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

[Absentglare]

so you don't even question why they wait decades to come forth with this right before an election?

Are you completely unaware of statistics concerning the rate of rape reporting?

 

[apdst]

The problem with your whataboutism is that it completely fails to address the actual topic.

Is Bill Clinton a rapist?

 

[americanwoman]

Is Bill Clinton a rapist?

How many times are you going to ask that?

What do you think?

 

[apdst]

How many times are you going to ask that?

What do you think?

I think you believe he isn't. The fact that no one wants to answer goes a long way to prove my theory.

 

[americanwoman]

I think you believe he isn't. The fact that no one wants to answer goes a long way to prove my theory.

Oh I believe he did it. Now what do you believe?

This kind of issue with the abuse of underage children goes high and disregards party lines, unlike some people who can only blame others.

 

[Absentglare]

No.

I understand that every situation is different and sometimes it isn't in the victim's best interest to respond right away. We've seen cases where family members have been threatened if the victim comes forward and cases where the victim is incapable of even recognizing the assault. However, when the victim does come forward at an "opportune" moment it would be absurd to NOT question the validity of the claims.

ALL claims should be questioned, regardless of timing.

Timing isn't terribly credible evidence in a court of law. It can suggest a motive, but when you have many President Trump supporters among the accusers, that tends to work against the political motive for a false accusation.

 

[Absentglare]

Is Bill Clinton a rapist?

I never voted for him, so your deflection is a failure on that front.

 

[nota bene]

Well now you're lying. Of course, what happened to me as a child will always have happened to me, that is definitively a "life sentence" of sorts. I don't know if you're arguing that there's some technological eternal sunshine of the spotless mind service or whether you're unaware that impressions from our childhood are formative and therefore persistent.

The people presuming the accusers are liars are being presumptuous. There's nothing presumptuous about the fact that Roy Moore's signing of the then-16 year old's yearbook was objectively repulsive and definitively corroborates part of her story.

As does the fact that he was banned from the mall, that he allegedly used his status as DA to intimidate the children he abused into silence, and it becomes increasingly likely that the dozens of corroborations are forming an extremely strong case.

Now you're free to wildly assert uncertainty to your hearts content, jumping to conclusions about liberals and applying infinite skepticism to allegations about conservatives, but nobody else is obligated to entertain partisan standards.

You're right; you clearly don't understand what I was saying. Whether this is because you're so emotionally invested in this topic that you've willfully read what you wanted to rather than what I actually said or because you were simply careless, I can't say...and don't care. If you want a civil exchange, rise to the occasion. Saying I'm lying is just beneath.

:2wave:

 

[apdst]

I never voted for him, so your deflection is a failure on that front.

Is he a rapist?

 

[apdst]

Oh I believe he did it. Now what do you believe?

This kind of issue with the abuse of underage children goes high and disregards party lines, unlike some people who can only blame others.

So, he's a rapist?

 

[americanwoman]

So, he's a rapist?

What do you think?

 

[apdst]

What do you think?

I'm asking you what you think.

Why are you afraid to answer?

 

[americanwoman]

I'm asking you what you think.

Why are you afraid to answer?

I'm not, I am just wondering why you keep asking without answering.

From all accounts he did rape her and she has stayed consistent so yes, I think he probably is a rapist.

 

[apdst]

I'm not, I am just wondering why you keep asking without answering.

From all accounts he did rape her and she has stayed consistent so yes, I think he probably is a rapist.

The people who are convinced that Moore is guilty are the same people who swear Clinton isn't.

 

[holbritter]

What the ****?

Seriously what the ****? There's basically a ton of evidence on this predator, the reporting is ironclad. Hell, we even have his ****ing signature:

It reads: "To a sweeter more beautiful girl I could not say Merry Christmas. Christmas 1977. Love, Roy Moore... Roy Moore, DA. Olde Hickory House"

****, that note alone is disgusting. This is some sick **** for a 30-something man to write to a 16 year old girl he has no other relationship with (e.g. uncle, coach, teacher, family friend).

This is truly despicable: attacking the victims because you find the facts unpalatable. For shame!

You bolded those words. And holy cow, if that upsets you, what he wrote (I know I'd be upset being called beautiful :roll Then most of the people in this country must disgust you.

 

[Absentglare]

You're right; you clearly don't understand what I was saying.

That doesn't make sense: i did not claim to not understand your post. However, it is becoming clear that you are neglecting to defend your own statements.

Whether this is because you're so emotionally invested in this topic that you've willfully read what you wanted to rather than what I actually said or because you were simply careless, I can't say...and don't care. If you want a civil exchange, rise to the occasion. Saying I'm lying is just beneath.

:2wave:

Of course i am emotionally invested in a topic where millions of Americans are rushing to excuse or defend an alleged rapist. That's can happen when you put away partisanship long enough to care about the alleged victims.

Now, onto your post, as you clearly did not understand my response:

And you need to dial down your animus. It's at odds with your treacly views of "victims," well-intentioned though I'm sure they are. You certainly woke up on the presumptuous side of the bed yesterday.

You're failing to appreciate the difference between assertion of uncertainty (what Moore apologists are doing) and assertion of fact (what the Moore accusers are doing). Case in point, the signed yearbook. Objectively disgusting.

The people presuming the accusers are liars are being presumptuous. There's nothing presumptuous about the fact that Roy Moore's signing of the then-16 year old's yearbook was objectively repulsive and definitively corroborates part of her story.

As does the fact that he was banned from the mall, that he allegedly used his status as DA to intimidate the children he abused into silence, and it becomes increasingly likely that the dozens of corroborations are forming an extremely strong case.

You assume that one has to choose between concern for the reputations of others and concern for the well-being of victims. Nobody does. You know nothing about my experiences as a child. I can assure you, however, that NOTHING necessarily has to be a “life sentence” for anybody.

Except that it absolutely does:

Of course, what happened to me as a child will always have happened to me, that is definitively a "life sentence" of sorts. I don't know if you're arguing that there's some technological eternal sunshine of the spotless mind service or whether you're unaware that impressions from our childhood are formative and therefore persistent.

You cannot simply choose to forget some fact simply because you find it unpleasant.

Apologists for apologists for predators? :roll:What victims can’t forget? :roll: How do you know that Maggie herself wasn’t a child victim or that I wasn’t? Answer: You don’t.

Which would make attacking the alleged victims with presumptuous accusations that they're lying based on nothing other than the fact that these hidden details were only finally to light in the spotlight of a national election all the more pernicious.

 

[americanwoman]

The people who are convinced that Moore is guilty are the same people who swear Clinton isn't.

And vice versa.

Yet another thing that shouldn't be partisan but is. :yawn:

 

[JasperL]

Wait, did you mean THIS Washington Post story?

People remembering something told to them 40 years ago...who all happen to be friends or relations of the accuser. Yet NONE, not even her mother who should have raised some cane about the issue even if it were "more than a decade later"...and yet? "Crickets?"

The problem with such stories is that, even were one to accept them as true, one would still wonder why when all sorts of opportunities to raise this issue while he was a political figure over the last 40 years...ALL the accusers, including this woman, waits until now?

And if had come out when he was appointed judge, you would have or could have said the same thing. Why now? Using the standard you're using here, if after 10 years, why would that have changed your conclusion now, which is that the accusers are liars with an agenda, and it's Moore who is the real victim?

No I think a rational person would prefer to see more evidence than, yes "ONE PERSON'S NAKED WORD."

But it's not just her naked word. They confirmed many of the pieces of the puzzle, and found several people she'd told about it either at the time or years later. And even if she'd made the accusation IMMEDIATELY it would be the same "she said/he said" story, aka "ONE PERSON'S NAKED WORD."

I don't know Mr. Moore, and it is possible that he was doing what he was accused of by these women. But I still hold that the burden of proof always rests with the accuser, and when it is word against word, the accused always gets the benefit of the doubt.

And that's why men abuse women, and keep doing it for years and years, sometimes dozens of women, as we've seen. That's especially the case when "one person's naked word" is a man with power, like Moore or HW or Cosby or the comic or the NBC producer or Ailes or O'Reilly, and on the other side is a troubled teen or a powerless secretary, or disposable actress, or struggling comic.

I understand from a criminal justice standpoint, trial, jail, etc. that the accusations have to be PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt, but in this case we're making political choices and I have no problem with the public weighing each person's comments, their motives, what corroborating evidence exists, similar stories from unrelated women, and more and making a rational judgment to believe the accusers and holding Moore or O'Reilly or whoever accountable through our votes or what movies we watch, and from an employer's standpoint, who they want as employees, even if that evidence isn't sufficient to send them to jail. Those are different decisions and IMO require different standards of evidence.

 

[Absentglare]

You bolded those words. And holy cow, if that upsets you, what he wrote (I know I'd be upset being called beautiful :roll Then most of the people in this country must disgust you.

Yes, i emphasized the disgusting part.

Going to the mall to pick up underage girls is not a good thing, most of the people in this country do NOT do that well into their 30s, despite what partisanship might incentivize you to believe.

 

[nota bene]

That doesn't make sense: i did not claim to not understand your post. However, it is becoming clear that you are neglecting to defend your own statements.

I've no need to defend anything I've said.

Of course i am emotionally invested in a topic where millions of Americans are rushing to excuse or defend an alleged rapist. That's can happen when you put away partisanship long enough to care about the alleged victims.

Oh, how noble thou art. The problem is that you don't know how I feel about the alleged victims. You don't know; you're assuming. You're projecting partisanship. This is very dishonest. Find a post, just one, in which I've defended Roy Moore. You won't.

You're failing to appreciate the difference between assertion of uncertainty (what Moore apologists are doing) and assertion of fact (what the Moore accusers are doing). Case in point, the signed yearbook. Objectively disgusting.

Spare me your analysis of what I'm failing to appreciate. Again, you are presumptuous. And when I used this term previously, it was a direct response to your "You also need to refocus, lady." Frankly, your time would be better spent actually reading what others write and then stifling the temptation to project attitudes you're hoping to discover in others and then saying they're lying when they tell you you're mistaken. :3oops:

You cannot simply choose to forget some fact simply because you find it unpleasant.

Save your preaching for the unconverted. You don't know anything about me or my life experiences. You don't know what I think.

 

[holbritter]

Yes, i emphasized the disgusting part.

Going to the mall to pick up underage girls is not a good thing, most of the people in this country do NOT do that well into their 30s, despite what partisanship might incentivize you to believe.

You didn't say anything about going to a mall, so don't change the story. You are disgusted over what he signed in her year book.

 

[independentusa]

The people who are convinced that Moore is guilty are the same people who swear Clinton isn't.

Ah, but now we hear that Moore was told not to come to a local mall as he was trying to be too friendly with the teenage girls. So it wasn't just a him vs her, it seems other knew about his attempts to have his way with teenage girls. That is something we have never really heard about Clinton, although I think anything said about him was true. But having Clinton being a dog, of course about adult women, doesn't make Moore's actions any better. In fact in the Moore vs Clinton situation, Moore's trying to get with those girls seems much worse to me. How about you?

 

[prometeus]

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

Well, with scumbags like Moore it is better later than never. And this piece of crap want to be a law maker when he does not want to follow the law.

 

[Absentglare]

I've no need to defend anything I've said.

Obviously not if you're happy to let my debunking stand.

Oh, how noble thou art. The problem is that you don't know how I feel about the alleged victims. You don't know; you're assuming. You're projecting partisanship. This is very dishonest. Find a post, just one, in which I've defended Roy Moore. You won't.

You're apologizing for the apologists. You chose to climb that hill. Did you forget already? Your statements suggest the nature of your feelings.

Spare me your analysis of what I'm failing to appreciate. Again, you are presumptuous. And when I used this term previously, it was a direct response to your "You also need to refocus, lady." Frankly, your time would be better spent actually reading what others write and then stifling the temptation to project attitudes you're hoping to discover in others and then saying they're lying when they tell you you're mistaken. :3oops:

Now you're just putting what D_NATURED said into my mouth. How can you possibly imagine that that's fair? Especially while attacking me for not "actually reading what others write".

Save your preaching for the unconverted. You don't know anything about me or my life experiences. You don't know what I think.

I know what you said. You said that nothing is necessarily a "life sentence". The problem with that is that you're alluding to this, "you're only a victim if you let yourself become one," bull**** about how you can wish away rape. When it happens to a child, it is formative in a way that is irreversible. The fact that the memories might not even be occurrent does not mean that the experience has no influence.

You don't get to decide how other people are affected by their experiences. The experiences from our childhood are carried throughout the rest of our lives. No amount of your denial can change that fact.

 

[nota bene]

Obviously not if you're happy to let my debunking stand.



You're apologizing for the apologists. You chose to climb that hill. Did you forget already? Your statements suggest the nature of your feelings.



Now you're just putting what D_NATURED said into my mouth. How can you possibly imagine that that's fair? Especially while attacking me for not "actually reading what others write".



I know what you said. You said that nothing is necessarily a "life sentence". The problem with that is that you're alluding to this, "you're only a victim if you let yourself become one," bull**** about how you can wish away rape. When it happens to a child, it is formative in a way that is irreversible. The fact that the memories might not even be occurrent does not mean that the experience has no influence.

You don't get to decide how other people are affected by their experiences. The experiences from our childhood are carried throughout the rest of our lives. No amount of your denial can change that fact.

And there you go again trying to tell me all about me. I have experienced rape. Twice. I am NOT a victim.