• 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

NeverTrump

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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?

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
 
Accusers are always heard...that does not equate to a need for them to always be believed. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
Accusers are always heard...that does not equate to a need for them to always be believed. :shrug:
Click to expand...

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.
 
JANFU said:
Planning for 2020. Much like Pence is.
Click to expand...

People always say that it's Pence who will escape all the investigation, my guess that its Haley. She's much farther removed from all of this than anybody.
 
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...

Not true.

You simply refuse to accept any answers that don't conform to your assumption bias.

The reason why accusers should not automatically be believed is because the burden of showing the accusation is true must always rest with the accuser.

Otherwise, I could accuse you of being a (Whatever) and assuming your position that I should automatically be believed means we must all act like you ARE (Whatever) and treat you accordingly.

This though you might factually be completely innocent.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Not true.

The reason why accusers should not automatically be believed is because the burden of showing the accusation is true must always rest with the accuser.

Otherwise, I could accuse you of being a (Whatever) and assuming your position that I should automatically be believed means we must all act like you ARE (Whatever) and treat you accordingly.
Click to expand...

There is almost NEVER photographic evidence in these cases, and your suggestion that there should be is oddly perverted. No, groups of women are not coming forward simply for jollies and there is no grand klan of woman coming out in order to make up false accusations. In fact, none of the allegations that have come out have been proven false and ALL of them have been corroborated by different women dealing with the same men throughout decades
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
There is almost NEVER photographic evidence in these cases, and your suggestion that there should be is oddly perverted. No, groups of women are not coming forward simply for jollies and there is no grand klan of woman coming out in order to make up false accusations. In fact, none of the allegations that have come out have been proven false and ALL of them have been corroborated by different women dealing with the same men throughout decades
Click to expand...

The way criminal accusations work is that the state must have sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If no such criminal charge is levied then it is safe to assume that the cause is likely a lack of sufficient evidence or timely reporting of that evidence. Even when you "know" that someone is likely guilty (e.g. O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony) the state has to overcome that "reasonable" doubt.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
People always say that it's Pence who will escape all the investigation, my guess that its Haley. She's much farther removed from all of this than anybody.
Click to expand...

Ya they say Pence could, I doubt it though.
Mueller now has legs with Flynn's testimony, and KT McFarland without doubt will be looking for/has a lawyer for when Mueller calls her in.
While Pence was not in MA when the info regarding Russia/ Flynn's contacts with the Russian Ambassador, was discussed around 28 Dec and later. Does not mean he was not briefed on it.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
There is almost NEVER photographic evidence in these cases, and your suggestion that there should be is oddly perverted. No, groups of women are not coming forward simply for jollies and there is no grand klan of woman coming out in order to make up false accusations. In fact, none of the allegations that have come out have been proven false and ALL of them have been corroborated by different women dealing with the same men throughout decades
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
The way criminal accusations work is that the state must have sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If no such criminal charge is levied then it is safe to assume that the cause is likely a lack of sufficient evidence or timely reporting of that evidence. Even when you "know" that someone is likely guilty (e.g. O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony) the state has to overcome that "reasonable" doubt.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

But what that's conversely saying, is that many have committed crimes that lack court-quality evidenciary proof.

Which of course is why, when voting, we weigh these things in the court of public opinion! ;)
 
JANFU said:
Ya they say Pence could, I doubt it though.
Mueller now has legs with Flynn's testimony, and KT McFarland without doubt will be looking for/has a lawyer for when Mueller calls her in.
While Pence was not in MA when the info regarding Russia/ Flynn's contacts with the Russian Ambassador, was discussed around 28 Dec and later. Does not mean he was not briefed on it.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Chomsky said:
Exactly.

But what that's conversely saying, is that many have committed crimes that lack court-quality evidenciary proof.

Which of course is why, when voting, we weigh these things in the court of public opinion! ;)
Click to expand...

Yep, which makes such accusations effective regardless of having any evidence and denies the accused their right to free council or a day in court to face the accuser. Some try to assert that hearsay evidence (generally not allowed in a court) is strong - since the accusations were (allegedly) relayed to others "at the time" so that makes them super valid.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
People always say that it's Pence who will escape all the investigation, my guess that its Haley. She's much farther removed from all of this than anybody.
Click to expand...
I think it's very possible Pence has exposure, and possibly Piebus, too.

It goes to show that all that consort with Trump, are or become, scum.

I can't believe General Kelly is still with him, though he seems (very smartly) silent and holed-up as of late. Then again, Kelly flipped his usual demeanor and supported Trump during Charlottesville, where I summarily wrote him off as another one turned to crap.
 
As far as I know, the public already voiced their opinion on the vote

But as to the OP...is anyone keeping these women quiet? Have they been threatened? Paid off?

IMO the entire OP is a fallacy.....if these women want to come forward and make a case....let them

If there is “something there” that can be proven, then by all means

But as I said in another thread....I don’t care if you are a democrat, republican, or a communist

In this country, you are innocent until you get your day in court or plead guilty
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, which makes such accusations effective regardless of having any evidence and denies the accused their right to free council or a day in court to face the accuser. Some try to assert that hearsay evidence (generally not allowed in a court) is strong - since the accusations were (allegedly) relayed to others "at the time" so that makes them super valid.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Hearsay has no merit in court because it is literally someone trying to convey what someone else (not the accused) said they heard or saw or heard from a third source. (I.e. Josh [unavailable witness] told me he saw, or Josh told me Tom said he saw.)

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."
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, which makes such accusations effective regardless of having any evidence and denies the accused their right to free council or a day in court to face the accuser. Some try to assert that hearsay evidence (generally not allowed in a court) is strong - since the accusations were (allegedly) relayed to others "at the time" so that makes them super valid.
Click to expand...
No argument there.

But we also need to keep in mind many crimes, as you stated earlier, cannot be brought to court for various reasons. So we can't always "wait until court". We can only draw on our life's experiences, and form an opinion from the limited evidence we believe we have.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, which makes such accusations effective regardless of having any evidence and denies the accused their right to free council or a day in court to face the accuser. Some try to assert that hearsay evidence (generally not allowed in a court) is strong - since the accusations were (allegedly) relayed to others "at the time" so that makes them super valid.
Click to expand...

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
 
rocket88 said:
And if it's against Trump, it's obviously false!
Click to expand...

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:
 
Captain Adverse said:
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?"
Click to expand...

Because rape in all its many manifestations was a real going concern for US/western males. One only has to look at a strong, powerful women like Angelina Jolie and how silent she was for so many years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom