I could molest a 13 year old on the capital steps and they would still vote for me!

[Fletch]

I could google it for you. But I'll leave that challenging job to you.

I do see where the accuser actually has her high school yearbook that year signed by Roy Moore.

Not creepy at all...nope!

Someone less snotty started a thread on it. Thanks anyway.

 

[MaggieD]

I️ recommend you Google ‘Denny Hastert, Speaker of the House and wrestling coach’ and let us know what you think.

These were children, yes? I specifically excluded children who later report as adults in my opinion.

 

[independentusa]

So if I murder someone forty years ago you can not see doing anything to me today. Those women have had to live with this their whole lives. Too afraid to come out against a man that could ruin their lives and now we see it is true by your post. Even now they are bring hurt by letting people know what kind of man they are voting for. I can understand why they have waited until now, when women all over the country are coming out against their attackers. They feel safer than coming out by themselves and yet, they aren't. Powerful men are always able to make those they attack feel the full brunt of their power, even after forty years.

 

[Threegoofs]

Someone less snotty started a thread on it. Thanks anyway.

Really though. It takes even less effort to google it than it does to post on this site.

But I️ can give you this tidbit:

 

[Threegoofs]

These were children, yes? I specifically excluded children who later report as adults in my opinion.

Like 14 and 16 year olds?

But you don’t give a pass to 17 and 18 year olds, even when the accused is a county District Attorney who tells them ‘you’re a child, I’m the DA- no ne will believe you’?

 

[MaggieD]

Like 14 and 16 year olds?

But you don’t give a pass to 17 and 18 year olds, even when the accused is a county District Attorney who tells them ‘you’re a child, I’m the DA- no ne will believe you’?

I am specifically relating to what I SAID! People in their thirties or even older talking about things that happened in their twenties. Why are you deliberately skewing my words??

 

[Visbek]

I could hear Moore saying this and it seems to be true. When you hear what his followers are saying on the boob tube, you wonder if they have a brain left amongst the whole of them. Even McConnell is saying for him to back out, but he won't. He knows that even if he molested a 13 year old on the capital steps that his followers will vote for him rather than any Dem.

Yeah, I don't quite agree with this position.

I assume/suspect that most people still supporting Moore do not believe the accusations. There may be some self-deception involved, but much more likely is that it's just rabid partisanship/tribalism, where they will believe anything bad about everyone else before believing that "Our Guy" is at fault. There is probably only a small core that thinks he did something wrong, and will vote for him anyway.

 

[Mr Person]

My response has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Absolutely nothing. And what conservative Christians have to do with this is beyond me. I’m not going to respond re your mom other than to say my comments explicitly excluded children later claiming sexual abuse when they become adults. If that happened to your mom, my heart goes out to her. Period.

A thirty-five-year old claiming she was sexually assaulted at age 27 simply doesn’t fly with me unless that person is mentally impaired. IMO, within every such accusation lies the distinct possibility that the accusation is either false or misrepresented. In our society, once the accusation is made, it is up to the accused to disprove it. That is wrong.

Ignorance isn't an argument, but that's exactly how you are trying to use it.

The attitude you display is one of the many reasons victims do not immediately report things and indeed may even choose to simply bury them, especially when the perpetrator is a powerful man. Perhaps they were too ashamed at first, too scared, too cowed by the perp's threats, already worried they wouldn't be believed at first. There are a hosts of other reasons. They don't say anything....and once they haven't said anything immediately, the concern grows that they will simply never be believed. So they bury it.

Human psychology is far more complex than you seem to think or understand. At least, I hope that's the explanation for the utterance of such an appallingly misguided view.




At the same time, it's always good if the public is skeptical of accusations. We don't want a society where people go down in flames based solely on accusation.

But there is further trouble here: some people go down and some don't. Late accusers are not always doubted. Far from it. For one thing, there's a newly very-powerful-man who didn't go down in flames due to accusations because the people who supported him could not let themselves believe that he did the things his accusers said. (And Moore is set to become a less powerful, but still powerful, man). Then there are people like Harvey Weinstein who fell off his pedestal and through the floor in very short order; I suppose movie producers just don't have the same kind of following.

:shrug:

If that doesn't explain the difference, what does? The famousness of the accusers? That wouldn't make sense. Famous people are not inherently more credible. So what is it, if not a desire to believe that some are guilty and a desire that others are not guilty? And where could that desire come from if these are people none of us personally know, if not politics/ideology?





