Kohler pushed back on that notion, as Clinton herself did at the time. “I don’t think it’s a matter of women not thinking for themselves. It’s about the way that larger structural inequalities are driven through institutions like marriage,” Kohler said.
While we see much more egalitarian marriages than we did a century ago, she noted, women weren’t able to have their own money or property before; and the concept of marital rape didn’t even exist until the 1970s. “It’s not to say that every married woman is subjugated in her marriage. Of course that’s not true,” Kohler added. “But it is true that as an institution it has privileged men’s interests historically, and I think we still live with some of that legacy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/06/women-arent-a-monolith-and-the-white-women-supporting-kavanaugh-prove-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
"In this study, we explore the predictors of gender linked fate with a focus on marital status for different racial/ethnic groups. We argue that marriage alters women’s perceptions of self-interest by institutionalizing their partnerships with men and consequently leading women to feel less connected to other women. We assess our hypothesis using the 2012 American National Election Study. While we find that married white women and Latinas have significantly lower levels of linked fate than unmarried women of the same race/ethnicity, we find no such relationship for black women. We then explore the implications of these findings by examining the role of gender linked fate in explaining political differences among married and unmarried women using mediation analysis. Ultimately, we find that differences in perceptions of linked fate explain a significant amount of the variation in political ideology and partisanship for white and Latina women."
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912917702499
______
" Julie Kohler, who holds a Ph.D. in family social science, wrote that a vote for the Republican party is often deemed as the most logical one for married women -- especially when factoring in race and faith. "Systemic influences like marriage and evangelical Christianity interact with white supremacy to influence white women’s political behavior, through the explicit ideologies they propagate and the more insidious ways they reflect and perpetuate other structural inequalities," the senior vice president for the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donor network wrote in the Nation.
But economics also play a huge factor, something Clinton and others criticizing pro-Trump women's votes don't often acknowledge. "The gender pay gap, for example, has the practical effect of privileging men’s careers—particularly white men’s—over women’s and yoking white women’s economic interests to their husbands’. So for some married white women, a vote for the Republican candidate may appear to be the self-interested choice," Kohler added."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/13/like-it-or-not-studies-suggest-that-clinton-may-not-be-wrong-on-white-women-voting-like-their-husbands/?utm_term=.d5c84d88b442
Hopefully, Mr James, you had aspirational parents who had big dreams that their children would have a better life than they did. Hopefully, you yourself have continued their aspirational hope. Surely their aspirational dreams included their children getting a very good education, the best they could manage. Surely, you want the same for your children, for learning and expansion and inclusion is what built American success.
I despair, though, that you have sheepishly followed your race, gender, and generation and begun to think that a good plumber with a solid business could run a modern, globalized nation just as good as anybody else.
I do not mean to disparage the plumber. I intend to demean the hysterically mythic trust that white men are suddenly showing in any old white man whatsoever. As long as he doesn't talk smart.
Feodor, thanks for the response(s). Got to hit they hay, getting up at 5am tomorrow, but would like to address a few of your points latter this weekend. . Specifically your recall of the testimony, which I watched, the whole circus from beginning to end. Also your comment about "...talk about her experience reflects what all psychologists and research have found to by typical" Which buttresses my point about being coached. And also the articles and studies you linked - many of which, at close inspection made a whole slew of assumptions based on subjective info, along with a healthy dose of building more assumptions on top of assumptions.
The scientific method would have us typically making a hypothesis based on observation and limited evidence, then attempting to disprove the hypothesis. Unfortunately, precious few "studies" from today's thinktanks, be they left or right, adhere to that method.
Mr James, if I say I am depressed because I find it impossible to get out of bed and go to work when my body is just fine, that agrees with what all psychologists and scientific research finds.
But you would suggest that I have been coached.
Your buttress is preposterous.
So Dan, getting back to the point of this post, I wish to point to your side and their claims that parallel the fears of conservatives. That is, the claim that confirming BK is going to result in more women failing to report sexual assaults, more women being dismissed when they do report, etc. How is this different and any more or less reasonable a fear? Frankly, it is less so since, as you are wont to remind, that the history shows women are already going through this sort of thing with regularity. Could it really get any worse given today's climate...what with #MeToo and all.
But men suffering from mere accusation alone? Well, if it's a conservative seeking public office, it seems a favored tactic by the left at this point.
blamin---good to virtually see you again. Hope to see more of you.
Dan,
"Marshall, I hope you get a sense of understanding of WHY it is so difficult to talk with you, when you obfuscate, avoid and give indirect answers - or non-answers - over and over again."
You must have me mistaken for someone else. I do not "obfuscate, avoid and give indirect answers - or non-answers" at all, much less "over and over again". YOU ask goofy questions, most often crafted to force an answer to your liking. Why should I play that game, when I'm here to discuss ideas and positions honestly? But here, in THIS discussion, I was totally direct in the first place...and I'll continue being so. However, if I have a problem with your questions in the future, I'll be sure to insist on clarification to avoid your pretending that I'm being evasive. That's YOUR shtick.
BTW, I LOVE Three Musketeers Bars! Yum!
With regard to Ed James, why did you feel it necessary to inquire about his real name? I don't recall you ever asking feo his real name, nor do I recall you asking Erudite Redneck his name. When I first started visiting blogs, lo those many years ago, pen names were far more common, which is why I adopted one. And while my real name is easily found, I was immediately aware that some prefer not to identify themselves for a variety of legitimate reasons...but regardless, I found no particular reason to even care unless someone chose on their own to identify themselves. What possible difference does it make to know? Answer: none whatsoever.
Trump knows his audience.
Trump openly questioned Ford’s claims and mocked the broader #MeToo movement during a rally in Mississippi, just days after the woman gave emotional testimony about her allegations before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Had I not made that speech, we would not have won,” Trump told ’60 Minutes’ host Lesley Stahl in a sweeping interview that aired Sunday.
Among the things Craig skips when he attempts to become a social justice warrior for Christians only:
“Helen—a smart, cheerful five-year-old girl—is an asylum seeker from Honduras. This summer, when a social worker asked her to identify her strengths, Helen shared her pride in “her ability to learn fast and express her feelings and concerns.” She also recounted her favorite activities (“playing with her dolls”), her usual bedtime (“8 p.m.”), and her professional aspirations (“to be a veterinarian”).
In July, Helen fled Honduras with her grandmother, Noehmi, and several other relatives; gangs had threatened Noehmi’s teen-age son, Christian, and the family no longer felt safe. Helen’s mother, Jeny, had migrated to Texas four years earlier, and Noehmi planned to seek legal refuge there. With Noehmi’s help, Helen travelled thousands of miles, sometimes on foot, and frequently fell behind the group. While crossing the Rio Grande in the journey’s final stretch, Helen slipped from their raft and risked drowning. Her grandmother grabbed her hand and cried, “Hang on, Helen!” When the family reached the scrubland of southern Texas, U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended them and moved them through a series of detention centers. A month earlier, the Trump Administration had announced, amid public outcry over its systemic separation of migrant families at the border, that it would halt the practice. But, at a packed processing hub, Christian was taken from Noehmi and placed in a cage with toddlers. Noehmi remained in a cold holding cell, clutching Helen. Soon, she recalled, a plainclothes official arrived and informed her that she and Helen would be separated. “No!” Noehmi cried. “The girl is under my care! Please!”
According to a long-standing legal precedent known as the Flores settlement, which established guidelines for keeping children in immigration detention, Helen had a right to a bond hearing before a judge; that hearing would have likely hastened her release from government custody and her return to her family. At the time of her apprehension, in fact, Helen checked a box on a line that read, “I do request an immigration judge,” asserting her legal right to have her custody reviewed. But, in early August, an unknown official handed Helen a legal document, a “Request for a Flores Bond Hearing,” which described a set of legal proceedings and rights that would have been difficult for Helen to comprehend. (“In a Flores bond hearing, an immigration judge reviews your case to determine whether you pose a danger to the community,” the document began.) On Helen’s form, which was filled out with assistance from officials, there is a checked box next to a line that says, “I withdraw my previous request for a Flores bond hearing.” Beneath that line, the five-year-old signed her name in wobbly letters.“
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-five-year-old-who-was-detained-at-the-border-and-convinced-to-sign-away-her-rights/amp
"To you I'm racist [check]
bigoted [check]
hateful [check]
homophobic [check]
greedy" [don't know]
It's not wrong, Marshall, to call a white guy those things when he demonstrates, as you so clearly and often do, that he is. You're just disoriented when it comes to truth telling.
"My opposition to bad treatment of people simply because they're exposed as homosexual... one needn't decipher when I've been quite bold and clear in stating I oppose such things..."
Jesus God, Marshall, you can't even hear yourself. "Exposed"?! That's just brutality in your thoughts. You're a brutalizer when you colluding with the language of brutalizers.
Trump makes people feel like they need to bomb Democrats in order to defend America.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The choice could not be more clear. Democrats produce mobs, Republicans produce jobs.
[cheers and applause]
By the way, this is the most beautiful sky.
[cheers and applause]
There is a reason for everything. Big Sky. I got out (I've been here many times) and I'm looking, and it really is the big sky. That's beautiful, some day one of you will explain exactly why, but that is a big, beautiful sky.
But Nancy Pelosi, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, and the radical Democrats want to raise your taxes and impose socialism on our incredible nation --make it into Venezuela-- because that is what will happen.
They want to take away your health care, because our country cannot afford it. Destroy your Second Amendment and throw open the borders to deadly drugs and vicious gangs, because plenty of them are coming across and a lot of drugs.
Democrats have become the party of crime -- it is true! Who would believe you could say that, and no one will even challenge it? I said it a couple of months ago, 'They've really become the party of crime.' I said, 'I'm going to put that in, I'll say that when I make speeches.' And nobody has ever challenged it! (Maybe they have, who knows?)
They'll say, 'He gets a Pinnochio.' So, maybe they challenged it, but not very much. They have become the party of crime because of what they do!
They would rather devastate American communities than defend America's borders.
CROWD MEMBER: Cowards!
TRUMP: The Democrat Party has become too extreme to be trusted with power. Their radical policies are a danger to your family and to your country
blamin never came back, did he? Couldn’t face reasoned arguments after all, despite how much he wished he could.
Craig: "As an aside, it’s interesting that as he [you, Dan] rails about the incivility and horribleness of conservatives, he can’t help becoming what he tails against."
Craig's thought patterns are exactly how dictators work: to indict Trump for treason, that has to be... well, treason.
Craig sounds like Trump, Jr.
No, Craig, Trump is not responsible for Mr Sayoc. Rather, our point is that only brutalizers, spanning the gamut from nice white law abiding unconscious racist bigots like yourself all the way to enraged violence prone dysfunctional people like Mr Sayoc, are responsible for Trump.
You really neeed to know yourself. You’ve been intellectually shallow and morally corrupt long before Trump.
Trump is playing Craig and Marshall for moral suckers. Pretty smart.
“CESAR SAYOC, THE Donald Trump-loving Floridian who was taken into custody in the case of pipe bombs mailed to prominent Democrats, was foreclosed on in 2009 by a bank whose principal owner and chairman was Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin.
The documents used to enact the foreclosure were signed by a prominent robo-signer and seemingly backdated. Nonetheless, the evidence was good enough for the famously inattentive Florida foreclosure courts to wave the case through. Years later, Sayoc became a supporter of Trump, who came into office and appointed a treasury secretary who ran the bank that snatched Sayoc’s house.”
Well... one deplorable down.
Oh, these Sharia christians like Marshall are all so cute until somebody gets hurt.
"GOP lawmaker calls for Biblical law: Washington state Rep. Matt Shea publishes manifesto calling for the execution of all males who refuse to follow “Biblical law.”
"Rowe and other sources said the document resembles the work of the Marble Community Fellowship, a Stevens County congregation that is said to practice a strain of fundamentalist Christianity known as dominionism.
The leader of the group, Barry Byrd, wrote a 1988 manifesto referring to Jews as “anti-Christs” and condemning interracial marriage, though members have since tried to distance themselves from racist ideology. Shea has been a featured speaker at Marble’s annual Fourth of July God and Country Celebration."
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-lawmaker-matt-shea-defends-advocacy-for-holy-army-as-spokane-sheriff-refers-his-writings-to-fbi/
Post a Comment