Sexual accusations

[redcairo]

Interesting

 

At this point probably doesn't matter even if it was proved a forgery (which I think it is, up to the end of Ray/Roy it's real, the rest tries to fake it for his last name (signed on many things so easily available), the rest -- well as noted, the job title is wrong, the numbers don't match his writing elsewhere, and name of the place is slightly wrong and not even close.

 

 

 

[ralis]

10 minutes ago, redcairo said:

Interesting

 

At this point probably doesn't matter even if it was proved a forgery (which I think it is, up to the end of Ray/Roy it's real, the rest tries to fake it for his last name (signed on many things so easily available), the rest -- well as noted, the job title is wrong, the numbers don't match his writing elsewhere, and name of the place is slightly wrong and not even close.

 

 

 

 

Are you posing a defense of Moore? And, not accepting the accusers public statements as factual? 

 

[rene]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

Are you posing a defense of Moore? And, not accepting the accusers public statements as factual? 

 

 

Courts determine the facts, not accusers.

Defending Moore? More like defending due process and the right to be presumed innocent.

[redcairo]

17 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Are you posing a defense of Moore? And, not accepting the accusers public statements as factual? 

 

 

I do not accept statements from either side as factual; I accept them both as "alleged."

 

That's why we have due process.

 

RC

 

 

 

[thelerner]

I don't think its a criminal case, not this long after the fact, time limitations and all.

Rather its politics.  Simply the multiple recollections were brought up now to discredit Moore.  Standard operating procedure (sadly) in politics for both sides; not even modern politics, its always been done.  Doesn't mean they're true or not.  Odds are they are, but proof for or against, other then circumstantial is undoubtedly not available.

 

What's interesting is that it may help as much as hurt.  This is Alabama and there's a reflex to protect your own.  Moore's people are framing this as a mud slinging frame against a high standing moral leader.  And it partially is.  At what point do we forgive past indiscretions? 

 

The Weinstein scandal has opened up a season for reviewing old sexual misdeeds.  Years ago, society was much more permissive or rather men were.  There was a different cultural standard, one that was grossly wrong to woman, but pervasive.  So you see George Bush I, being accused multiple times and probably guilty, because such slap, grab and grope were so wide spread. 

 

I think you have to separate the man now, from the person then, especially if they've owned up to it and apologized.  Course probably depends on the person and situation.   It helps if they haven't set themselves up as moral leaders too. 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by thelerner

[cold]

1 minute ago, rene said:

 

Courts determine the facts, not accusers.

Defending Moore? More like defending due process and the right to be presumed innocent.

 

"Just the facts Ma'am"

 

Courts ascertain guilt or innocence based upon the evidence presented.

And as anyone who has witnessed a few trials, live in person can tell you "facts are often few and far between" in a courtroom.

Everybody has biases. I have testified as an "expert" witness several times and offered no facts just an "educated" opinion.

 

Asking a question like "Is this color copy legit?" sorta? kinda? sounds? looks? like a rush to judgement to these old eyes and ears. As for  due process well I suggest we all would be served by a review of its meaning in the law, not the meaning our individual minds have.  And as usual your mileage may very

 

And on another note

A lot of passion in this thread, much of it driven by fear ?

 

[redcairo]

Naw, not rushing to judgement (I'd already have one were I in a rush). And I am not fond of Moore the religious nut anyway.

 

But as noted it's past time for actual legal dealings, and he said vs. she said is a wash without bias, so the general public is left to evaluate whatever remains.

 

Due process may normally be legal process, but the spirit of it seems the point to me, of not assuming people guilty merely because someone says so. Otherwise maybe we'd still be drowning people for witchcraft right & left.

 

If 'evidence of truth' presented has inconsistent story, or is wrong on details, or based on TV press conference video, when looked at up close, appears to be fraudulent, not to mention something being presented by a known paid democrat operative, that Lawyer, well those seem perfectly fair things to take seriously in evaluation to me.

 

RC

 

PS I might add, and this is from a boatload of observational experience as a woman, that it is not very uncommon IMO for women to have 'an' experience, to modify memory rather radically over time and based on other following events or feelings (particularly emotinos), and eventually have a completely different 'memory' of 'what happened' with a man -- and believe it genuinely, so they are very convincing, and they are genuinely traumatized by it and wounded at being doubted -- but it simply wasn't true to begin with. This makes using the "I believe her" logic fraught with injustice. It is not any attempt to harm or marginalize women when victims, but rather, an attempt to avoid making men victims as well, and in doing so, furthering the existing problem of marginalizing REAL victims who are often not believed in the chorus of cry-wolf in the larger population.

[ralis]

1 hour ago, rene said:

 

Courts determine the facts, not accusers.

Defending Moore? More like defending due process and the right to be presumed innocent.

 

I was posing the questions to her.

[rene]

20 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I was posing the questions to her.

 

I figured you were able to handle two replies; apologies as that seems not to be the case.

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

Are you posing a defense of Moore? And, not accepting the accusers public statements as factual? 

 

I would.  Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

 

[cold]

The "Presumption of innocence" is completely separate from "Due process" as far as American law is concerned.

 

Evidence beyond "he said she said", is required. Memory modification occurs with regularity in both sexes.

People just don't paint themselves in poor light so to speak.

Selective memory and all it entails is of much interest is it not?

 

In a criminal trial the evidence has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

We all want answers to fit our "world view".

That which makes us most comfortable I suppose.

I have found lawyers are generally very good at asking and or reframing questions to get the answer they desire.

 

Just now, Marblehead said:

Prevention is okay.  Abortion is for being stupid enough to not consider prevention.

 

 

Or not educated enough on the ways and means.

Have you talked to the youth of today? 

College students shoplifting? In a foreign country no less.

Talk about idiots abroad!

[ralis]

3 minutes ago, rene said:

 

I figured you were able to handle two replies; apologies as that seems not to be the case.

 

I feel that if one speaks for others then misunderstandings can ensue. That it all I meant by my question.

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

I feel that if one speaks for others then misunderstandings can ensue. That it all I meant by my question.

I feel qualified to speak for Trump.  Any questions?

 

[cold]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

I feel that if one speaks for others then misunderstandings can ensue. That it all I meant by my question.

 

Are you referring to the White house?

There must be some kind of misunderstanding

There must be some kind of mistake

 

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

I feel qualified to speak for Trump.  Any questions?

 

 

No doubt! and no?

[ralis]

Given Moore's penchant for forcing religious dogma in his Alabama courtroom and his bigoted views, he should not be allowed to hold a Senate seat. He was thrown out of office twice as Alabama's Supreme Court Justice for placing a carved granite rock with the engraved Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

 

 

 

Roy Moore's views on LGBT persons.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/27/roy-moores-values-could-take-alabama-back-to-a-place-many-of-its-residents-have-tried-to-get-past/?utm_term=.b8b3c2a6e4e4

 

Quote

We have to return the knowledge of God and the Constitution of the United States to the United States Congress,” Moore said in his victory speech. “We have become a nation that has distanced ourselves from the very foundation.”

For Moore, returning “the knowledge of God” to Washington means very specific things — particularly when it comes to sexuality.

“Homosexual conduct should be illegal,” Moore told a journalist in 2005.

 

Quote

We thought [segregation] was in the best interests of all concerned. We were mistaken,” he said years after first being elected governor. “The Old South is gone.”

But is it really?

Moore has compared homosexuality to bestiality and called it “an inherent evil against which children must be protected.”

 

[Lost in Translation]

22 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

Why now, why not before during other times hes run for office. 

Was it not the public's right to know then.

 

Why now.

Because now is the time that will cause maximum damage and swing the senate seat from R to D. No one (in politics) cares about what actually happened those 40 years ago. They care only about winning. The voters are being manipulated.

[ralis]

edit

Edited November 15, 2017 by ralis

[windwalker]

3 hours ago, ralis said:

Given Moore's penchant for forcing religious dogma in his Alabama courtroom and his bigoted views, he should not be allowed to hold a Senate seat. He was thrown out of office twice as Alabama's Supreme Court Justice for placing a carved granite rock with the engraved Ten Commandments in the courthouse.

 

 

 

Roy Moore's views on LGBT persons.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/27/roy-moores-values-could-take-alabama-back-to-a-place-many-of-its-residents-have-tried-to-get-past/?utm_term=.b8b3c2a6e4e4

 

 

 

 

Care to explain how someone "forces" their dogma on those who elected them...

 

It is odd what  you've quoted, considering

 

safe spaces,  for "x" only ,    ect.... " was in the best interests of all concerned. We were mistaken"

 

Maybe not since the same groups are now asking for the same things.

