• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Haley: Women accusers should be heard, even if Trump is target

Captain Adverse said:
Correct.

Hearsay has no merit in court because it is literally someone trying to convey what someone else said they heard from a third source.

Much of the "witness evidence" is actually rumor, not even the level hearsay. Example "Everyone knew about him being kicked out of a mall," while the people who would/should know "can't remember" or "can't say for sure."
Click to expand...

Yep and, BTW, where were you on (or about) August 4, 1979 when Betty Sue said that you tried to put a move on her behind the old Taylor barn? If you can't show proof that you were elsewhere then you are probably guilty because lots of folks heard about that night right from Betty Sue herself.
 
JANFU said:
And what recourse does one have when the Statute of Limitations has passed? Disregard it? Or as many do, try to make an informed decision
Click to expand...

A decision to do what?
 
Chomsky said:
Yes.

Pence and even Priebus, are now possibly subject to legal exposure.

Which begs the question: Will establishment Republicans eat their own? Their very leadership? I say no!
Click to expand...

Depends upon what comes out. Politicians all have 1 thing in common, looking to their next election.
Making a guess here, but before end Feb, 2 to 4 more charged with lying to the FBI/Congress. Each lie is a Felony as we saw with Flynn. Flynn has a bagful of dirt, emails, texts, documents.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You are looking at the issue with rose colored glasses.

The burden is not on the accused to prove the allegations are untrue. The burden is on the accuser to show the allegations are true.

It is almost impossible to prove a negative, unless you have an air-tight alibi showing you could not be present at the time and place the "crime" is alleged to have occurred.

On the other hand, the accuser should have all sorts of evidence that something did occur...at the very least an attempt to alert someone to the crime at the time it occurred so it could be corroborated and investigated for further evidence.

Saying "such and so happened" 40 years ago? The question is not "Why should we disbelieve someone"...but rather "Why after all this time should we believe them at all?"

As for the question "Why would they bring it up now if it wasn't true?"

There are all sorts of motivations that can be listed, including but not limited to a desire for fame, sympathy, money, revenge, but most particularly in the current political climate the timing coinciding with the ability to affect a critical political campaign decades later.
Click to expand...

Haha the public does not work that way. Millions and millions of people believed the silliest conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's birth place. Trump himself said he would send out investigators out to Hawaii to expose the cover-up. What came of that proof? Nothing, but people still believed it anyway.

I do believe that almost all the people who have been accused of sexual assault have been accused of sexual assault before and have had legal issues regarding this problem in their personal lives. Why you keep going on about how women are doing this for jollies is beyond me. You have provided no evidence for these claims, that the woman shouldn't be believed or that they are doing it for anything else. Now of course there may be women who are coming out hoping to gain something out of this metoo movement going on right now, but if there have been any, they haven't been very successful at doing it, and you should point them out to me because I don't know who these mysterious women who are making up false sexual assault allegations are.

And FYI, most women who go to police to say they've been raped, have no evidence of said rape. Should the police not believe them either?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Some DP members on here said that once Trump gets tax bill through Congress (and it looks like that's going to happen) then Republicans will turn their backs on him. Is this the beginning of that or will we won't be seeing anymore Nikki Haley?



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-heard-even-if-trump-is-target-idUSKBN1E40MH
Click to expand...

Yes Nikki did say that but she also did not say that all women who report misconduct must be believed. Instead--from the linked article--she carefully phrased it as: “Women who accuse anyone should be heard,” Haley said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “They should be heard, and they should be dealt with.” I agree with that. But I also have taken a strong position that all accusers are not necessarily credible. And the accused has as much right to be heard as the accusers. Nobody should have their life destroyed purely because somebody accuses them of something years ago that can be neither checked out or substantiated. That is power no person should ever have because of the near certainty that it will be abused for personal or political expediency.
 
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said on Sunday she believes any woman who has felt violated or mistreated by a man has every right to speak up, even if it is President Donald Trump they are accusing.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-heard-even-if-trump-is-target-idUSKBN1E40MH[/QUOTE]

The problem is that Trump has over 3500 lawsuits under his belt and access to several hundred million to make the accuers’ lives a living legal nightmare. He’s already threatened them all with lawsuits. That’s an incentive for women who don’t have the same financial means to fight back - to remain silent.

