HERE we go again! Honestly, I was expecting the usual phalanx of 'offended' accusers to come out of the woodwork much earlier. At this point ANY accusations appear to be a desperate attempt to smear the candidate. I've no doubt that they will be seen as such.
Well on one hand it does seem pretty fishy but on the other hand sexual abuse and sexual harassment should never be taken lightly or dismissed quickly. I figure ever accusation should be investigate and then if it turns out that the accusation was fabricated then charges should be laid. Cheers!
Nope. I rarely believe sexual assault stories from grown women. That is the truth. There are many things that make women remorseful for their participation in sexual encounters.........................often a husband. They have an easy out with "it was an assault." If the woman is the aggressor and the man backs away, she might still say she was assaulted. I call BS on most of it and women who surface en masse are probably paid just like the damn protesters. The SOL for sex crimes should be very short (for kids it's different should not begin to run until the child turns 18 or even 21). Women who make such claims which result with the defendant prevailing should pay a hefty fine, spend time in prison, and be placed on a public list as having made false sex claims in the past.
This post was edited by Thriftymaid at October 13, 2016 1:39 AM MDT
It's really like that now. Most of the time when an adult is beginning to remember crimes against them as kids the court will allow the SOL to begin to run when the memory comes back. I personally think it should be something more concrete but there is judicial discretion here. It's the same for many actions in civil court. In most states medical mal suits must be filed within two years, but in practice, it will usually be two years 'from when the malpractice was discovered.' People don't realize that and I'm sure there are plaintiffs who don't seek legal counsel because of the time. Sorry, I drifted here. ;)
I wonder if we took "political candidate" out of the equation if people would think differently (i.e - Bill Cosby). There will likely be false accusers, looking to "cash in" in some way, whenever a public or powerful figure is involved. On the other hand, there is definitely another factor, and that is the fact that much of the time, people who have been victimized, feel ashamed, blame themselves, are embarrassed, etc. Knowing that you aren't alone has an impact on victims and their ability to speak out.
I think we'd be best served to look at each accusation on a case by case basis. As far as Trump goes, I don't think even his staunchest supporters have any doubt that he has treated many women very poorly. It seems that they just don't care. Like the man said himself, he could shoot someone in the street, and not lose supporters. The level of their worship of his fame and fortune is that intense. Frightening, isn't it?
1) True, and all that might be applicable were it not for the timing. Such women had plenty of time to speak out, but have managed, for whatever reasons, to keep their peace in regard to Trump. Cosby's case was different. His victims had been coming forward for years.
2) Again correct, although I don't think it has anything to do with worship. I think his supporters are THAT desperate for ANY realistic alternative. Misogynist he may be, but he is a viable alternative to the statist quo.
Every woman that comes forward against any man with accusations of a sexual nature, should be believed unless facts prove her untruth full. Any woman, any, would expect the same treatment. It's disheartening to see any body, especially another woman, and professed ChriStian, disparage a possible victim based solely on her political affiliation.
I used to agree...until I was accused of doing things I'd never done. Nothing so heinous as this, but I know what it's like to be accused without basis.
That said, should the same rules apply to male victims of sexual assault/harassment?
(Not sure what Christians or Christianity have to do with this.)
In this country we make the government prove a defendant is guilty. We don't assume guilt from the get go. I don't know where you are from, but if you are American you should know this.
No. In my case I don't like either candidate, so I don't have a political dog in this fight.
I DO have a philosophical one, however. Having been unjustly accused of wrongdoing myself (completely without basis) I'm a little reticent to take the word of a putative victim at face value. That's not to say such complaints should be ignored--far from it!--but before we destroy a person's life it'd be really nice to KNOW if/whether there was any truth to such claims.
It would be difficult to disagree with your response. Also, I apologise for assuming your motivation was more partisan than philosophical. I do want to add tho, that irrespective of the news paper intentions, whatever those may be, those intentions have no bearing in whether the allegations are true or not. Don't you think?
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 13, 2016 3:50 PM MDT
Correct: that's how it SHOULD be if America's press were actually free. It is not. It's corporate owned and wholly controlled by the political 'machine.' The mostly (at this point in our history) liberal machine.
That's a problem. It basically means that the motives (intentions) of those doing the reporting are an an issue ripe for scrutiny, skepticism and, depending on timing, even doubt.
It's like I said in another response in this thread. The timing is what makes me suspicious. We already know that Trump is a womanizer, but until now we've had no evidence of his assault(s) on women (in contrast to Bill Clinton's misogyny and Hillary's enabling of same).
You know nothing about me except what I share here, which is very little. I am not motivated by politics. Many here live a us against them life. I'm not one of those fools. That comment of yours made me laugh.
Basically, yes, they should be believed and the allegations investigated fully. What bothers me is that these allegations are coming out just weeks before the election (and some states are doing early voting). WHY DIDN'T THEY COME FORWARD 18 MONTHS AGO? OR EVEN 6 MONTHS AGO? If they did do so, but the paper sat on the story until now, then the paper is guilty of wrong doing in order to advance a political agenda.
What I'd like to know is what year the airplane groping took place as Trump hasn't flown commercially, according to his book, for decades. In addition, we are now being told that First Class arm rests do not rise (30 years ago the seats were even larger). And now Ms. Leeds words on the assault come almost word for word from a Velvet Underground song AND a sexual assault case over 2 years ago.
Sadly, we know women have made allegations of sexual assault when in fact it's made up (let's not forget the Duke Lacrosse case). Right now it's a she said - he said claim and I am very leery of something like this so late in the campaign.
Nanoose 