U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1235743

Comments

  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Alkaid13 said:
    Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts. 
    If any republican senator votes no for tax cuts they need to be blacklisted by the party and not only that the party should actively campaign against them. 

    There comes a point at which if you want to act like a democrat you should start being honest with yourself and the voters 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    And a quick foray to the wonderful up and coming "developing" city of Baltimore, a city councilor is so upset that police officers don't want to live in such a wonderful cosmopolitan metropolis like Baltimore that he says cops who don't live in the city are "raping" it
     http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/10/19/officers-raping-the-city/


  • If you are ever in Baltimore

    Duesenbergs

    I worked in Baltimore for some time - it ain't half bad.
    cdrive
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Alkaid13 said:
    Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts. 
    If any republican senator votes no for tax cuts they need to be blacklisted by the party and not only that the party should actively campaign against them. 

    There comes a point at which if you want to act like a democrat you should start being honest with yourself and the voters 
    There are far more qualifiers than voting no on tax cuts.  Republicans voted yes for tax cuts during the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it devastated America.  Because I don't support massive tax cuts am I automatically a Democrat?  And vice versa?  

    Making hard qualifiers for Republican or Democrat is what has gotten us into this mess.
  • Unfortunately I fear that ideological purity tests are becoming the norm now for political parties, which will likely just increase partisanship and lead to the further break down in relations between Americans. 
  • Alkaid13 said:
    Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts. 
    If any republican senator votes no for tax cuts they need to be blacklisted by the party and not only that the party should actively campaign against them. 

    There comes a point at which if you want to act like a democrat you should start being honest with yourself and the voters 
    Shouldn't they base their vote on the substance of the bill? And not just some abstract idea that Paul Ryan read about in college?

    I'm a Democrat but would support actual smart tax reform and some targeted tax cuts that don't come at the expense of vital programs. But if it's just another massive tax cut that will raise the debt, we already tried that with Reagan and W and it didn't work as promised. They don't "pay for themselves" with some magical explosion of economic growth.
    CretanBull
  • The new litmus test introduced by the tea party, and now the freedom caucus, was no deficit increases. Willing to shut down the government and risk debt default over it.

    Tax reform was pitched to be revenue neutral, and tax reform for the purpose of simplification and modernization is a great thing.

    Now we have a proposal for tax cuts for the wealthy (big mistake to include the estate tax, and to a lesser extent AMT, here as you can’t spin that to be anything else) funded by a $1.5trillion dollar deficit increase.

    This is all situational and transactional; more about winning than furthering an ideological agenda. GOP used to be for free trade and now not. Reagan and GWB were for legitimizing undocumented residents, now that’s kryptonite. Reagan raised taxes multiple times after initial cut and GHWB raised taxes, now you should be kicked out of the party for thinking about it.

    Flake and Corker are good conservatives. If the standard-bearer and leader of the party is a recently-reformed East Coast Liberal elite who supported Democratic causes and issue for longer than he hasn’t (supported his crooked, awful, evil opponent in more elections than he opposed her...), and is now bringing some of those causes into the GOP (trade for example), then I don’t think litmus tests based on conservative principles is a defensible position.

    Honestly if Trump thought he could have been popular as a Democrat, he’d probably be to the left of Bernie because he just wants the wins, drama, and attention.

    If these tax cuts (doesn’t look like it’s going to be reform anymore) don’t pass, it’ll be interesting to see how many actual conservatives stop holding their noses for Trump. If he can’t get the top agenda stuff like Obamacare repeal and tax cuts through, then why put up with the other stuff when you’re going to get blamed anyway?
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Alkaid13 said:
    Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts. 
    If any republican senator votes no for tax cuts they need to be blacklisted by the party and not only that the party should actively campaign against them. 

    There comes a point at which if you want to act like a democrat you should start being honest with yourself and the voters 
    There are far more qualifiers than voting no on tax cuts.  Republicans voted yes for tax cuts during the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it devastated America.  Because I don't support massive tax cuts am I automatically a Democrat?  And vice versa?  

    Making hard qualifiers for Republican or Democrat is what has gotten us into this mess.
    Maybe not automatically, but when repealing ACA and tax reform have been parts of the party platform for years and now suddenly that you have that power you're shirking away and betraying the party then it does raise questions. 

    There re is some room for ideological differences, but on the balance if you're monkey wrenching the party's agenda and not adding anything to the process then it raises the question what are they even doing there? If you want more taxes, more government control of healthcare, more regulations by unelected administrators then just honestly call yourself a democrat 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    MrX said:
    Alkaid13 said:
    Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts. 
    If any republican senator votes no for tax cuts they need to be blacklisted by the party and not only that the party should actively campaign against them. 

    There comes a point at which if you want to act like a democrat you should start being honest with yourself and the voters 
    Shouldn't they base their vote on the substance of the bill? And not just some abstract idea that Paul Ryan read about in college?

    I'm a Democrat but would support actual smart tax reform and some targeted tax cuts that don't come at the expense of vital programs. But if it's just another massive tax cut that will raise the debt, we already tried that with Reagan and W and it didn't work as promised. They don't "pay for themselves" with some magical explosion of economic growth.
    You're right, they don't. See Americans have a special relationship with the truth, they can't handle it and so politicians much to the detriment of everyone lie to get a good bill passed and then take the heat if called on it later.

    lowering taxes will not cause enough growth to replace lost revenues, that is true, and I wish McConnell would just grow a spine and explain some things, such as the role of government is too big in this country and in addition to tax cuts there needs to be expenditure cuts.

    so much of the administrative state could easily be cut without Americans knowing the difference. The massive federal entitlements need to be pared down as well, that's not popular, and what also isn't popular is holding defense contractors accountable and actually negotiating with them. Man I was so happy when Trump called out Boeing on the replacement of AF-1, because as much as I love Boeing, they're living high on the hog with a fixed contract process where they simply lobbied Patty Murray to get a tanker contract instead of producing a better airplane then Airbus and then want to hold us for 4 billion on two airframes the FedGov could buy used for 400 million?
    i mean there's examples everywhere of where we can put the screws on bureaucrats and contractors to pay for tax cuts 




  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    Thomas said:
    Alkaid13 said:
    Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts. 
    If any republican senator votes no for tax cuts they need to be blacklisted by the party and not only that the party should actively campaign against them. 

    There comes a point at which if you want to act like a democrat you should start being honest with yourself and the voters 
    There are far more qualifiers than voting no on tax cuts.  Republicans voted yes for tax cuts during the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it devastated America.  Because I don't support massive tax cuts am I automatically a Democrat?  And vice versa?  

    Making hard qualifiers for Republican or Democrat is what has gotten us into this mess.
    Maybe not automatically, but when repealing ACA and tax reform have been parts of the party platform for years and now suddenly that you have that power you're shirking away and betraying the party then it does raise questions. 

    There re is some room for ideological differences, but on the balance if you're monkey wrenching the party's agenda and not adding anything to the process then it raises the question what are they even doing there? If you want more taxes, more government control of healthcare, more regulations by unelected administrators then just honestly call yourself a democrat 
    Is it possible there are things more important than the party's agenda? Our elected reps swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the party. McCain, for instance--he wants to repeal and replace the ACA but he voted no and explained exactly why--it wasn't being done in the course of regular order, just rammed through without any time for debate or any input from experts in the field. A yes vote from him would have gone with the party, but it's hard to argue that it wasn't a principled vote based on his conscience and his duty to the constitution. Does being a Republican just mean doing what you're told by the party leaders? Is that all you expect from your reps? Why don't you just vote for a dog, then? 
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline

    i mean there's examples everywhere of where we can put the screws on bureaucrats and contractors to pay for tax cuts 




    But that's not what they're going to do, and you know it--they're going to gut medicare, social security, education--it's always the poor and vulnerable who pay the price for tax cuts. 
  • Frakkin T said:

    i mean there's examples everywhere of where we can put the screws on bureaucrats and contractors to pay for tax cuts 




