Moore or Strange?

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

How on earth did you manage to quote just that line and miss the sentence literally right after it?

It doesn't make it automatically true either, but the "why wait" defense is wrongheaded.

The why wait Defense isn’t wrongheaded at all. There is a reason for the statute of expectations. True justice doesn’t come 40 years down the road via “oh yeah, that guy on TV that’s running for Senate, he molested me.” 

And then all the women on their iPhones start the #MeToo! movement.

[AUDub 11,148]

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

The thing I find most fascinating is basically everyone that has come out saying "I don't believe this" or "Why did they wait so long" are men.

You don’t talk to very many women then. Not one person has given me a reason why I️ I️ should believe this. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

 

Noted. So the way to destroy an election, is make some crazy s*** up and then when confronted, wave your finger and “nuh-uh, this is an election, not the court system.”

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

The why wait Defense isn’t wrongheaded at all. 

It is when you automatically cast suspicion.

 

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

There is a reason for the statute of expectations. True justice doesn’t come 40 years down the road via “oh yeah, that guy on TV that’s running for Senate, he molested me.” 

Because the standards of proof in a court of law are different for a good reason.  It becomes harder to find witnesses, gather hard evidence, etc.  But we aren't talking about convicting a person and putting them in prison.  So that standard is not applicable.

 

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

And then all the women on their iPhones start the #MeToo! movement.

You're a real peach.

[AUDub 11,148]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

You don’t talk to very many women then. Not one person has given me a reason why I️ I️ should believe this. 

The excellently researched article with corroborating stories from the alleged victims and others who knew of the alleged relationships is a good start.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

It is when you automatically cast suspicion.

 

It is forty years after the fact, and 30 days before his election. The sniff test shold obviously automatically be triggered. 

 

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Because the standards of proof in a court of law are different for a good reason.  It becomes harder to find witnesses, gather hard evidence, etc.  But we aren't talking about convicting a person and putting them in prison.  So that standard is not applicable

This isn’t the court of law isn’t a valid excuse. Look up, read my reasoning, and understand.

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You're a real peach

For pointing out the #Metoo movement? ? If that makes you feel better.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

The excellently researched article with corroborating stories from the alleged victims and others who knew of the alleged relationships is a good start.

I live in Gadsden and my wife’s grandmother taught math at Etowah County for nearly 40 years. There wasn’t a whisper about this stuff before the article. 

[AUDub 11,148]

9 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Noted. So the way to destroy an election, is make some crazy s*** up and then when confronted, wave your finger and “nuh-uh, this is an election, not the court system.”

Put the shovel down.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

You don’t talk to very many women then. Not one person has given me a reason why I️ I️ should believe this. 

And you didn't quote my entire part where I said "Republican women", specifically meaning leaders.  Way to pick and choose your spots to fit an agenda instead of having a rational discussion.

But, let's for a second imagine you have a daughter.  Now let's say she is touched inappropriately by your best friend when she was 13, but never told you out of shame.  That friend dies 40 years later and your daughter refuses to go to the funeral and you don't understand why.  She then comes clean with the truth, explaining that the shame of the experience and not wanting to hurt her dad's feelings is why she held back.  How would you react?  Would you immediately say "That's a lie"?"

Point that I'm making is that I doubt you have ever been a victim of sexual assault.  I haven't either, but I have spoken with several women who have been victimized in their lives.  I suggest you do the same and truly listen to their stories and experiences.  I'm not going to say how a person should or should not react to that situation based upon some unreasonable self-imposed standard because I haven't walked in those shoes.

For example, I have been a victim of gun violence.  When someone tells me what they would or would not do in a hypothetical situation, I immediately call bull crap because I've lived it.  I know what the reaction time is and what goes through one's mind and I would hope that carries weight.  Countless victims of sexual assault, throughout history, have waited years to speak about it.  All of the evidence against Bill Cosby is pretty consistent and overwhelming, but it took a long time to come out because of power and fear.  Same goes for Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and now Louis C.K.

In this case, it's not a coincidence that four different women, all speaking separately without knowledge that the others were also talking to WaPo, have similar stories.  This report had 30 sources.  THIRTY!  In the reporting world, that's a metric crap-ton of sources.  I've written 25-page academic papers with less sources.  If you're wanting hard DNA or video evidence, it's obviously not going to happen since this was the 1970s.  But these women have given me no reason to disregard their accounts.

[homersapien 11,373]

41 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

And liberals had no problem defending Bill Clinton for a BJ in the Oval Office with a young intern followed up by accusations by several other women.

How about citing just one liberal who defended that.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

It is forty years after the fact,

I've explained why decades after the fact is irrelevant as to whether the claim is truthful or not.  And I know this from having spoken with women who confided similar things that happened to them.  I trust them implicitly.  Theirs just happened not to be involving a man of prominence.

 

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

and 30 days before his election. The sniff test shold obviously automatically be triggered. 

THIS is something that I think is a reasonable question, but it is separate from the "40 years" defense.  It's reasonable to ask why this comes out so close to the election and ask if it's just a political hit job.  Conversely it is also reasonable to say that the victims desperately wanted to remain anonymous and their stories not known if they could possibly do so, but that with it apparently looking like Moore isn't going to be seriously challenged, they couldn't stay silent any longer.

 

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

This isn’t the court of law isn’t a valid excuse. Look up, read my reasoning, and understand.

Yes it most certainly is.  I don't need, nor should I need, the same standards of proof to decide if I think someone is trustworthy and deserves my vote as I would to decide if they should be convicted of a crime and sent to prison.  This is basic common sense.

 

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

For pointing out the #Metoo movement? ? If that makes you feel better.

For dismissing the #metoo movement so flippantly.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, Bigbens42 said:

Put the shovel down.