However, I believe that there are plenty of people across the US who are willing to contribute to a legal fund for all accusers.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Haha the public does not work that way. Millions and millions of people believed the silliest conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's birth place. Trump himself said he would send out investigators out to Hawaii to expose the cover-up. What came of that proof? Nothing, but people still believed it anyway.

I do believe that almost all the people who have been accused of sexual assault have been accused of sexual assault before and have had legal issues regarding this problem in their personal lives. Why you keep going on about how women are doing this for jollies is beyond me. You have provided no evidence for these claims, that the woman shouldn't be believed or that they are doing it for anything else. Now of course there may be women who are coming out hoping to gain something out of this metoo movement going on right now, but if there have been any, they haven't been very successful at doing it, and you should point them out to me because I don't know who these mysterious women who are making up false sexual assault allegations are.

And FYI, most women who go to police to say they've been raped, have no evidence of said rape. Should the police not believe them either?
Click to expand...

The ongoing problem with your argument is...you keep spouting dogmatic belief rather than addressing the point that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt because people do make false accusations all the time for all sorts of reasons.

If everyone was 100% honest 100% of the time, then we would not need courts of law because an accused would automatically admit his crime and submit to justice.

Nor would we need programs like the Innocence Project which has proven in a number of death penalty crimes that the wrong person was convicted. Death penalty crimes are only the tip of the iceburg.

But people are not 100% honest, which means that while the accused might be lying...so might the accuser.

Since it is the accused that will suffer some penalty, either in actual court or the court of public opinion? Then it behooves society to protect it's members from false accusations rather than punish for them and say "sorry" after the person has suffered harms by such reactions.
 
JANFU said:
I thought this was about women and allegations regarding Trump/ Moore.
Click to expand...

OK, but I doubt that you would decide to vote for either of them regardless. What you seem to want is to label others as deplorable for making their own decisions on who to believe and/or vote for.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but I doubt that you would decide to vote for either of them regardless. What you seem to want is to label others as deplorable for making their own decisions on who to believe and/or vote for.
Click to expand...

I have slammed Dems and Repubs for the harassment they committed. With Moore, no chance of a trial. Make an informed opinion. I did, and he is guity
 
Lutherf said:
What's controversial about her comment? I don't recall any executive order doing away with the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Probably contrary to the loyalty oath she made. :2razz:
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes Nikki did say that but she also did not say that all women who report misconduct must be believed. Instead--from the linked article--she carefully phrased it as: “Women who accuse anyone should be heard,” Haley said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “They should be heard, and they should be dealt with.” I agree with that. But I also have taken a strong position that all accusers are not necessarily credible. And the accused has as much right to be heard as the accusers. Nobody should have their life destroyed purely because somebody accuses them of something years ago that can be neither checked out or substantiated. That is power no person should ever have because of the near certainty that it will be abused for personal or political expediency.
Click to expand...
Great balanced & sane post there, Owl!

The accuser and the accused both need their rights protected.

I believe we differ in our specific opinion of the Ray Moore events, but I am in total agreement with your general post here.
 
Chomsky said:
Great balanced & sane post there, Owl!

The accuser and the accused both need their rights protected.

I believe we differ in our specific opinion of the Ray Moore events, but I am in total agreement with your general post here.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chomsky, but we don't differ in our specific opinion of the Roy Moore events as I have no opinion about that. But I do believe enough discrepancies have turned up in the various accounts of his alleged 'sins' and the timing of the accusations do leave a lot of room for doubt in that case. He may be guilty as sin and he may be mostly falsely accused. I say mostly because few among us have never done anything that wouldn't look good on our resume or if they surfaced during a political campaign.

If there is evidence he is guilty of something unforgivable or has deliberately lied about any of that I hope the Senate forces him out or boots him. But until then, he has as much right as anybody to have a fair hearing.