Say, have you commented on Weinstein? Cosby? Louise C.K.? That guy from CNN or NBC or whatever ("Bradley?"). If your answer is the same on all fronts - that you do not at all believe these people because the accusers must either be lying or "mentally impaired" - then I suppose I'd say that from a professional perspective, we need more people with your attitude on juries.

But professional perspectives are not always personal perspectives. And this isn't a courtroom. If you simply doubt the accusers because of delay, that's wrong. Maybe it's a reason to be suspicious, but certainly not suspicious to the point of prejudging the accusers

After all, if we cannot prejudge the accused, why do you want to prejudge the accusers? Ooopsie.

 

[SheWolf]

Hmmm...interesting. :think:

A way to get someone to stop running for office by alleging something "naughty" happened decades before, with no evidence but an accuser's naked word, and the "believe the 'victim'" crowd demands the candidate step down (and let their favored Party candidate get the seat virtually unopposed).

No questions about the accuser's (or multiple accusers) motivations for waiting all those years, ignoring past political elections, and with no actual evidence the allegations are true.

I wonder why the accused would dare to keep running, and people would still dare to support him on such damning "evidence."

How disgusting! :roll:

I have worked with a lot if vitims if abuse, and all you're doing is attacking the accusers. Don't forget they are possible victims, and their behavior of waiting to come out is more common than you probably think. So remember, you're very likely attacking actual victims of sexual abse.

 

[SheWolf]

I’m with you. I’m sick of these years old accusations that ruin people’s lives.

Edit... and since when did DP become, “Here, let me make up something somebody cmight say and damn everyone else for how they might react to it?”

What about abusers who get away with years of abuse which has ruined the lives of their victims? That's far more sick than years old allegations. If he did what he is accused of, he is lucky the victims are only ruining his reputation.

 

[apdst]

Hmmm...interesting. :think:

A way to get someone to stop running for office by alleging something "naughty" happened decades before, with no evidence but an accuser's naked word, and the "believe the 'victim'" crowd demands the candidate step down (and let their favored Party candidate get the seat virtually unopposed).

No questions about the accuser's (or multiple accusers) motivations for waiting all those years, ignoring past political elections, and with no actual evidence the allegations are true.

I wonder why the accused would dare to keep running, and people would still dare to support him on such damning "evidence."

How disgusting! :roll:

Unless the accused is a Democrat and a member of the political class.

Aside from that? They're ****ed...to hell with what the truth may be.

 

[apdst]

What about abusers who get away with years of abuse which has ruined the lives of their victims? That's far more sick than years old allegations. If he did what he is accused of, he is lucky the victims are only ruining his reputation.

You mean like Bill Clinton? He got away with it for years.

 

[Threegoofs]

I am specifically relating to what I SAID! People in their thirties or even older talking about things that happened in their twenties. Why are you deliberately skewing my words??

You said:

I’m with you. I’m sick of these years old accusations that ruin people’s lives.

Edit... and since when did DP become, “Here, let me make up something somebody cmight say and damn everyone else for how they might react to it?”

Don't see anything about people in their 30s talking about their 20s.

Given that 20 is pretty old for Moore's tastes, I'm not sure what the relevance is anyway.

 

[blackjack50]

Disgusting, isn't it.

Apparently some of them support him even more now. Because spiting "the enemy" is more important than anything else, it seems.

Welcome to bipartisan politics. Both sides are teeming with idiots now.

 

[apdst]

I am specifically relating to what I SAID! People in their thirties or even older talking about things that happened in their twenties. Why are you deliberately skewing my words??

You know why.

 

[SheWolf]

My mother just recently admitted that she was repeatedly raped, starting at 8 years old, by her older sister's husband. She is not a liar either. I wonder if you realize that some crimes never get reported because the attitude you display here is so prevalent.

Conservative christians are a sexual predator's best friend. How shameful that you and others would protect the image of your party and faith at the expense of women and girls.

It's those like you that enable predators to hide amongst the flock.

The shame of abuse and these types of social reactions can be far more damaging to a person than the actual rape. I have heard a lot of victims say that. I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to this. The best somebody could do is try to stay neutral IMO, but once alleged victims start being attacked the alleged abuser quickly morphs into a victim, and that is socially irresponsible and appalling.

 

[MaggieD]

Ignorance isn't an argument, but that's exactly how you are trying to use it.

