It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Party of Ban the Box Movement Demands Public Airing of Kavanaugh Smears? WTF?

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   
In the context of


Should your criminal history be on job applications? Lawmaker says no
www.sacbee.com...

In 2015, then-President Barack Obama endorsed the policy, instructing federal agencies to remove questions about prior convictions from applications and urging companies to pledge to do the same.


The party that wanted to do away with divulging if a person was a felon from job applications was obsessed with uncorroborated allegations of what has repeatedly been claimed would have been a misdemeanor when Kavanuagh was more than likely a minor? During a job interview?

Seems legit, and not hypocritical in the least bit.



+1 more 
posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Kav is a white male. Those changes in the law were not intended for white males.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: neutronflux


Kav is a white male. Those changes in the law were not intended for white males.



You forgot the word Conservative in there. Other than that, nothing more needs said, does it?




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?

edit on 10/8/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)


+11 more 
posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


did you in any way dismiss the OP, or were you just offering your confusing support? The way you post now that you went all "Taylor Swift" on us, isn't nearly as clear as it used to be.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




did you in any way dismiss the OP

Yes.
I said the comparison is not valid. The point attempting to be made is specious.

Too subtle?
edit on 10/8/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Your right they are intended for every colour of male and guess what every colour of female too!
Crazy eh?

a reply to: seeker1963


edit on 8-10-2018 by Athetos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


Phage - I am curious and I appreciate your opinions, even the ones I don't agree with. Do you think that the Kavanaugh/Ford thing would have went to trial had she pressed charges?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


So that gives them the right to publicly smear someone with no due process, totally ignoring procedure, with allegations backed by no evidence? Because it’s a job interview? And you don’t see the hypocrisy. Very convenient for your narrative.

And if already serving your time cleans the slate, why are there multiple strike laws? As in if you commit the same felony, your punishment increases?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


So you it's ok to disclose rumors and unproven allegations, but it should be kept secret if somebody has actually been convicted in a court of law. Shocking levels of hipocracy.

Past crimes generally shouldn't have bearing on potential employment but there are some positions that shouldn't ever be filled by people convicted of certain crimes, for life.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MRinder

I don't know. But I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been convicted if it had. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard that would apply there. Here, she was just more information for a job interview.

My thoughts; for that seat, any doubt is problematic.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SouthernForkway26




So you it's ok to disclose rumors and unproven allegations, but it should be kept secret if somebody has actually been convicted in a court of law.

I don't recall saying that. I would want to know if a potential bookkeeper was a convicted embezzler.

What I said is that it is a false comparison.

edit on 10/8/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Oh that's rich, you believe in rehabilitation!


The only thing that makes the two "not really the same thing" is that one involves a person who's guilt was proven by evidence while the other involves someone who was not proven guilty, had no evidence used to prove them guilty, and was the victim of baseless accusations.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
My thoughts; for that seat, any doubt is problematic.



Guess it is a good thing the majority of Senators didn't have any doubts, yes?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I'm done with Parties. Both of them. NO more Democrats. NO more Republicans.

Time to move on.

If there were more parties, there would be less power, and these confirmations and other events would have less meaning, less of an impact and become less of a circus. .



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MRinder

I don't know. But I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been convicted if it had. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard that would apply there. Here, she was just more information for a job interview.

My thoughts; for that seat, any doubt is problematic.



So? leveling unfounded allegations with no evidence is why a man had to prove his innocence on something if he had been convicted on would not even be on his job application for most federal jobs as pushed by the democrats?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




My thoughts; for that seat, any doubt is problematic.

and when those doubts stem from the current 'trend' used to defame individual and carry no weight, even with extensive investigation and testimonial evidence, does it still seem problematic?

Or rather does the accusation itself seem to become problematic?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


I am confused.. after watching this last confirmation circus, I thought that now you don't need to be convicted, there does not need to be a trial and you are guilty until proven innocent if you are a conservative white male.

Did I miss something about the new liberal rules?


edit on 8-10-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Another Idea for a tread if someone wants to use it? As the move to ban the box gained momentum for federal jobs, there was an increase in doxxing and identity theaft? Strange coincidence? Things that make you go hmm?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
You didn't say it like I did, but it means the same thing. I meant to ask it as question but made a couple grammatical errors.

How do you know about the employee history without having the 'embezzlement conviction' box? I think questions to relevant convictions should be allowed. Allegations and rumors should not.

The Ford allegations are more than "more information for a job interview." This could have ruined his life. It threatens 'innocent until proven guilty'. The sham is completely insensitive to women who suffered through real sexual assault. Dismissing it with Repubs got your way so move on is pretty damning of how little you take the allegations.

Kavanaugh wasn't on trial in criminal court but those alleged sexual crimes today would rightfully put somebody away for years.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join