And nobody has any way to know what is and isn't the truth other than Moore himself and his accusers.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
The ongoing problem with your argument is...you keep spouting dogmatic belief rather than addressing the point that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt because people do make false accusations all the time for all sorts of reasons.

If everyone was 100% honest 100% of the time, then we would not need courts of law because an accused would automatically admit his crime and submit to justice.

Nor would we need programs like the Innocence Project which has proven in a number of death penalty crimes that the wrong person was convicted. Death penalty crimes are only the tip of the iceburg.

But people are not 100% honest, which means that while the accused might be lying...so might the accuser.

Since it is the accused that will suffer some penalty, either in actual court or the court of public opinion? Then it behooves society to protect it's members from false accusations rather than punish for them and say "sorry" after the person has suffered harms by such reactions.
Click to expand...

Powerful people simply calling an accusation a lie, and then by the virtue of the accused wealth and/or power, decides that the accusers aren’t entitled to be heard or due process, “doesn’t cut it either.”

There is a judicial system in place to deal with these issues. That’s how the citizens protect its members.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The ongoing problem with your argument is...you keep spouting dogmatic belief rather than addressing the point that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt because people do make false accusations all the time for all sorts of reasons.

If everyone was 100% honest 100% of the time, then we would not need courts of law because an accused would automatically admit his crime and submit to justice.

Nor would we need programs like the Innocence Project which has proven in a number of death penalty crimes that the wrong person was convicted. Death penalty crimes are only the tip of the iceburg.

But people are not 100% honest, which means that while the accused might be lying...so might the accuser.

Since it is the accused that will suffer some penalty, either in actual court or the court of public opinion? Then it behooves society to protect it's members from false accusations rather than punish for them and say "sorry" after the person has suffered harms by such reactions.
Click to expand...

Powerful people simply calling an accusation a lie, and then by the virtue of the accused wealth and/or power, decides that the accusers aren’t entitled to be heard or utilize due process, “doesn’t cut it either.”

There is a judicial system in place to deal with these issues. That’s how the citizens protect its members.
 
Removable Mind said:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-heard-even-if-trump-is-target-idUSKBN1E40MH

The problem is that Trump has over 3500 lawsuits under his belt and access to several hundred million to make the accuers’ lives a living legal nightmare. He’s already threatened them all with lawsuits. That’s an incentive for women who don’t have the same financial means to fight back - to remain silent.

However, I believe that there are plenty of people across the US who are willing to contribute to a legal fund for all accusers.
Click to expand...
Trump and some of his supporters would like us to believe his accusers "dissolved away" after he was elected. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some are fighting him tooth-and-nail through the courts, while he claims Presidential exception to not reply to their lawsuits.

Here's an interesting relatively updated list:

What Happened to the 16 Women Who Accused Trump of Sexual Misconduct

Here's more details of one of the motions, one that could open up a floodgate to the President:

Trumps Female Accusers Feel Forgotten - A Lawsuit May Change That

These women have not gone away, nor are they quietly sitting on the sidelines. In fact, they are aggressively pursuing Trump. And combined with the current #MeToo fervor, Trump is not out of the woods with this yet - especially if the lawsuit in the 2nd link moves forward.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The ongoing problem with your argument is...you keep spouting dogmatic belief rather than addressing the point that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt because people do make false accusations all the time for all sorts of reasons.

If everyone was 100% honest 100% of the time, then we would not need courts of law because an accused would automatically admit his crime and submit to justice.

Nor would we need programs like the Innocence Project which has proven in a number of death penalty crimes that the wrong person was convicted. Death penalty crimes are only the tip of the iceburg.

But people are not 100% honest, which means that while the accused might be lying...so might the accuser.

Since it is the accused that will suffer some penalty, either in actual court or the court of public opinion? Then it behooves society to protect it's members from false accusations rather than punish for them and say "sorry" after the person has suffered harms by such reactions.
Click to expand...

Yes. I trust regular everyday people over Hollywood executives and politicians. I'm not sure why you don't.
 
