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

NightDragon83 said:

Wait, which "victim?"  The one that can't even remember when and where her alleged assault took place, or the one that teamed up with Creepy Porn Lawyer who keeps insisting there were allegedly a bunch of underage gang-rape high school parties back in the day that she continued to attend until she was gang banged herself?

Side note:  If we are to "believe all women" without question or any solid proof or evidence of their alleged assault, then Tom Robinson was really guilty as f*ck in To Kill A Mockingbird after all, correct?

PwerlvlAmy said:
o_O.Q said:

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

This situation actually makes it worse on woman in this situation. The whole ''believe me because I'm a woman'' as all the evidence you need is pure folly. It hurts women more than it helps us.  Give us proof that this woman is a victim,prove to me that she went through what she want through and I'll back her.  I cannot jump on the bandwagon just because we share the same gender. Until this guy is proven guilty, I cannot support that she's an actual victim as of yet. Therefore I cannot condemn Kav either at this time.

This 'believe all woman' thing doesn't make sense without context, just like how 'fake news' doesn't make sense without context.

It's not that the news is literally fake, it's that the news can be heavily biased, or an outright lie sometimes, which isn't what the news is supposed to be. It's not that people don't believe woman, it's that there are a few woman who've come forward and claimed that Kav is a horrible person for different reasons using mostly personal evidence, but there are also 50+ woman who've come forward claiming he's a stand up guy who's been anything but horrible, using mostly personal evidence. Do they not count? Which woman are we supposed to believe? What method do we use to ascertain the truth?

Do we use first come first serve? That doesn't make any sense because there is no reason for those woman to come forward backing him because he's assumed to be innocent unless someone claims otherwise. Do we use democracy, and simply say because more woman are backing Kav then attacking him that the majority rules? The only way to solve this, that's as fair as it can possibly be, is by using the rules and laws that we have in place. Those same rules and laws that weren't just learned and written yesterday, but have been through trial and error for ages, and are the best we've come up with until now.

Beyond that, the past is something that's always going to put a wrench into the future, since things were different in the past. You can't demand the future should cater to the past or you either get stagnation, or reversal. Think about what happened to Bill Clinton. Has he really paid the price, during or after his terms in office? Why is he still so beloved by certain people? The world is an extremely complicated place, but assuming the accused is guilty until proven innocent, just makes it that much more chaotic in the long run.



Around the Network
Raviel said:
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?

That's ridiculous. So if you run for any position of power, anyone can come out with a claim, an unsubstantiated claim and then you're disqualified automatically? That's a dangerous and undemocratic precedent and bound to be abused.

Should Trump have done what he did? Depends on how you look at the situation, did he mock her or the fact that her accusation is taken as fact by anyone on the left? Did he mock a sexual assault victim or a person who expects to be believed even without an ounce of evidence? I agree that he shouldn't have mocked her but she has provided nothing as proof other than "I remember that it was him". 

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.



CaptainExplosion said:
contestgamer said:
There's no proof she's a victim. Accusations that are unproven should not be for public consumption that effects your life the way this has.

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:
PwerlvlAmy said:

Exactly. That sums it all up rather well.

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:
Raviel said:

That's ridiculous. So if you run for any position of power, anyone can come out with a claim, an unsubstantiated claim and then you're disqualified automatically? That's a dangerous and undemocratic precedent and bound to be abused.

Should Trump have done what he did? Depends on how you look at the situation, did he mock her or the fact that her accusation is taken as fact by anyone on the left? Did he mock a sexual assault victim or a person who expects to be believed even without an ounce of evidence? I agree that he shouldn't have mocked her but she has provided nothing as proof other than "I remember that it was him". 

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.



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:
contestgamer said:
There's no proof she's a victim. Accusations that are unproven should not be for public consumption that effects your life the way this has.

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?



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
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.



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.



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



contestgamer said:

 In this case it's past the statutes, so they woudn't.

No, it's not.

According to Thiru Vignarajah, the former Deputy Attorney General of Maryland, there is no statute of limitations for the crimes Kavanaugh is being accused of.

 

 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

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?