    But that's not what they're going to do, and you know it--they're going to gut medicare, social security, education--it's always the poor and vulnerable who pay the price for tax cuts. 
    There's always talk in America about what America can't afford, but the things that the right says American can't afford are provided by just about every other Western country in the world.  Taxes are higher here, in Europe, Australia etc but our industries haven't collapsed, there are still jobs here, there's still growth and opportunity here, companies here don't say that they'd like to expand but can't afford it, we have an entrepreneurial class here etc. and yet somehow we find a way to provide every citizen with health care, we can get a degree from the best university in Canada (one of the best in the world) for $26,000 (that's for 4 years), have 9 paid holidays a year (in addition to whatever your job provides you with...I get 4 week at the moment), 50 weeks of paid maternity leave etc.

    The fact that every modern Western country has learned is that if you pay a little more in taxes, your actual cost of living goes down - you spend less on education, less on healthcare, less on public transit etc.  and you're FAR better off in the end.

    Tax cuts can be good, can provide stimulus etc but the tax cut proposed by Trump that will see 80% of the cuts going to the to .02% of the population will do absolutely nothing for 99.98% of the population, but those will be the people who pay the price because it's services that those people rely on that will be cut to give giant tax cuts to billionaires (who happen to fund the election campaigns of the people in congress - both parties).
    DeeDaveyMac
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    Alkaid13 said:
    Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts. 
    If any republican senator votes no for tax cuts they need to be blacklisted by the party and not only that the party should actively campaign against them. 

    There comes a point at which if you want to act like a democrat you should start being honest with yourself and the voters 
    There are far more qualifiers than voting no on tax cuts.  Republicans voted yes for tax cuts during the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it devastated America.  Because I don't support massive tax cuts am I automatically a Democrat?  And vice versa?  

    Making hard qualifiers for Republican or Democrat is what has gotten us into this mess.
    Maybe not automatically, but when repealing ACA and tax reform have been parts of the party platform for years and now suddenly that you have that power you're shirking away and betraying the party then it does raise questions. 

    There re is some room for ideological differences, but on the balance if you're monkey wrenching the party's agenda and not adding anything to the process then it raises the question what are they even doing there? If you want more taxes, more government control of healthcare, more regulations by unelected administrators then just honestly call yourself a democrat 
    You assume that the lines between Democrat and Republican are black and white.  In 1950 there were Democrats who were far more conservative than a lot of Republicans, and vice versa.  Being loyal to a party has only gotten us deeper into trouble.  

    Your example of government control of healthcare, for example, isn't black and white.  I do not want socialized medicine and I do not want to pay for every person in America to have healthcare coverage.  But that is because Republicans have lobbied and legislated in favor of the insurance companies and turned our healthcare system in a for-profit system (similar to prisons), to the point where you have hospitals charging people $5000 a night to simply sleep in a bed.  Yet if I requested the government reform healthcare you will label me a Democrat.
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Also, to go in a completely different but kind of similar direction, it is sickening when I see liberals defending Harvey Weinstein by saying all these women only want attention.  Then Republicans are saying the same thing about the women that are accusing Bush Sr (very minor compared to Weinstein, I know, but still).  Whenever the accused is a member of the out-group people lose their minds, but when it is one of their own they come to defend them.

    The same goes for football players.  I read Jon Krakaeur's book "Missoula," which highlighted the epidemic of rape in college.  Whenever an athlete, whether professional or collegiate, is accused of rape, the fans come out in droves to defend the player because he is part of their in-group.  Jamis Winston is a perfect example.  Guy raped two girls before anybody knew his name at FSU and the college withheld the investigation and news of the rape until he was famous.  Then they released it and fans all attacked the woman for doing it for attention, when in reality she filed the complaint before ever knowing who he was.

    Obviously false accusations happen sometimes (Duke Lacrosse is a perfect example), but they are extremely rare.  In the main study of Krakaeur's book, the accused rapist admitted to police he raped the girl.  The fans still defended him and said she was a liar, even after he admitted to it.  People just can't accept when their in-group has someone who fucked up.
  • Are people actually still defending Wienstein? That seems ridiculous at this point but also, depressingly, I can believe it. 
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    Thomas said:
    Also, to go in a completely different but kind of similar direction, it is sickening when I see liberals defending Harvey Weinstein by saying all these women only want attention.  Then Republicans are saying the same thing about the women that are accusing Bush Sr (very minor compared to Weinstein, I know, but still).  Whenever the accused is a member of the out-group people lose their minds, but when it is one of their own they come to defend them.