Removable Mind said:
Powerful people simply calling an accusation a lie, and then by the virtue of the accused wealth and/or power, decides that the accusers aren’t entitled to be heard or utilize due process, “doesn’t cut it either.”
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in Post #4, accusers should be heard...but not automatically believed. :shrug:

Removable Mind said:
There is a judicial system in place to deal with these issues. That’s how the citizens protect its members.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So if a crime has been committed, file a charge and take it to criminal court.

If too much time has passed, but there is evidence of some actual harm, file suit in civil court where the penalty is financial payment for alleged harms under the lesser burden of preponderance of the evidence.

However, understand that a guilty verdict in civil court does not show factual guilt, just that the judge/jury felt it was more likely than not something happened...and the plaintiff deserves some recompense. :shrug:
 
AlbqOwl said:
Thanks Chomsky, but we don't differ in our specific opinion of the Roy Moore events as I have no opinion about that. But I do believe enough discrepancies have turned up in the various accounts of his alleged 'sins' and the timing of the accusations do leave a lot of room for doubt in that case. He may be guilty as sin and he may be mostly falsely accused. I say mostly because few among us have never done anything that wouldn't look good on our resume or if they surfaced during a political campaign.

If there is evidence he is guilty of something unforgivable or has deliberately lied about any of that I hope the Senate forces him out or boots him. But until then, he has as much right as anybody to have a fair hearing.

And nobody has any way to know what is and isn't the truth other than Moore himself and his accusers.
Click to expand...
My apologies, it was someone else then. I've had far too many discussions on this issue, and many - like yours - have been very good!
 
Captain Adverse said:
No. :roll:

Like anyone else however, it must be proven true.

Even then, it should have actual merit regarding some factually relevant issue of performance in office.

At least when it comes to refusing to wait for next election, instead pushing for impeachment. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Right. Unless it goes against a Democrat, then that person should be put to death.
 
Removable Mind said:
Powerful people simply calling an accusation a lie, and then by the virtue of the accused wealth and/or power, decides that the accusers aren’t entitled to be heard or utilize due process, “doesn’t cut it either.”

There is a judicial system in place to deal with these issues. That’s how the citizens protect its members.
Click to expand...
And related, perhaps the worse may be a system where those in power buy-off an otherwise criminal action, and enforcing a gag-order as part of the terms.

It literally is buying one's way out of jail, buying the avoidance of justice. I realize the victims in turn agree to the buy-out, but it is what it is, and I find it despicable.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I have asked countless people why they shouldn't be believed and no one has given me an answer besides for the assumption that they might be doing it for money, when that hasn't exactly been proven. Nor have they been paid except to shut up in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

People lie all the time, and bringing down the powerful has long been one of Americas favorite pastimes.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Some DP members on here said that once Trump gets tax bill through Congress (and it looks like that's going to happen) then Republicans will turn their backs on him. Is this the beginning of that or will we won't be seeing anymore Nikki Haley?
Click to expand...

I don't know who stated that, but it wasn't smart. This may have been based on the fact that the GOP couldn't come together over repealing Obamacare, something they bitched and whined about for years. But when it comes to economy, as Bill Clinton understood, the GOP will align like ducklings if it means sending money upward.

The GOP will ride Trump for all he's worth after this Tax Bill. We already see where Mitch McConnell went from disowning Roy Moore, to fully endorsing him. And this was entirely based on the idea of political power to push traditional agendas.
 
Chomsky said:
Trump and some of his supporters would like us to believe his accusers "dissolved away" after he was elected. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some are fighting him tooth-and-nail through the courts, while he claims Presidential exception to not reply to their lawsuits.

Here's an interesting relatively updated list:

What Happened to the 16 Women Who Accused Trump of Sexual Misconduct

Here's more details of one of the motions, one that could open up a floodgate to the President:

Trumps Female Accusers Feel Forgotten - A Lawsuit May Change That

These women have not gone away, nor are they quietly sitting on the sidelines. In fact, they are aggressively pursuing Trump. And combined with the current #MeToo fervor, Trump is not out of the woods with this yet - especially if the lawsuit in the 2nd link moves forward.
Click to expand...

Where were you and all your liberal counterparts 20 years ago?

Back then, the democrats were saying that it was none of our business what a president does in private.

Yeah, it's just as disgusting now as it was then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom