The usual questions... Why now?
And why does it matter? I mean our current President has an apparent history of such actions. In fact he bragged about it.
At least Biden asked to have Reade's complaint found.
Should we stop the presumption of innocence just because a women cries foul decades later?
Thoughts?
And why does it matter? I mean our current President has an apparent history of such actions. In fact he bragged about it.
At least Biden asked to have Reade's complaint found.
Should we stop the presumption of innocence just because a women cries foul decades later?
Thoughts?
68 comments:
Defeating Trump has to be the priority.
--Hiram
Presumption of innocence is a legal concept applied in the criminal law. It doesn't exist in civil law, where the standard is preponderance of evidence.
Should we extend the presumption of innocence concept beyond the criminal law concept? In my opinion, and it's just that, is that we shouldn't. We apply a higher standard of proof in criminal law, because the freedom of the defendant is at issue. We, historically and as a society, have decided that if we are going to lock someone up, to deny them their freedom, we need to be pretty sure about it. But that is never an issue outside of the criminal courts. People who lose elections don't go to jail. No elected official has the right to office. No rights of elected officials are being adjudicated. Presumptions of innocence are the rare exception to the general rule, that we make decisions based on the evidence we have on hand, really with no burden of proof considerations at all.
Your vote belongs to you. You can base your voting decision on anything you want. If you want to impose a voting standard, feel free. It's your choice which nobody can decide for you and which you can't decide for anyone else.
--Hiram
We don't apply "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards to the important decisions we make in lives because it isn't practical, or if we do, that's an indication of underlying psychological problems. That's because there isn't very much in life that we know beyond a reasonable doubt, and so a choice to require that is a choice to do nothing at all, not even to get out of bed in the morning.
In criminal law, the requirement of a reasonable doubt standard has a lot of unfortunate consequences. It's fine for the simple stuff, bank robberies and whatnot, but when you get into more sophisticated crimes where the bad guys are advised by attorneys the standard is much harder to reach. That's because sophisticated bad guys, and the attorneys who advise them are skilled at manufacturing reasonable doubt. They know how not to leave trails of evidence, not to put things in writing, not to use phones or the internet. They know to speak ambiguously and to use cot outs, often attorneys, communications with whom are protected by privilege. All of that is unfortunate, and no doubt contributes to the cynicism with which we view our national institutions, but we don't have to organize our own lives that way, and I would argue that we shouldn't. We can make the choice to be better than that.
--Hiram
Preponderance of the Evidence
"the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective."
beyond a reasonable doubt
part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.
I am not sure either if these matter.
The question to me is does the man even get a trial?
Or does the lynch mob get to hang him based on the claims of one possibly deranged vindictive woman?
And who gets to decide whether to "believe her" or "possibly deranged vindictive woman"? Did we apply the same standard to Blasey-Ford? If not, why not?
And if not, is it because we don't WANT to make a difference in who runs against Trump? That it is "our guy right or wrong"?
Jerry,
Blasey-Ford barely got heard and only because the DEMs demanded it.
Then we have Trump working to stymie the courts.
The big question lies with the voters?
The Trump voters simple don't care about the sexual assault bragging, sexual assault claims, porn star sex while Melania is home with the baby, etc. They are religious hypocrites through and through.
Will the DEMs be more pragmatic and willing to sell their soul like the GOPers, or will they require purity and a faultless character from their candidate?
Silly rabbit. Dems sell their soul? Who would buy such damaged goods?
It will be interesting to see how God sorts the chaff from the wheat.
At least it seems you acknowledge that the Religious Right sold their souls for some judges and a huge national debt. :-)
It will be interesting to see if the DEMs make a similar or different choice?
Now that was a cryptic response.
Too late for GOPers to reclaim their soul?
I don't think so, I believe in redemption and there is another election coming up.
Too late for the DEMs to change their choice or investigate the claim?
I don't think so, their convention is still months away.
Wouldn't it be great if the GOPers would reverse course and nominate a more honest man with better morals?
Not cryptic to me. You asked only one question, about the Dems "selling their soul." Try my answer in that context.
How did they sell their soul?
They seem obsessed with saving everyone...
It seems to me that the only people they don't want to save are fetuses...
And Lord knows they are making a bigger fuss over Biden's potential transgression than the GOPers did over Trumps documented ones.
An interesting read / perspective.
I believe Tara and will vote for Joe
Voters get to make the decision and they can apply any standard they choose. None of us gets to impose a standard on others, and no one gets to impose a standard on any of us.
--Hiram
And yet if the minority DEMs don't let this go sooner than later, it is likely that it will lessen the enthusiasm for Biden. And could put your vote and candidate in jeopardy.
I mean it is bad enough when Trump etal are trying to use this for their benefit, given that he is the Philanderer in Chief... Sure don't need help from the DEMs.
And the FOX Poll Says
96% of Republicans support Trump. There is nothing in this world 96% of Democrats agree on, something I am kind of proud of. We don't think in lock step. We don't mindlessly venerate the leader. We don't think the way we are told to think, something that can often be irritating. On the other had, Democratic administrations rarely end in total catastrophe.
--Hiram
"We don't mindlessly venerate the leader."
I think you give your side too much credit, and the other side too little.
From my side the Right is focused on results and able to over look real flaws in character to get them.
And the Left prefers to nit pick their poor candidates to death over miscellaneous transgressions. I mean look what happened to Al Franken... You elect a stand up comedian and are surprised that he had done some questionable things in his past.
Hiram, when there are strictly partisan votes in the US House, like Obamacare or impeachment, are they Democrat or Republican initiatives? How often do a few Democrats split off to make a bipartisan vote, compared with how often it is a few "RINO" Republicans?
Just using Collin's name to pull up the Ideology–Leadership Chart for the House.
It certainly does seem the GOP Reps are more spread out by a little. Though they have a higher percentage out at the extreme.
Of course there are almost NO DINOs (4) and RINOs (5) who are on the other side of the center line... The party extremists have pretty well stopped that.
when there are strictly partisan votes in the US House, like Obamacare or impeachment, are they Democrat or Republican initiatives?
As a rule, Republicans will always find a few Democratic supporters for their initiatives. There are a number of reasons for this. Basically, party discipline works differently in the two parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties are not mirror images of each other.
How often do a few Democrats split off to make a bipartisan vote, compared with how often it is a few "RINO" Republicans?
It happens quite frequently. And that really has been the historical norm. It used to be that both parties would have members who voted on the other side in partisan votes. The technical term for this is "golden ticket". But somewhere along the line, Republicans decided unanimity was important, that 96% agreement was something to be proud of, and I have to say, that's very strange to me.
--Hiram
Of course there are almost NO DINOs (4) and RINOs (5) who are on the other side of the center line
I think if you took party discipline out of the matter, you would see more line crossing from both sides. But it's not just the parties, the country itself has become more polarized on a regional basis. There used to be liberal Republican in the northeast, and conservative and even liberal Democrats in the south. There still are of course but their numbers have declined to such an extent that they just don't win elections anymore.
Obamacare is essentially a Republican program. If Republican party discipline were lifted I have no doubt at all that it would receive substantial Republican support, and it would also lose significant Democratic support.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Sitting near the center of the court, both sides similar to me... :-(
And that is not a compliment. :-)
LOL. If /I/ am in the center of the court, by your own test, then where are you?
Which test are you referring to?
Are you in agreement that the behavior of both sides are equally bad when it comes to driving party line votes? :-)
Then maybe we are sitting in the same section regarding this topic.
Sitting near the center of the court, both sides similar to me...
For me, both siderism is always evidence that Republican messaging is successful. Republicans believe that if they are successful in presenting the message that both sides are the same, that it drive down Democratic turnout. It also tends to get them off the hook of explaining Trump.
No, the parties are different which is why projection is so often problematic.
--Hiram
"Where Republicans saw a difference in issues/solutions, Democrats saw a difference in values/morality." This difference drives a vast difference in voting patterns.
What test? How soon you forget.
Hiram,
Please remember that I qualified my comment...
"both sides are equally bad when it comes to driving party line votes"
They are very different in other ways.
Jerry,
Maybe that is why GOPers voted in a man with so few values / morality...
Maybe you mean this test?
Test 2
Personally I think you are in Heritage, maybe you should try the test again. :-)
Or maybe in "God Loves Both Me and the Constitution" is more like it. :-)
Good find, Hiram, and as usual John simply dismisses any truth he finds inconvenient, even if it his own.
Not sure where you get "heritage" out of it, but my results on that test are:
Economic Left/Right: 4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
Pretty close to what I got on the last one! I like free markets and people free to exercise their own personal moral choices, with the personal responsibility that goes with it.
Jerry,
Actually I found the test for you. You are welcome.