 

Can't we all, just take a knee.  

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by windwalker

[windwalker]

"Women on Capitol Hill Tell of ‘Sex Trade,’ ‘Creep List’ of Lawmakers"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/14/women-capitol-hill-tell-sex-trade-creep-list-lawmakers/

 

Can you say

 

And let the the games begin !!

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

I try really hard to stay out of 'The Pavilion' as much as possible. I'm not doing such a good job today.

 

The entire issue is really simple. The Left wants to destroy the Western World - e.g North America, Europe. They are filled with angst and self loathing and want to destroy what they see. It's quite immature, but at least they know what they want and are committed to fight for it. The Right, on the other hard, has no clue what it wants. So it's like a school yard fight where one person is serious and wants the other dead, and the other person is laughing and thinks it's a joke.

 

Truthfully, I don't care what side people are on. Just don't fool yourself regarding what's going on.

[ralis]

15 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

Care to explain how someone "forces" their dogma on those who elected them...

 

It is odd what  you've quoted, considering

 

safe spaces,  for "x" only ,    ect.... " was in the best interests of all concerned. We were mistaken"

 

Maybe not since the same groups are now asking for the same things.

 

Can't we all, just take a knee.  

 

 

I don't know what your problem is, but Moore was an Alabama Supreme Court Justice that displayed that sculpture in the court house which is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. For one that is always ranting regarding the rule of law, you know nothing, but personal opinion. Moreover, your first statement makes no sense whatsoever. Especially, in the context of Moore's biblical views on LGBT rights.

 

Your penchant for linking Breitbart lends no credibility to your posts.

Edited November 15, 2017 by ralis

[windwalker]

 

[ralis]

18 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

When he included the 'Spanish Inquisition' in the first part I stopped listening to his narrative. Such comparisons are stretching it by miles and miles.

[dawei]

4 hours ago, ralis said:

Given Moore's penchant for forcing religious dogma in his Alabama courtroom and his bigoted views, he should not be allowed to hold a Senate seat.

 

Roy Moore's views on LGBT persons.

 

25 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I don't know what your problem is, but Moore was an Alabama Supreme Court Justice that displayed that sculpture in the court house which is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. For one that is always ranting regarding the rule of law, you know nothing, but personal opinion.

 

I feel Ralis has a point here but it is a moving target of throwing darts...  He should not be allowed for sexual or political or ethical or moral or religious issue ?   ALL of the above for some.

 

If we viewed the issue from any singular point of view, we might agree as an opinion piece but the problem is, when has there been any single or multiple litmus test applied consistently to every single potential senate seat ?

 

In the end Ralis position is as much an opinion as WW...

 

I can understand the opinion but then we stuck with going deeper..  Is there an issue?  

 

I sympathize for sexual allegations as I think women won't generally just make it up and if true, the trauma can stay for a lifetime.   This opinion has to be balance by rule of law.. innocence until proven guilty.    I think there is a middle ground as most accusations will not be taken to the court of law.  So we are left with an opinion on what we might belief occurred... and left with an opinion that if that happened 40 years ago, should it affect something today?   

 

As he vehemently denies it, I suspect his male POV disagrees with the female accuation POV.    That divide will leave a divided opinion.  

 

Now, RC shared some very interesting discrepancies... but Moore as the accused should of come up with that, or something.  So he has some responsibility to show why the accusations are to be questioned or not true.   I don't just accept someone saying "It is not true"...  that is an opinion.

 

[windwalker]

13 minutes ago, dawei said:

but Moore as the accused should of come up with that, or something.  So he has some responsibility to show why the accusations are to be questioned or not true. 

 

ya might try re wording that.

 

"The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies"

 

If the guy lied or is proven guilty not a problem with me,  lock em up throw away the key,  the issue for me is the timing of it and what it leads to as seen by " let the games begin."   As I mentioned don't know anything about the guy other then this case....

 

I find it troubling in that the "law" makers are actually saying dispite no provable evidence that action should be taken on non proven allegations a lot of them could fit into his opposition who have vested interest in not seeing him get the office..  

 

In essence it was ok as long as the elections where just state elections for state offices,  but when its for a seat in the congress it suddenly matters ....strange isn't it.

Edited November 15, 2017 by windwalker