Stop defending people you don't personally know it's a joke

I known Sagan coined the term.

What I was wondering about the tie to the legal system and how it applies here. I'm good.

a reply to: toysforadults

Dang toys, you really kicked the hornets nest with this one. Well DONE!!!

Are you trying to take away people's dopamine fixes? Trying to insert a little reality into this den of vipers doesn't seem to be taking hold very well. Is it all about the process and the laws, not about the people involved? It is fun to tear apart and inspect the different components of our justice system, but I am dismayed at the large amount of people buying into this show as if it were real. Kind of disgusting.

Is there one set of laws for everyone? For the poor and the rich? The popular and the unknown? To me it seems like there are multiple tiers of justice depending on your level of power (defined by money and pedigree blood). To even pretend like these processes in the halls of power have any impact on us little folk is kind of amusing. The powerful will always be able to buy their way out of situations that would see the rest of us locked up behind bars (Kennedy killing Mary Jo).

I just hope that one of these days, the citizens will start focusing their attention on the things that could change our society towards more freedom and personal responsibility. If we could turn our attention to just a few things, we could change our reality. But that is work. Maybe it is more comforting to get your kicks on stuff that doesn't really matter or that you have no control of ever correcting. The wonderful emotional chemicals that flood in through strong feelings of indignation.

Maybe people don't want this fixed. That is about the only conclusion I am coming up with anymore.

a reply to: ClovenSky

I just hope that one of these days, the citizens will start focusing their attention on the things that could change our society towards more freedom and personal responsibility.

You dont do that by abandoning due process in favor of court of public opinion , and you damn sure dont do it by politicians burning the bill of rights..........

Try again...........

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: ClovenSky

I just hope that one of these days, the citizens will start focusing their attention on the things that could change our society towards more freedom and personal responsibility.

You dont do that by abandoning due process in favor of court of public opinion , and you damn sure dont do it by politicians burning the bill of rights..........

Try again...........

Was just about to type about the same thing.

Its amazing how many people want us to just shut up and accept the destruction of one of the core tenets of western life; innocent until proven guilty.

If we could just give that up, and focus on important things? Like what? What could possibly be more important to that regarding personal liberty and responsibility?

a reply to: roadgravel

There is no legal system being used here. The only thing being used are ignorant people who fail to realize that nothing criminal can result from any of this short of perjury. Civil liability runs amok, however...and i'd suspect that we'd end up footing the bill for any legislators sued over this crap.

We have our elected officials using the court of public opinion instead. Using it to divide us. In concert with this we have media lending their helping hand, and even the former CIA (who is accused by Trump of trying to derail his presidency) are chiming in supporting the kangaroo court for Kavanaugh.

As it applies to the FBI...what criminality is being investigated?

I ask you this: do we have to wait until legalities are involved to use good logic? The only way the Sagan standard can be leveraged is in a non-legal sense. Does this invalidate it as logic?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: toysforadults

I wish just once we were able to give a post 100 stars, because you sir would have gotten it from me!

You have never met them and know nothing other than what you've been told by the media

Right on!! Spot on!! 100%

Oh heak'n heack I'd give a patrillion stars. Yeppers, he just effectively called everyone with an opinion a dolt idiot.
this op is a joke, completely redundant.

a reply to: toysforadults

I thought we were arguing over whether or not the sexual assault allegations should be taken seriously.

If you want to talk about that other stuff that's fine. But I'll just continue to defend anyone who's being treated unfairly.

A question:

Is what is being said here is that since Senators are looking at this accusation instead of a court of law then it is not due process or simply wrong?

If the statue of limitations has expired then there can be no criminal charges, no court, guilty/innocent. So what is left is Senators making a judgement call about a person's qualifications and fitness for office. Isn't that what it is?

Therefore we end up with this mess. Where is the line between what can and cannot be done in a hearing?

Is some allegation that cannot no longer be brought to court not taken into account or should it have weight in the person's qualification?

One thing for sure is that accusations that prove to be false should receive serious punishment. EG: Willing to pay to play. And that can be a whole mess in itself.

How should this be done differently?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It doesn't really seem like our constitution and bill of rights are considered sacred anymore. They have been slowly eroding as a protection of our freedoms for a very long time now. Is it that we are just starting to notice? There are many many things that have been trampled on concerning the will of the people and state's rights that should receive priority over this dog and pony show.

Do you really think the absolute garbage that comes out of this theater will set some type of legal precedent for the rest of the court systems throughout the country? That because of what is happening will somehow change the legal structure so the burden of proof will no longer be required? This isn't about the burden of proof or innocent until proven guilty, this is about the show that R's and D's are hoping you fully buy into.

But oh well. You give your full approval and concrete the idea that this represents the reality of the small person with every second of your attention.

This is simply a distraction, as are all other things in politics.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I just made a post mentioning some of this.

It's really an opinion/judgement of Congress it seems. But how should it be done. If that is the system, we are stuck with it unless changed.

Then stop god damn attacking people YOU DO NOT KNOW

Stop taking the word of same random poster who pops up out the blue at the worst time politically. If X-segment of the people of this country were half way decent folks who were NOT obsessed with scandalous sex degeneracy (due to their own meaningless lives) they'd have merely held Judge K. to the same standard THEY would want to be held to, and demanded evidence/due process before considering the allegation against him

The accusation doesn't matter. The credibility doesn't matter much either. Both are merely starting points and supplements to hard, physical evidence. This case is lacking that, therefore it isn't true.

The default position is: "Not true until proven"

Not, I believe person 1 or person 2

..and any person saying otherwise is criminally un-American. Don't even bother replying if you don't believe in basic due process/burden requirements - we have nothing to speak about if you are that far gone.

a reply to: roadgravel

- No hearing without FBI background information, meaning that the road into these hearings is removed from the political arena (writing a letter to a partisan official, and is moved to the legal arena

- Any allegation is recorded on whatever ridiculous method the FBI uses (lets not pretend the 302 system isn't a joke) with the penalty of law as a deterrant

- in the prior point, it is obvious that the only way to bring the law on the accuser is to prove them a liar which should protect them to some degree from reprisal

hahahhaa.this is very funny.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree. I think we can see that only a Senatorial Q&A isn't how it should be handled. Some accusation needs to pass some initial investigation.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Hey man. You ever been on jury duty? I have....I didn't know any of those people. Weird that they would ask me to get involved and pick a side huh...

A2D

I think OP's point was that many were so easy to claim certainty about who is lying. Partisanship influenced people to make judgments and condemnations that they would not have done without partisanship.

Secondly, this was not a trail. Little time was allowed for investigation. No one was found guilty or non-guilty.

This was a rare case in which partisanship played a major role and affected the country.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AboveBoard

The only truth that matters: presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Seriously...that is all that matters. IF someone waits 35 years to bring charges, and they don't have the extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claims (a threshold we accepted as a society just a few years ago), then why on earth should anything but presumed innocence win the day?

When people say "this is about what makes us American", they are right. But only if they are reminding people that we have a system that protects the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that we have elected officials, media, and former intelligence officials denying the 4th and 5th amendment even exist in their claims that we should support the "victim" over the accused tells me that this has nothing to do with truth, right or wrong. Its a concerted effort to undermine the fabric of America solely to stab one in Trumps eye.

I hear you BUT if he lies about it under oath, do you feel the rule of law should apply??

ETA: to be clear, I think Trump as President has the absolute right to nominate who he and his party chooses for SCOTUS. This has been a fraught process, with many people angry that this standard was NOT applied to Obama, whose second SCOTUS pick was abjectly refused even a hearing. Fairness hasn’t been applied in a very long time.

That being said, I don’t want to advocate for unfairness now. I do however have concerns about his obvious political history and him bringing that into his testimony, which tells me he will clearly be an activist judge, which people don’t care about because that is what we do now, I guess. I’m also concerned he has lied under oath, which is a crime. The standard of “proof” here is does he qualify for a job, not whether or not he should he go to jail.

Respect to you BFFT.

a reply to: AboveBoard

If either of them can be proven to have lied under oath there should be consequences, right?

a reply to: AboveBoard

Sure.

Let me ask you: how would you know he lied about it under oath? What evidence could possibly prove he lied?

And also let me ask you: what good does a simple strawman ("if he lies") do in a world where innocence is presumed until guilt is proven? Its like that old saying, "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hit the ground" implies..."if" is typically from the realm of the ludicrous.

I'll just add my two cents to be buried here.

I'm not defending him; I don't know him. I'm defending due process. The left wants to destroy the innocent and the presumption of innocence. If we let them win this, we're all in danger. Real danger. Like imprisonment or death danger. This is a super slippery slope, more so than normalizing homosexuality leads to normalizing pedophilia.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AboveBoard

The only truth that matters: presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Seriously...that is all that matters. IF someone waits 35 years to bring charges, and they don't have the extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claims (a threshold we accepted as a society just a few years ago), then why on earth should anything but presumed innocence win the day?

When people say "this is about what makes us American", they are right. But only if they are reminding people that we have a system that protects the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that we have elected officials, media, and former intelligence officials denying the 4th and 5th amendment even exist in their claims that we should support the "victim" over the accused tells me that this has nothing to do with truth, right or wrong. Its a concerted effort to undermine the fabric of America solely to stab one in Trumps eye.

I hear you BUT if he lies about it under oath, do you feel the rule of law should apply??

Honestly it depends on the lie.

If he said he wasnt a belegirent drunk, and it can be proven that one time he was (that has nothing to do with this incident) thats not a big deal.

However, if he lied about anything related to this accusation, then yes he should be held accountable.

Now do you think Dr. ford, who lied in written statements about how many people were at the party, or lied about being able to hear people talk downstairs while she was locked in the bathroom in her statement should be charged for her lies?