And you do realize that that score puts you in the "God Loves Both Me and the Constitution" area as I said above.
I guess I know you pretty well after all these years.
This one puts me in the middle of the "Vast Sea of Libertarianism"...
And you in "Conservatism"...
And this one confuses me even more...
Apparently GOPers and DEMs are similar in this tool.
Moved Hiram's comments here
The only reason you are confused is because you insist on pigeon-holing people into either a one-dimensional or two-dimensional ideology. That's what radical leftists do. If you do not agree with them, you are either stupid or evil, and probably both. And it does not matter how much you may agree with them on one particular issue, nor how well-reasoned your argument, it is not allowed because you are one of THEM.
One of those political compass things (a halfway reasonable one) labels me a progressive. So the whole concept is obviously flawed. Want to talk ISSUES, ask, and accept the answer without imputing motivations you dream up from some chart.
Then I think you need to own that you are NOT a moderate in any sense of the word.
You are the one who brought up the test results.
Apparently the "Political Compass" tool puts both the US Parties near the center and mostly in the upper right quadrant since it is a "World" tool.
Just curious, Do you ever watch anime?
If you do... Ghost in the Shell 2045 was pretty great
I never claimed to be a moderate; it was your self-chosen tests that produced that surprising result, and it only surprises because you had previously hard-stuffed me into that "radical religious right" pigeonhole in your mind. I self-identify as a compassionate conservative. And I not only get to determine my own label, but to determine what that might mean on any particular issue.
Please note your comment...
"LOL. If /I/ am in the center of the court, by your own test, then where are you?"
I am not sure you are quite in the radical religious right, but you seem to defend their policies...
- Limiting LGBT rights
- Limiting sex education and birth control
- Limiting a Mother's right to choose
- Limiting immigration of Muslims?
- etc
- Not sure where you come down regarding porn, pot, gambling and prostitution, but ???
I think this term fits you well "God Loves Both Me and the Constitution"
You are incorrect. I do not know what the RRR policies ARE, and neither do you. All you know is what you impute those policies to be from your own blinkered understanding of who "those people" are. For example, you do not define WHAT "rights" LGBT people already have that would be "denied" by the RRR. You do not say WHY it is appropriate to allow a Woman an unlimited "right to choose" to murder her own baby. You do not say why it is wise to never question a potential Muslim immigrant, in the interests of national security. Your classification system is rigid, absolute and arbitrary. Why?
Jerry,
Oh come now... I think the Evangelicals and Other Far Righters have made it pretty clear where they stand on these topics.
Pretty much anything they consider sinful or promoting sin is bad, no matter if it allows freedom of choice or not.
- Be it not recognizing the marriage of LGBT couples
- Keeping Muslims out of their neighborhood / country
- Keeping thorough mandatory sex education out of the schools
- Treating birth control as a "sinful thing" rather than a "healthcare item"
- And Lord knows they disagree with Porn and Prostitution unless they are doing it. :-)
The interesting thing about the RRR is that they want to legislate how others live their lives while protecting their freedoms.
Just hypocritical...
Be it to threaten young women as they go for their abortion, turn down LGBT couples for normal services, protest against Muslim Mosques, etc...
An interesting read
And another
And another
Jerry,
Own your off to the right label, be proud of it, etc.
"God Loves Both Me and the Constitution"
You want the USA to be somewhat of a theocracy where the laws are based on your interpretation of the Bible and Constitution. And you can use the government to force others to comply with your will.
This is America!!! We are free to fight for what we think is best for our country!!!
So, abortion on demand through month 10, free everything for everybody (unless it's an education), anybody can come to this country and live on the dole, criminals run free, no laws against murder or theft, and a socialist utopia is OK with you? And /I/ am the "right wing extremist"? Where do you /really/ "stand in the theater"?
I challenge you to show where I have supported any of you examples...
I am pretty clear where I sit in the theater...
Left of the Right and Right of the Left... And apparently in support of personal liberties.
I challenge you to show where I have supported any of the more radical positions you ascribe to me. Is it possible that you are imposing your judgment in calling them extreme? If you are sitting beside me in the theater, why am /I/ the extremist?
You support Trump. There is little more that needs to be said.
Moose
Jerry,
I am not sure I ever said you were a Right Wing Extremist. In fact here is what I said above...
"I am not sure you are quite in the radical religious right, but you seem to defend their policies...
- Limiting LGBT rights
- Limiting sex education and birth control
- Limiting a Mother's right to choose
- Limiting immigration of Muslims?