So you have nothing. Noted. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

THIS is something that I think is a reasonable question, but it is separate from the "40 years" defense

No it’s not. The whole fact pattern absolutely reeks, and the 40 year wait adds to the stench. Pull your head out of the sand.

 

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Conversely it is also reasonable to say that the victims desperately wanted to remain anonymous and their stories not known if they could possibly do so, but that with it apparently looking like Moore isn't going to be seriously challenged, they couldn't stay silent any longer.

It is reasonable to say that’s a possibility, out of many. It’s also reasonable to say this wasn’t likely. 

 

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

For dismissing the #metoo movement so flippantly.

#metoo is an attention grab. That should be obvious.

 

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't need, nor should I need, the same standards of proof to decide if I think someone is trustworthy and deserves my vote as I would to decide if they should be convicted of a crime and sent to prison

Good. Hope somebody defames your character one day since that standard of proof isn’t “needed” to influence your opinion in this case. 

[AUDub 11,148]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

So you have nothing. Noted. 

You're making an ass of yourself, again. Reactions like yours are why these women and others like then wait so long or never share their experiences at all. It's the most horrifying, personal crime that can be perpetrated against someone about which they may not even be believed.

No one EVER questions whether you were robbed, or shot at or insulted. Pretty much if you say you were, it's taken at face value.

“You asked for it.”

“You know you liked it.”

“You're just trying to make trouble.”

“But he's such a great guy!”

Imagine facing that. Nope, I can't either. Hell, there are lawmakers in this state calling to prosecute them, or justifying it with some ham handed appeal to faith.

Truth of the matter is, they are hardly ever easily believed, and they are often blamed. Society is hostile towards sexual assault victims. That is not conducive to file a complaint. It takes courage to report it. Especially since most occur within the social circle of the victim. The chance of being labelled a liar, over imaginative or other labels that show a disbelief and blame the victim.

Put down the shovel.

[Barnacle 9,064]

I know victims of sexual assault who have disclosed the fact privately but not publicly. Likely, they never will. Anyone who doesn't have their head stuck in the sand knows that this is the norm and not the exception. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're making an ass of yourself, again. Reactions like yours are why these women and others like then wait so long or never share their experiences at all

What reactions?  Pointing out this looks like a smear causes women to hold on to things for forty years until thirty days before an election? 

 

5 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

No one EVER questions whether you were robbed, or shot at or insulted. Pretty much if you say you were, it's taken at face value.

“You asked for it.”

“You know you liked it.”

“You're just trying to make trouble.”

“But he's such a great g

I️ I️ Eye would expect to go to the police. Try again with these pointless red herrings. 

8 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Truth of the matter is, they are hardly ever easily believed, and they are often blamed.

If they didn’t feel the need to burden the court system with the case, I️ Eye don’t feel the need to believe one side of the story. And that applies for  both men and women. 

7 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Put down the shovel.

This sounded silly the first time. Stop doubling down on stupid.

[aujeff11 6,243]

7 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

know victims of sexual assault who have disclosed the fact privately but not publicly.

Well the court of law is there for a reason. Cannot blame others for not accepting a woman’s word forty years down the road just because she said so. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

Thank God for the court system...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.montgomeryadvertiser.com/amp/763316001

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Flavor, I mean accusation, for today. They are coning out of the woodwork. Why have they ALL suddenly decide to come out now? Do they smell the money?

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/10/18/mckayla-maroney-olympic-gold-medalist-says-doctor-molested-her.html

 

[Barnacle 9,064]

13 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Well the court of law is there for a reason. Cannot blame others for not accepting a woman’s word forty years down the road just because she said so. 

Do you know how difficult assault cases are to prove in the court of law? Is it any wonder why women don't come forward with these sorts of things? The odds are so stacked against the victims that taking a case forward has a better chance of invalidating their story than bringing closure or justice. I know a victim personally, but I can promise you that outside of a confession, her case would never see a courtroom, let alone a conviction. What is she supposed to do? If she brings it forward she'll be called a liar, and when the D.A. refuses to file, she's a liar by proxy and his actions are justified. That's how most of these cases go.

I don't thank God for that.

[AUDub 11,148]

4 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Flavor, I mean accusation, for today. They are coning out of the woodwork. Why have they ALL suddenly decide to come out now? Do they smell the money?

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/10/18/mckayla-maroney-olympic-gold-medalist-says-doctor-molested-her.html

That's from almost a month ago, and it wouldn't shock me in the least if it was true. Women's gymnastics has a nasty history regarding coach/trainer/athlete relationships. 

[AUDub 11,148]

17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Well the court of law is there for a reason. Cannot blame others for not accepting a woman’s word forty years down the road just because she said so. 

 

11 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Thank God for the court system...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.montgomeryadvertiser.com/amp/763316001

We are all well aware the deck is stacked against them legally. They are too, which is why sexual assaults often go unreported. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Do you know how difficult assault cases are to prove in the court of law? Is it any wonder why women don't come forward with these sorts of things? The odds are so stacked against the victims that taking a case forward has a better chance of invalidating their story than bringing closure or justice. I know a victim personally, but I can promise you that outside of a confession, her case would never see a courtroom, let alone a conviction. What is she supposed to do? If she brings it forward she'll be called a liar, and when the D.A. refuses to file, she's a liar by proxy and his actions are justified. That's how most of these cases go.

I believe that to be the case. But then I ask why are so many coming out with their accusations now.....at the same time. Just coincidence? I don't think so.

[AUDub 11,148]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

I believe that to be the case. But then I ask why are so many coming out with their accusations now.....at the same time. Just coincidence? I don't think so.

Whether you doubt the story because of the timing or not, WaPo did their due diligence here. Multiple victims with no knowledge of one another, 30 corroborating sources. That's pretty solid.