The attitude you display is one of the many reasons victims do not immediately report things and indeed may even choose to simply bury them, especially when the perpetrator is a powerful man. Perhaps they were too ashamed at first, too scared, too cowed by the perp's threats, already worried they wouldn't be believed at first. There are a hosts of other reasons. They don't say anything....and once they haven't said anything immediately, the concern grows that they will simply never be believed. So they bury it.

Human psychology is far more complex than you seem to think or understand. At least, I hope that's the explanation for the utterance of such an appallingly misguided view.




At the same time, it's always good if the public is skeptical of accusations. We don't want a society where people go down in flames based solely on accusation.

But there is further trouble here: some people go down and some don't. Late accusers are not always doubted. Far from it. For one thing, there's a newly very-powerful-man who didn't go down in flames due to accusations because the people who supported him could not let themselves believe that he did the things his accusers said. (And Moore is set to become a less powerful, but still powerful, man). Then there are people like Harvey Weinstein who fell off his pedestal and through the floor in very short order; I suppose movie producers just don't have the same kind of following.

:shrug:

If that doesn't explain the difference, what does? The famousness of the accusers? That wouldn't make sense. Famous people are not inherently more credible. So what is it, if not a desire to believe that some are guilty and a desire that others are not guilty? And where could that desire come from if these are people none of us personally know, if not politics/ideology?





Say, have you commented on Weinstein? Cosby? Louise C.K.? That guy from CNN or NBC or whatever ("Bradley?"). If your answer is the same on all fronts - that you do not at all believe these people because the accusers must either be lying or "mentally impaired" - then I suppose I'd say that from a professional perspective, we need more people with your attitude on juries.

But professional perspectives are not always personal perspectives. And this isn't a courtroom. If you simply doubt the accusers because of delay, that's wrong. Maybe it's a reason to be suspicious, but certainly not suspicious to the point of prejudging the accusers

After all, if we cannot prejudge the accused, why do you want to prejudge the accusers? Ooopsie.

Four people step forward on Mr. Person. One is 35 years old, claims you trapped her in an elevator and fondled her ten years ago Friday in a public building in your city. Now prove you didn’t before your life is ruined. Another is 40 years old. She claims she met you in a hotel bar in your town 12 years ago Tuesday where you invited her to your room, got her drunk, and, despite her protests, you raped her. Prove you didn’t before your life is ruined. And a third. And a fourth.

Report it when it happens...within a few months...maybe even a year. But don’t be coming up with this **** ten years down the road. Not all injustices are able to be addressed. The world isn’t fair. Someone can’t call 911? Can’t make a police report? Can’t report it to Human Resources? Waits ten years? Too late.

 

[Lutherf]

My mother just recently admitted that she was repeatedly raped, starting at 8 years old, by her older sister's husband. She is not a liar either. I wonder if you realize that some crimes never get reported because the attitude you display here is so prevalent.

Conservative christians are a sexual predator's best friend. How shameful that you and others would protect the image of your party and faith at the expense of women and girls.

It's those like you that enable predators to hide amongst the flock.

With all due respect to your situation, I'd have to at least consider that not reporting the crime is also enabling the action.

 

[VanceMack]

Yet, to this day, Bill Clinton is model for the modern Leftist. (i. e. the party of sexual deviancy)

But thats DIFFERENT. And besides...none of them voted for him. And dont support him. Or his wife. Blech.

 

[Paperview]

Disgusting, isn't it.

Apparently some of them support him even more now. Because spiting "the enemy" is more important than anything else, it seems.

Make America Rape Again

 

[SheWolf]

With all due respect to your situation, I'd have to at least consider that not reporting the crime is also enabling the action.

As somebody who has worked with victims of abuse and rape, many of them live with that reality and shame. It's hardly fair to tell such a person that they are responsible for another person getting abused.

I also once talked to somebody in depth about losing her trial. She felt completely destroyed having gone public, lossing her trial, and ultimately not being believed. Years later, he ended up in court again, accused of the very same. He was found guilty the second time and some evidence from her trial was used. That changed her initial attitude on what it meant speak out.

That fact is, victims struggle with guilt, self blame, why me, shame, etc. I don't blame the victims, society, the jury, or anybody else but the predator.

 

[Zyphlin]

Disgusting, isn't it.

Apparently some of them support him even more now. Because spiting "the enemy" is more important than anything else, it seems.

It's not simply about spiting the enemy, at least for most of those who will vote for him I'd wager. Rather, it's likely out of self interest. People who are voting for him likely prefer republican policies, Moore is far more likely to vote for republican policy, therefore if they want policy passed that suits their desires their only option is basically to vote for Moore. That's the stark and sad reality of how our system works.

Now, you can make whatever judgement you'd like in terms of selfishness or what not, but voting based on your self interested (in terms of wanting certain policies, or not wanting certain policies) is likely far more likely to be the motivator for many voters beyond simple "spite"

-edit- I reread and see you're talking about those that are doing it "even more" now. In those instances, you're likely right about spite, largely based off a disbelief or distrust of the legitimacy of the charges.

The whole thing is a horrible but illuminating example of tribalism.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Come now, you're more intelligent then this.

It's not simply about spiting the enemy, at least for most of those who will vote for him I'd wager. Rather, it's likely out of self interest. People who are voting for him likely prefer republican policies, Moore is far more likely to vote for republican policy, therefore if they want policy passed that suits their desires their only option is basically to vote for Moore. That's the stark and sad reality of how our system works.

Now, you can make whatever judgement you'd like in terms of selfishness or what not, but voting based on your self interested (in terms of wanting certain policies, or not wanting certain policies) is likely far more likely to be the motivator for many voters beyond simple "spite"

i think there is a limit to what is excusable under political partisanship. I believe that there are some Alabama voters out there who can not vote for Roy Moore as their senator because that would require overlooking what he has said and done.

 

[Mr Person]

Four people step forward on Mr. Person. One is 35 years old, claims you trapped her in an elevator and fondled her ten years ago Friday in a public building in your city. Now prove you didn’t before your life is ruined. Another is 40 years old. She claims she met you in a hotel bar in your town 12 years ago Tuesday where you invited her to your room, got her drunk, and, despite her protests, you raped her. Prove you didn’t before your life is ruined. And a third. And a fourth.

Report it when it happens...within a few months...maybe even a year. But don’t be coming up with this **** ten years down the road. Not all injustices are able to be addressed. The world isn’t fair. Someone can’t call 911? Can’t make a police report? Can’t report it to Human Resources? Waits ten years? Too late.

I know what your opinion is of late-accusations. I responded to it. What about my counter-points? Screw-em-all?



Here's a new one before I get back to them: I don't think you've thought out how to actually prove something in court. You don't need to be a lawyer. It's actually pretty much common sense in this kind of case.

What is this vast difference between a witness testifying that someone, say, masturbated in front of them while blocking the exit to a hotel room just a week ago vs. 5 years ago? It wouldn't leave any physical evidence, and the accusers we now speak of are referring to times before everyone was tracked (ie, by the cellphone they carry as it bounces signals off cell towers). Perhaps the accused could come up with an alibi witness, but other than that, there really isn't much of anything.

What new thing could the accused say? Either "no I didn't", or "yes I did. Sorry", no? Try to to think about specific evidence that could vary. I doubt you'll come up with anything good because these are always he-said/she-said.





So again, I actually am quite glad that people don't want to simply convict based on accusations. I get that. The problem is that you cannot simply dismiss accusers out of hand because you cannot understand why they didn't report immediately. That's especially true if you haven't looked into that question independently the past (have you?).

Automatically dismissing the accusers is no better than automatically believing them. So why are all these women lying about Moore, about Trump, about all the "leftist Hollywood producers", about a CNN or NBC guy, yadda yadda?

Why?





I'm not saying I automatically believe all these people. But it is completely wrong of you to suggest that the only way these women could be telling the truth is if they are "mentally impaired".

That couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Lutherf]

As somebody who has worked with victims of abuse and rape, many of them live with that reality and shame. It's hardly fair to tell such a person that they are responsible for another person getting abused.

I also once talked to somebody in depth about losing her trial. She felt completely destroyed having gone public, lossing her trial, and ultimately not being believed. Years later, he ended up in court again, accused of the very same. He was found guilty the second time and some evidence from her trial was used. That changed her initial attitude on what it meant speak out.

That fact is, victims struggle with guilt, self blame, why me, shame, etc. I don't blame the victims, society, the jury, or anybody else but the predator.

I'm not assigning blame to the victim. I understand how the guilt and feelings of failure work. The same symptoms are a major aspect of PTSD. However, none of that changes the fact that the failure to act when such a situation occurs leaves the door open for the assailant to victimize someone else.