- etc
- Not sure where you come down regarding porn, pot, gambling and prostitution, but ???
I think this term fits you well "God Loves Both Me and the Constitution"
Jerry,
Now have you suddenly become a supporter of:
- LGBT Marriage & Legal Protections
- thorough mandatory sex education
- readily available inexpensive birth control
- reasonable gun control legislation
- Muslim refugees?
I kind of doubt it.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with sitting in the Right or Left side of the theater.
I just feel it is important to be self aware and understand how one's views are biased.
Moose,
That is a good point, Jerry's inability to critique Trump definitely indicates a strong Right bias.
Wow. You get to decide what constitutes an unreasonable position on every issue, so you are the sensible center and everybody else lies right or left? Why do I need to critique Trump when we have an entire industry devoted to doing that? And what does that have to do with MY position on actual issues? Now if Trump actually DID something I disagreed with, I would be bothered but would be taking it on balance, knowing the horrible alternative.
And what is wrong with "biased"? Is it possible that an initial bias, later supported by solid facts and reasoning, can be correct, even if it is "right"? Your qualification tests for being a moderate "like you" could be seen as extreme, and certainly unreasonable depending on how I interpret them, as I do. Pot, meet kettle.
Jerry,
Please note that I did not call your positions unreasonable. I said... "I am not sure you are quite in the radical religious right, but you seem to defend their policies..."
Your positions may be very practical and reasonable if the USA was a Christian Theocracy. I mean you may even be considered Left Leaning.
As long the USA is a very diverse country with many religions and a 2 party system that is pretty well polarized around 2 ends of a political spectrum, there will be people on each end and in the middle.
Moderate: "a person who holds moderate views, especially in politics."
Centrist: "a person who holds moderate views"
Now I could see a Moderate like me being considered wishy washy, but not extreme...
The interesting thing is that on a few topics the LEFT and RIGHT sometimes hold similar positions ...
- Both want to let anyone make and keep a baby or 10. :-)
- Both are against consistent testing and process improvement in the schools
- Both fear loss of data privacy
Jerry,
I am more fascinated that it bothers you that you are so consistent and easily predicable?
I don't think Moose minds that we know pretty much what he will write regarding any topic.
He is Far Left leaning and seemingly proud of it. Where as you seem to want to deny what you believe.
As for your blind loyalty to Trump, that seems more like cult behavior than rational thinking to me. The GOPers can toss him out whenever they want and run someone like Romney or Kasich at anytime. They are choosing to keep the lying and someone incompetent Trump in office.
And I am fascinated (well, maybe "appalled" is the better word) by how well you think you can predict my positions in detail, and then state them in terms I never would. How about if I state your positions as:
-- favoring mandatory sterilizations of poor mothers
-- Requiring failing schools to close and offer vouchers to everybody. (not unreasonable, IMHO)
-- Unlimited search and seizure by any federal or state agency, including back doors to private devices.
-- and you keep harping about my being pro-life. 60% of those surveyed accept that term, so it hardly seems a radical position. And yes, I do have a source.
Times
Well, actually...
I favor the mandatory sterilization of any any man or woman who keeps making babies they are unable or unwilling to support at a basic care threshold.
I don't think I have ever supported closing schools or vouchers. Have I?
Not sure what you are talking about, since I support court warrants and congressional subpoenas being required before access being given.
Here is a a newer poll with similar results. Also, I am not sure a poll for Knights of Columbus and presented at a Conservative forum would be a good barometer of the country.
I have perfect faith that most people are anti-abortion...
I mean I certainly am...
However many of them also believe that it should be the Mother's choice, not some government bureaucrat enforcing the will of the religious right.
Therefore we are back to my goal, using education and free prevention methods to eliminate unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately the Religious Right and yourself seem to be against this common sense proposal.
Just curious... How would you reword these to state your positions correctly?
- Limiting LGBT rights
- Limiting sex thorough mandatory education
- Limiting free easy birth control access for poor people
- Limiting a Mother's right to choose abortion
- Limiting immigration of Muslim refugees
- Blocking gun control legislation
I'll play, but I know I'm wasting electrons, because you will never admit to the nuances involved, knowing that it comes from a "radical right conservative."
--LGBT people have all the same rights as everybody else, except those licenses conferred by government. To get a fishing license, you must meet the qualifications. To get a marriage license should be the same. There is no "right" to a government-sanctioned marriage.
--What "sex" are you limiting, and why? Should kids be taught oral and anal? What role does/should abstinence teaching play in limiting sex?
--SCOTUS already decided that. At the point of viability, two persons are involved and one may not kill the other without cause, as defined by the States.
--Muslim refugees should be vetted and approved just like everybody else. Why would you NOT?
--Why have another "gun control measure" when what we have does not prevent these mass shootings? To the contrary, most of them occur in legally-defined "gun free zones," by people already breaking one or more gun laws, to deliberately commit an illegal act! I'll ask again why we don't just pass a law against murder? Oh, wait....
The basic problem with your formulation is that it is far too simplistic. "Limiting sex" could mean almost anything, and no purpose is stated for doing so once it IS defined. Likewise "mandatory education." What does that include? Why? Taught by whom? At what age? In what setting? With or without parental involvement and approval? Does /how/ it is taught matter to the desired outcomes, and what are those methods and outcomes?
And I'll play...
"--LGBT people have all the same rights as everybody else, except those licenses conferred by government. To get a fishing license, you must meet the qualifications. To get a marriage license should be the same. There is no "right" to a government-sanctioned marriage."
Hard-fought and hard-won...but you and your disgusting ilk would take it away because of some book of fairy tales that you've interpreted strangely.
"--What "sex" are you limiting, and why? Should kids be taught oral and anal? What role does/should abstinence teaching play in limiting sex?"
There's a difference between teaching about things and teaching how to do things. When abstinence is proven by science to work, sociologically, there may be room for it.
"--Muslim refugees should be vetted and approved just like everybody else. Why would you NOT?"
Then perhaps you can get the representatives of your ilk to stop singling out Muslims, but then, you'd have to actually disagree with that policy.
"--Why have another "gun control measure" "
People without guns or access to them don't use guns to kill people.
People who are given all the appropriate information will make better decisions.
Moose
So let's compare to my original statements
- Limiting LGBT rights
Yes. Jerry wants LGBT and heterosexual Americans to be treated differently.
- Limiting thorough mandatory sex education
Uncertain. Jerry questions curriculum indicating he wants to leave somethings out?
Kind of like asking if driver's education should be constrained to moral topics and if everything goes per plan...
What should that uninformed girl do if the boy tries to stick it somewhere different?
Are their health concerns involved in Oral and anal sex? The answer is yes by the way...
And of course "no sex is the only safe sex"... Is in the typical curriculum.
- Limiting free easy birth control access for poor people
Uncertain. Jerry blew by this one.
- Limiting a Mother's right to choose abortion
Uncertain. Jerry noted Roe V Wade but did not say if he supports it. Also, no statement regarding position on late abortions to save mother or if the baby has severe abnormalities.
- Limiting immigration of Muslim refugees
Uncertain. Jerry avoided weighing in on Trump's cutting the refugee number's and banning refugees from certain countries.
- Blocking gun control legislation
Verified. Definitely wants to keep unregistered guns easy to attain, sell and use.
What Kentucky Women Want
Abstinence Only Training is Ineffective and Harmful
Study regarding Abstinence Training
"Our analysis adds to the overwhelming evidence indicating that abstinence-only education does not reduce teen pregnancy rates. Advocates for continued abstinence-only education need to ask themselves: If teens don't learn about human reproduction, including safe sexual health practices to prevent unintended pregnancies and STDs, and how to plan their reproductive adult life in school, then when should they learn it, and from whom?"
Here is a pro-abstinence training piece from Heritage and it does not sell me with any great results.
KFF Sex Education Summary
"The Trump administration continues to shift the focus towards abstinence-only education, revamping the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program and increasing federal funding for sexual risk avoidance programs.
Despite the large body of evidence suggesting that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at delaying sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners of teens, many states continue to seek funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and mandate an emphasis on abstinence when sex education is taught in school.
There will likely be continued debate about the effectiveness of these programs and ongoing attention to the level of federal investment in sex education programs that prioritize abstinence-only approaches over those that are more comprehensive and based on medical information."
As for gun control...
CEO Letter
G2A Proposal
The sad fact is that bad and sick people have guns because legal buyers have been irresponsible... They have not kept their weapons adequately secure or they sold them to someone they should not have.
And we know why pretty much ZERO people are killed with automatic weapons in the USA...
They are not available in the public markets...
And we know why semi autos are used in most of the violent crimes in the USA, they are lethal and readily available.
Post a Comment