    Agreed there is no defense for scum like Weinstein--he should be roundly condemned and run out of town on a rail, same as Halperin, Cosby, O'Reilly, etc. I'm not sure I see a lot of liberals defending him, though. Are you talking about someone specifically? 
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Sometimes when your in-group insists that something is happening it's so convincing that you'd swear you've seen it with your own eyes.
  • Frakkin T said:
    Thomas said:
    Also, to go in a completely different but kind of similar direction, it is sickening when I see liberals defending Harvey Weinstein by saying all these women only want attention.  Then Republicans are saying the same thing about the women that are accusing Bush Sr (very minor compared to Weinstein, I know, but still).  Whenever the accused is a member of the out-group people lose their minds, but when it is one of their own they come to defend them.


    Agreed there is no defense for scum like Weinstein--he should be roundly condemned and run out of town on a rail, same as Halperin, Cosby, O'Reilly, etc. I'm not sure I see a lot of liberals defending him, though. Are you talking about someone specifically? 
    The only prominent people I really saw defending him were Lindsay Lohan and Oliver Stone ... and they are both, to put it gently ... batshit crazy.
    Frakkin TDee
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Frakkin T said:
    Thomas said:
    Also, to go in a completely different but kind of similar direction, it is sickening when I see liberals defending Harvey Weinstein by saying all these women only want attention.  Then Republicans are saying the same thing about the women that are accusing Bush Sr (very minor compared to Weinstein, I know, but still).  Whenever the accused is a member of the out-group people lose their minds, but when it is one of their own they come to defend them.


    Agreed there is no defense for scum like Weinstein--he should be roundly condemned and run out of town on a rail, same as Halperin, Cosby, O'Reilly, etc. I'm not sure I see a lot of liberals defending him, though. Are you talking about someone specifically? 
    Nobody specifically no.  I just see on the news the typical "yea, this is terrible, but Republicans..." or the exact opposite.  When talking about Weinstein or any other person who has sexually assaulted people, political affiliations shouldn't even be in the conversation.  
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    edited October 2017
    Thomas said:

    ...political affiliations shouldn't even be in the conversation.  
    100% agree. What makes it difficult is that over a dozen women accused a certain man of assault or harassment last year and he was subsequently elected president (by Republicans). 
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Frakkin T said:
    Thomas said:

    ...political affiliations shouldn't even be in the conversation.  
    100% agree. What makes it difficult is that over a dozen women accused a certain man of assault or harassment last year and he was subsequently elected president (by Republicans). 
    True.  The problem is that Republicans will respond with "But Bill sexually assaulted women and Hillary helped him get away with it."  Which is egregious and awful, but it doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with what our President has done.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    MrX said:
    Frakkin T said:
    Thomas said:
    Also, to go in a completely different but kind of similar direction, it is sickening when I see liberals defending Harvey Weinstein by saying all these women only want attention.  Then Republicans are saying the same thing about the women that are accusing Bush Sr (very minor compared to Weinstein, I know, but still).  Whenever the accused is a member of the out-group people lose their minds, but when it is one of their own they come to defend them.


    Agreed there is no defense for scum like Weinstein--he should be roundly condemned and run out of town on a rail, same as Halperin, Cosby, O'Reilly, etc. I'm not sure I see a lot of liberals defending him, though. Are you talking about someone specifically? 
    The only prominent people I really saw defending him were Lindsay Lohan and Oliver Stone ... and they are both, to put it gently ... batshit crazy.
    And Oliver shut up quick smart when women came out and started telling stories about his gropey habits. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited October 2017
    Thomas said:
    Also, to go in a completely different but kind of similar direction, it is sickening when I see liberals defending Harvey Weinstein by saying all these women only want attention.  Then Republicans are saying the same thing about the women that are accusing Bush Sr (very minor compared to Weinstein, I know, but still).  Whenever the accused is a member of the out-group people lose their minds, but when it is one of their own they come to defend them.

    The same goes for football players.  I read Jon Krakaeur's book "Missoula," which highlighted the epidemic of rape in college.  Whenever an athlete, whether professional or collegiate, is accused of rape, the fans come out in droves to defend the player because he is part of their in-group.  Jamis Winston is a perfect example.  Guy raped two girls before anybody knew his name at FSU and the college withheld the investigation and news of the rape until he was famous.  Then they released it and fans all attacked the woman for doing it for attention, when in reality she filed the complaint before ever knowing who he was.

    Obviously false accusations happen sometimes (Duke Lacrosse is a perfect example), but they are extremely rare.  In the main study of Krakaeur's book, the accused rapist admitted to police he raped the girl.  The fans still defended him and said she was a liar, even after he admitted to it.  People just can't accept when their in-group has someone who fucked up.


    I've read some fairly convincing defenses of Winston. I'm not a football guy and have no reason to watch those kinds of cases, all I will say is When a white woman accuses a black man of rape in the south my BS detector is on high alert 

    the case i remember reading about was that there was substantial dispute as to core facts of the accusation such as the alleged victims level of impairment, toxicology didn't support the alleged victims claims of being severely impaired or drugged, Etc. 

    sure maybe the football cult, and I really despise football, it's a sport that embodies toxic masculinity in my opinion, but their conspiracy theories aside, as a matter of law each element of the crime of rape could not be proven, not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but it failed the preponderance of evidence standard for the administrative hearing as well. That doesn't mean the alleged victim was making stuff up, or anything of that sort, but that was not a slam dunk case. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Frakkin T said:
    Thomas said:

    ...political affiliations shouldn't even be in the conversation.  
    100% agree. What makes it difficult is that over a dozen women accused a certain man of assault or harassment last year and he was subsequently elected president (by Republicans). 
    True.  The problem is that Republicans will respond with "But Bill sexually assaulted women and Hillary helped him get away with it."  Which is egregious and awful, but it doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with what our President has done.
    Well it does and it doesn't, as a moral matter of Trump sexually assaulted a woman, then what Bill or Hillary did is irrelevant, but as a political matter, if Hillary is claiming as a reason to vote for her that there's accusations of sexual assault against Trump and all victims deserve to be believed (and by the way did you catch her BBC interview? She still denies any wrong doing occurred with Bill) but she worked to destroy and denounce accusers against her husband to forward her political career, then politically if you wish to cast a vote on the issue of treatment of women it's a wash either way. 

    Its like that TV preacher many years ago who railed against sexual immorality and decadent society and he gets caught with a hooker and he's crying on TV going "oh I have sinned against you god and" ... whatever puh-lease like he can't really call other people out if his own house isn't in order (that's in the Bible by the way) 
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    Frakkin T said:
    Thomas said:

    ...political affiliations shouldn't even be in the conversation.  
    100% agree. What makes it difficult is that over a dozen women accused a certain man of assault or harassment last year and he was subsequently elected president (by Republicans). 
    True.  The problem is that Republicans will respond with "But Bill sexually assaulted women and Hillary helped him get away with it."  Which is egregious and awful, but it doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with what our President has done.
    Well it does and it doesn't, as a moral matter of Trump sexually assaulted a woman, then what Bill or Hillary did is irrelevant, but as a political matter, if Hillary is claiming as a reason to vote for her that there's accusations of sexual assault against Trump and all victims deserve to be believed (and by the way did you catch her BBC interview? She still denies any wrong doing occurred with Bill) but she worked to destroy and denounce accusers against her husband to forward her political career, then politically if you wish to cast a vote on the issue of treatment of women it's a wash either way. 

    Its like that TV preacher many years ago who railed against sexual immorality and decadent society and he gets caught with a hooker and he's crying on TV going "oh I have sinned against you god and" ... whatever puh-lease like he can't really call other people out if his own house isn't in order (that's in the Bible by the way) 
    Winston totally raped two women.  They both filed complaints before Winston started football at FSU.  The first victim filed and had no idea who he was and the school kept it quiet and didn't being the investigation until AFTER he was the Heisman front runner as a freshman.  So when they finally released the accusations people said "oh she wants attention" yet she had reported it a year prior before he was anybody.......yet you just defended him because a white girl accused him of rape (actually....two did).

    Also, no, there is no relation between Hillary and Trump when it comes to sexual assault.  When Trump drops the ball on international relations, crying "but Obama" makes no difference and has no relation to Trump.  When Trump fucks the war in Afghanistan up even more, do you think saying "but Obama" makes any difference?  No..same with crying "But Bush."
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Thomas said:
    Thomas said:
    Frakkin T said:
    Thomas said:

    ...political affiliations shouldn't even be in the conversation.  
    100% agree. What makes it difficult is that over a dozen women accused a certain man of assault or harassment last year and he was subsequently elected president (by Republicans). 
    True.  The problem is that Republicans will respond with "But Bill sexually assaulted women and Hillary helped him get away with it."  Which is egregious and awful, but it doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with what our President has done.
    Well it does and it doesn't, as a moral matter of Trump sexually assaulted a woman, then what Bill or Hillary did is irrelevant, but as a political matter, if Hillary is claiming as a reason to vote for her that there's accusations of sexual assault against Trump and all victims deserve to be believed (and by the way did you catch her BBC interview? She still denies any wrong doing occurred with Bill) but she worked to destroy and denounce accusers against her husband to forward her political career, then politically if you wish to cast a vote on the issue of treatment of women it's a wash either way. 

    Its like that TV preacher many years ago who railed against sexual immorality and decadent society and he gets caught with a hooker and he's crying on TV going "oh I have sinned against you god and" ... whatever puh-lease like he can't really call other people out if his own house isn't in order (that's in the Bible by the way) 
    Winston totally raped two women.  They both filed complaints before Winston started football at FSU.  The first victim filed and had no idea who he was and the school kept it quiet and didn't being the investigation until AFTER he was the Heisman front runner as a freshman.  So when they finally released the accusations people said "oh she wants attention" yet she had reported it a year prior before he was anybody.......yet you just defended him because a white girl accused him of rape (actually....two did).

    Also, no, there is no relation between Hillary and Trump when it comes to sexual assault.  When Trump drops the ball on international relations, crying "but Obama" makes no difference and has no relation to Trump.  When Trump fucks the war in Afghanistan up even more, do you think saying "but Obama" makes any difference?  No..same with crying "But Bush."
    I'm only familiar with the one case where.... I'll use her initials but not her name, EK accused him. Whichever other case there is I've never heard about it. 

    I didnt defend him either, Im not his lawyer, I'm just reading what was made public and concluding based on my understanding of the law he's not guilty of a crime. If I were a juror and that case came to trial I would vote to acquit. 

    sure the football cult may have trashed the accuser and made up BS, but the case I remember hearing about and just looked up was not really an iron clad case for the prosecution.

    i stand by my statement about race of the involved parties, accusations of a sexual nature have been used in this country to keep the "uppity Ns" in line and justification for acts up to and including murder of black men. Studies show when white juries evaluate a case with a Caucasian victim and African perpetrator they're more likely to convict irregardless of presented evidence. So knowing this I actively fight that bias by canting the other way 
    Frakkin T
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    edited October 2017
    @emnofseattle I think it's admirable that you recognize that African-Americans have a disadvantage when it comes to the criminal justice system, but I would also ask you to be careful because one of the big reasons women don't report when they've been assaulted is that they are not believed. It takes a tremendous amount of courage for a woman to tell her story, especially if the man she is accusing has some stature. (Even if he was unknown at the nat'l level, college ball players tend to have a lot of stature at their schools.) She will have her life torn apart and picked over by strangers in the media and in law enforcement. Victims of sexual assault and harassment are the only victims who are treated this way. Nobody asks a mugging victim what he was wearing or how many drinks he had. When someone tells you their story, believe them. 
    CretanBull
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited October 2017
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
This discussion has been closed.