By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - President Trump Mocks Alleged Sexual Assault Victim

Puppyroach on 04 October 2018
contestgamer said:
ResilientFighter said:
I heard one of his sexual assault victims took a lie detector test that proved she was not lying. No high ranking politic should be put in power when there are 3 women accusing him.

There's a reason they arent admissible in court. And by your logic as long as 3 people come up with BS accusations against someone they should not be put in office regardless of whether they're true or not. Someone on 4chan could organize 3 people to come forward and accuse a random politician, and because of your 3 accuser rule they'd have to be automatically dismissed from office. 

Puppyroach said:

They should if the accused is running for public office. And why does it matter if they are unproven? Does that justify the behaviour of Trump and the audience?

Why does it matter that they are unproven? Is that a serious question? That's ALL that matters. Either you prove it or he's innocent - but when you go public like this, regardless of whether you have proof or not you already ruined the name of the accused. That is wrong. And I dont see an issue with the audience behavior here. I mean, what's worse; Making baseless sexual assault allegations that you can't definitively prove and which will ruin a mans life, or pointing out and laughing at the inconsistencies of the accuser who's doing her best to ruin that mans life?

But you can't prove it without going public. Almost every case in court in the history of court cases is based on an accusation that needs to be proven in court. The same goes for this case, which is why a proper FBI should have been done before any questioning.



Around the Network
Puppyroach on 04 October 2018
contestgamer said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Well there's no proof he's innocent either, so there's that.

You know that makes zero sense buddy. Innocent til proven guilty. Otherwise I could accuse you of some made up BS here, point and laugh "haha, theres no proof that you didn't do the BS I just accused you of!"

o_O.Q said:

hang on, you're a woman, suppose this happened to you? wouldn't you want people to take you seriously?

Wrecking a mans life isn't being taken seriously. What would be proper conduct is not going public, but privately going to the police so they can investigate. In this case it's past the statutes, so they woudn't. Well that's too bad, next time don't wait 20 years to come forward. But don't come out with unprovable accusations that can ruin a mans life infornt of 6 billion people.

Puppyroach said:

Where did I claim he was disqualified by being accused? He disqualified himself by his behaviour during the hearing, not by the accusations in itself.

 

And for the second part, assuming someone is lying is equally as bad as assuming someone is quilty.

What behavior are you referring to? Him raising his voice when facing accusations that can ruin his life isn't out of bounds.

Yes it is for a supreme court judge. He also told bold faced lies during the hearing which is immediately disqualifying.



contestgamer on 04 October 2018
Puppyroach said:
contestgamer said:

There's a reason they arent admissible in court. And by your logic as long as 3 people come up with BS accusations against someone they should not be put in office regardless of whether they're true or not. Someone on 4chan could organize 3 people to come forward and accuse a random politician, and because of your 3 accuser rule they'd have to be automatically dismissed from office. 

Why does it matter that they are unproven? Is that a serious question? That's ALL that matters. Either you prove it or he's innocent - but when you go public like this, regardless of whether you have proof or not you already ruined the name of the accused. That is wrong. And I dont see an issue with the audience behavior here. I mean, what's worse; Making baseless sexual assault allegations that you can't definitively prove and which will ruin a mans life, or pointing out and laughing at the inconsistencies of the accuser who's doing her best to ruin that mans life?

But you can't prove it without going public. Almost every case in court in the history of court cases is based on an accusation that needs to be proven in court. The same goes for this case, which is why a proper FBI should have been done before any questioning.

Yeah you can - you go to police not the media. If you're an assault victim you shouldn't be going to the employer of the accused with no irrefutable evidence and be demanding his termination. That's wrong. And this is beyond the statute of limitations anyway, so there shouldn't be an investigation to begin with. She had DECADES to come forward. It's too late now. And because there cant be any criminal investigation she decides to smear him in public instead.



Kerotan on 04 October 2018

Your title should say alleged victim no? Isn't it not proven?



Puppyroach on 04 October 2018
contestgamer said:
Puppyroach said:

But you can't prove it without going public. Almost every case in court in the history of court cases is based on an accusation that needs to be proven in court. The same goes for this case, which is why a proper FBI should have been done before any questioning.

Yeah you can - you go to police not the media. If you're an assault victim you shouldn't be going to the employer of the accused with no irrefutable evidence and be demanding his termination. That's wrong. And this is beyond the statute of limitations anyway, so there shouldn't be an investigation to begin with. She had DECADES to come forward. It's too late now. And because there cant be any criminal investigation she decides to smear him in public instead.

So your argument is that if she was the victim, she should blame herself for not coming forward earlier?



Around the Network
contestgamer on 04 October 2018
Puppyroach said:
contestgamer said:

Yeah you can - you go to police not the media. If you're an assault victim you shouldn't be going to the employer of the accused with no irrefutable evidence and be demanding his termination. That's wrong. And this is beyond the statute of limitations anyway, so there shouldn't be an investigation to begin with. She had DECADES to come forward. It's too late now. And because there cant be any criminal investigation she decides to smear him in public instead.

So your argument is that if she was the victim, she should blame herself for not coming forward earlier?

My argument is that if you shouldn't be lobbing unproven, serious accusations against someone infront of the entire world - ruining their career, potentially family and life. The fact that she's coming out with this now speaks to me of a vindictiveness and malintent. The timing coupled with her going public instead of privately to authorities speaks negatively of her.



LivingMetal on 04 October 2018
ResilientFighter said:
I heard one of his sexual assault victims took a lie detector test that proved she was not lying. No high ranking politic should be put in power when there are 3 women accusing him.

Lie detector tests do not prove you're lying or not.



LivingMetal on 04 October 2018
SpokenTruth said:
contestgamer said:

My argument is that if you shouldn't be lobbing unproven, serious accusations against someone infront of the entire world - ruining their career, potentially family and life. The fact that she's coming out with this now speaks to me of a vindictiveness and malintent. The timing coupled with her going public instead of privately to authorities speaks negatively of her.

She came out with to her therapist years ago.  She also stayed private with it to the Senate until the Senate made it public.  She didn't make the allegations to the whole world and wanted to stay confidential for the whole matter.  It was the Senate that took it all public. 

Her name was leaked to the public (early September).  THEN the Senate whet public with it.  If Feinstein had brought this up when she first found out (late July), both parties would have tackled this privately before the leak happened.

Last edited by LivingMetal - on 04 October 2018

Kerotan on 04 October 2018

Thanks for editing the title. Let's not become a website that spreads fake news.. The key word here is alleged. Innocent until proven guilty. Btw i don't know much or even care for this situation or American politics in general. But these witch hunts before a man is convicted bug me.



Zucas on 04 October 2018
melbye said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Well there's no proof he's innocent either, so there's that.

Good thing burden of proof is on the accuser then, any other way would be fit for a authoritarian country

The burden of proof in this scenario would be a preponderance of the evidence. Most people in the legal field, such as myself, would say that Dr. Ford has easily me that.