|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
The Washington Post published a story last week stating that Alabama Judge and candidate for US Senator Roy Moore has multiple incidents of misconduct involving underage girls.....34 years ago.
This is the same "newspaper" that did a hit piece on President Trump last election cycle. This is also the same publication that is supporting Judge Moore's opponent in what looks to be a must-watch race. Several establishment Republicans-In-Name-Only have already publicly called for Moore to step aside and disqualify himself from the race.
This is a judge who has been elected, not appointed, twice, and removed twice due to his unwillingness to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refusing to allow issuance of same sex marriage licenses in the state of Alabama.
This entire series of events is troubling since Judge Moore has been in office for 37 years and has been through many elections, including the run-off last month - and suddenly now this allegation is made? It seems like calling someone a sexual predator is going to replace the old Democrat tool of calling them a racist. What are your thoughts on this matter?
I don't think a great deal of the man. He is just another religious phony and hypocrite. It will be interesting to see his GOP advocates create enough spin to get his pedophilia background out of the headlines..... But I see they are already trying to convince us that 2 + 2= 5 already, anything to cover the a$$es of one of their own. I say make him sweat to convince us all of his innocence.
I am sitting in the audience with my popcorn...
Even if it was somehow proven that the women who came forward are lying, we’ll always have that guy who tried to tell us all it isn’t that bad for a thirty-something year old to be with a fourteen year old because of Mary and Joseph. I feel like that guy needs to be getting some more side-eye no matter what.
The Republican committee has already cut funding ties with him
Nah, if Democrats wanted to hurt someone’s chances at winning an election they wouldn’t rely on sexual assault accusations to ruin their chances. We all know Republicans have no problem electing someone with more than a few of those under his belt.
My thoughts are that I don't believe in statutory limits on the amount of time a young girl has to bring charges of rape. If true, try him and lock him up.
It's disgusting that alleged victims of such a crime should be ignored forpolitical positioning.
It's a question of character. If done, repent. Without that we have a hypocrite who doesn't believe in the values he hides behind.
Just wondering if he had raped or murdered somebody 34 years ago, would it matter to you?
Why does the time-frame of the offense matter?
Ohlet's say .................The Statute of Limitations for one !
Wasn't that Bill Clinton's " Bimbo " defense ?
Just wondering .
So, the conclusion is that if a guy was a serial pedophile 34 years ago, that's okay and not something we should know about because that seems to be what you're saying? We should forgive pedophilia if the offense was x number of years back?
I think the argument lies within what each person considers to be a 'pedophile'. An older man trolling teenagers isn't considered to be a big deal in some areas of the country. In fact, aren't they 'just about ready' to be making their own decisions? That means that they are pretty much ready for sex, also - and if they are ready (sometimes as early as 13-15), they should be fair game.
That kind of situation isn't considered to be nearly the taboo as molesting little girls who have not yet reached puberty. The fact that men these days don't get 'why' a teenager should ALSO be off-limits is the maddening part for us grown women. Men like Moore prey on their hopes & dreams... like the message he left in that one girl's yearbook. It sounded nice enough, didn't it - innocuous, even. (And the girl totally had a crush on him, as was indicated by what she wrote about him as a teenager.)
Also, Moore lied about knowing her - does that mean nothing to his 'he's a good Christian' fans?
That is where/how these things start - and incidentally, it is why so many abortions take place. Roy Moore had absolutely no right to be playing around with those legally-underage girls; and if the girls (as adults) thought it was an important point for voters to take into consideration - especially considering his religious zealousy - then that is why they came forward. Yeah, pretty damn brave.
Find candidates with integrity; and stop insisting that the biggest as*holes in this country are our saviors. Most of us know better.
MARK LEVIN Exposes WaPo Hit Piece on Judge Moore As Complete Fabrication - SERIOUSLY!
* http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11 … brication/
Photo of the accuser working with Crooked Hillary, bought and paid for DNC aid:
Roy Moore’s Accuser Worked for Democratic Leaders and Is Actively Campaigning for Moore’s Opponent
* https://activistmommy.com/breaking-roy- … -opponent/
Accuser pictured with Creepy Joe Bidden.
ADDED: ROY MOORE’S TWO ACCUSERS: LEIGH CORFMAN’S AGE WAS 17 NOT 14 & HAS HISTORY OF MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS, DEBORAH GIBSON A DEM VOLUNTEER FOR MOORE’S OPPONENT
* https://70news.wordpress.com/2017/11/10 … volunteer/
Yes it is awfully fishy, just one month before he runs against the Dem
but, we aren't to question, otherwise we'll be attacked, as he has been.
Sounds like a man that should never again see the back side of the judge's desk OR the inside of the senate. But not because of unsubstantiated claims from decades ago - because he has no idea of what his task is as a judge or lawmaker.
Pardon me folks, I must have missed the long list of prominent Democrats who called on Senator Menendez to step aside and resign after being not just accused of hiring underage hookers, ... but he was criminally CHARGED with political corruption. If someone has that list, please direct me to it.
Media silence, while they go after the Judge relentlessly.
What a joke!
There are 5 accusers. With all of the sexual harassment charges coming out at once, the victims feel empowered to say something. Sure there will be attention seekers (Corey Feldman) or liars, but every case must be looked into.
Innocent until proven guilty.
But at the same time, there are plenty of other reasons not to like that wacky guy (I'm putting it nicely).
Why are we having these stupid discussions? Why are you and your buddies bringing up this political crap? Or guns? Or other incendiary topics? Wouldn't it be better to talk about writing or football? Leave the insulting behavior for another time.
So Roy himself didn’t deny dating the Hillary Clinton employee when she was 17, simply said “I don’t recall” and acknowledged that he had some type of relationship with her. Interesting. *sips tea*
This has been on a slow boil over the past few days - it seems that the attempts by both the media and the GOP to destroy Judge Moore are excessive. The latest angle would be for the state Republican Party to formally pull its support from him as a candidate. The strangest thing is that he could still win the election but the results would be null and void.?.?.?.?
This would be an unprecedented act of "taking away the will of the people"
Judge Moore should be given the right of due process just like any other American citizen - if the voters want him, then he should be seated and if he's later found guilty, then punished and removed.
The Roy Moore Story is fake! They used the name of a restaurant called "Old Hickory House" in Gadsden, AL and claimed an incident took place there in 1977. The Old Hickory House in Gadsden AL opened in 2001 (see link below). However, they found another business with the same name (pictured) with a sign celebrating 40 years in business, which would mean it opened in 1977, exactly the same date they chose for their script. Unfortunately, the picture is from a restaurant in Tucker GA. They used the the wrong restaurant for their phony story!
* https://www.manta.com/c/mm3l763/old-hic … -bar-b-que
Photo they used for their BS story:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … mp;theater
Yelp ... with photo of the Old Hickory House in Tucker GA.
"Old Hickory House" in Gadsden was never called "Olde Hickory House."
The person who forged the signature got the name wrong.
* https://conservativefiringline.com/twit … ok-forged/
Lying fascist scum.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45 … ory-houses
Nice try. For someone who previously tried to make me out to be some sort of monster when you (wrongly) perceived that I didn’t believe victims of sexual assault, you sure are going to a lot of trouble to try to discredit these women.
I’d call you a hypocrite but I think even that would be an understatement.
You are very patient trying to deal with these people. I have largely given up to spend my time and energy on more important activities.
You know me better than that. Someone took something wrong, personally. Making a mountain out of nothing intended to be anything resembling that baloney.
Nice to see you stop by.
My comment has nothing to do with you personally. It's directed at any people who fill HP with propaganda that makes them feel better about their personal beliefs instead of opening their minds to look for the truth, no matter where it lies.
Frankly, I don't care if it comes from the right or the left.
It's one reason why I have pulled most of my content from HP even though I had a clear path to 5 million page views.
Thanks for your clarification.
I hope you have a home for you articles where they will perform well. Wow! Almost a million views is really something to give up, that must have been painful to do. But, I understand how it is sometimes, one has to think of their own peace of mind.
Oh my goodness it is a TRAVESTY that we can’t post gifs here.
Roy Moore was lifetime banned from Gladson mall for harrassing little girls. He would troll the mall on Friday and Saturday nights. He was also banned from the YMCA for same reason.
When asked about dating underage girls, he replied, "I always asked their mother's permission".
All this while being the assistant DA.
But the most disgusting example is;
A JMC analytics poll found that 37 percent of evangelicals surveyed said the allegations make them more likely to vote for the GOP Senate candidate in the upcoming election.
Evangelical Christians have made it clear that under the right circumstances, they’re willing to give pedophilia a pass. Why? Is it because although Roy Moore is a pedophile, he wants to ban homosexuality and staple the Ten Commandments to every public building in the country?
So homosexuality bad, pedophilia not so bad?
I think this shows that we are not so civilized as a nation as we thought we are. Reminds me of the fact that paedophilia is widespread and culturally accepted in southern Afghanistan. US troops ordered to ignore child prostitution because diversity is good.
"Bacha bāzī is a slang term in Afghanistan for a wide variety of activities involving sexual relations between older men and younger adolescent men, or boys, which is child sexual abuse. The practitioner is commonly called bacha Baz or simply BACH. It may include to some extent sexual slavery and child prostitution."
Yet, all I hear are excuses that has to make one pause about the sincerity of those that claim to adhere to true Christian principles. There has to be a disconnect between supporting someone as vile as Moore yet can still beat everyone over the head with his or her bible. Seems like they can so easily trade in Christian orthodoxy for rightwing political expediency. I cannot stand the very mention of these kinds of people.
EVERY SINGLE DETAIL of Gloria Allred’s and Beverly Nelson's attack on Roy Moore Has Been Debunked...CNN even helped on this one!
* http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11 … rrest-now/
As Accuser Stories Fall Apart, New Numbers Out of Alabama Show Roy Moore’s Chance of Winning Has Skyrocketed
* https://viral.americanewshub.com/2017/1 … ed/?fb=ben
I saw this coming from a mile away! I trusted my gut, and what I knew, and I wasn't a coward for standing up for what I believed.
Maybe there needs to be charges for fraud made? Allred already had two investigations on her before this. She needs to be disbarred from practice law as far as I am concerned.
Might Christian of ya. Defending one child predator because you agree with his politics while spending hours upon hours piling on others because you don't agree with their politics. You are enabling a pedophile because of politics. That is truly gross..
My thoughts, copied and pasted from another post.
Roy Moore is a predator. Al Franken is a predator. Donald Trump is a predator. Bill Clinton is a predator. Just as there are different degrees of murder or theft under the law, there are different degrees of sexual harassment and abuse. Roy Moore sexually abused children. Al Franken grabbed women against their wishes. Are they the same? Yes, but no. Yes, they are both sexual crimes. No, one crime is far worse than the other. Yet, some will defend Moore because he continues his predatory behavior by bullying his victims, calling them liars, threatening to sue. Just like our president has done to his accusers. Just like Clinton did with his. Franken, at least, owns up to his transgressions. That doesn't make it okay, but at least he is not continuing to bully his victims. Can you really say Franken and Moore are the same, either in the crimes they committed, or in the way they are reacting to the allegations? Franken is not my senator, but if he were, I'd call for him to resign. We must have standards for our leaders. Roy Moore, like Trump, is not fit to be dog catcher. He certainly is not fit to be a senator of this great nation. Come on, stop being partisan. Stop defending the predators.
No it has to do with knowing what kind of character Allred is. It also has to do with knowing what kind of character Moore has. It also has to do with having discernment, its kind of like having wisdom. People don't understand discernment and wisdom have none.
Policies are important in the political ring, and I certain agree with Moore on abortion and more. His opponent is like that of Clinton, he believe women should have the right to murder their own babies up to the point of being born.
Good vs Evil.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!
Odd, Allred refuses to turn over the year book for forensic hand writing analyses. What is she afraid of?
What some people think doesn't mean much! Blah, blah, blah!
"Before you start telling people lies, make sure they don't already know the truth".--Miranda
Surely, you could find an anti-abortion candidate who is not a pedophile? Surely, you can. Your concern for the unborn is touching. Your lack of concern for them once they walk upon the earth is disturbing.
I find this disrespectfully gross personal attack totally unacceptable.
I don't live in Alabama and Moore is not my candidate.... Ridiculous.
Sure, but you're just like those Alabamans who say they'll vote for a child molesting Republican over a Democrat. They use their anti-abortion views as justification.
And you're being a good little online soldier, doing your part to spread
the word that Roy Moore, just like ptesident Don, is not like those other nasty predators you've devoted an entire weeks-long thread to. Oh, no, they're different.
Even though "you" are not an Alabama voter, "you" are dutifully doing your part to ensure he is seen differently, even though he is clearly too creepy to be allowed at a mall.
Do you mean like you did with Billy Clinton ?
LOL, always pivot to Clinton, right?
Your playbook needs a refresh.
First, I was not using the internet until 1996 and I certainly didn't post about politics back then so no online soldiering by me.
Second, I voted for Clinton the first time but not the second time, not that it has any relevance whatsoever to the subject at hand, but hey, I know the Trump Brigade can't type a paragraph without bringing up Hillary or Bill so whatever.
Last, thank you for agreeing with my premise, even though I'm almost certain it was accidental.
The former mall manager for the time period in question said that Moore was never banned from the mall.
The false facts have all been debunked. No one signs their name with two different colors of ink and uses different hand writing. Allred refuses to turn over the year book to a hand writing analyses. She won't answer the question if her client saw Moore sign the year book.
The story doesn't hold water. You should maybe research all of it before you pass a judgement on Moore, I did. I would be very surprised to find that he is guilty. I think its dirty politics at play, nothing more. After the election the accuser will go away, if not before.
I think Allred and Nelson will be charged for fraud.
You sure have an issue when someone doesn't agree with what you have decided in your own mind, you can't control what other people think...not without convincing evidence. I'm convince Allred and Nelson are lying. Nelson is a terrible actor! I've studying body language for a very long time, I'm not an expert, but I listen to what an expert says and she is not a fool that is easily deceived, neither am I.
LOL...Someone believes WaPo!
Undercover Video Exposes Washington Post’s Hidden Agenda
"In newly released undercover video, Washington Post National Security Correspondent Dan Lamothe and Director of Product Joey Marburger speak to the paper’s hidden agenda. Evidently, covering Trump the way they do is good business, even though it’s fake news."
PRAVDA ... more undercover videos to come...
"Email inside Washington Post obtained by Project Veritas shows WaPo newsroom on red alert for us. More video inside dropping this week."
Looks like the accuser with the yearbook has just admitted to forging part of the entry Gloria Allred was trying to use
Gotta stick up for the pedophile, huh? Of course, your Bibull has nothing against rape or pedophilia. That didn't make on God's top things not to do. Heck, he spent the first four pointing out his insecurity issues. What's that verse that says it's okay to rape and marry a virgin providing you pay off her father?
That's just one of the accusers. Even if 90% lied, all it takes is one. Then again we're talking about an idiot that thinks the Bibull trumps our Constitution and been kicked off the bench twice. Why this iis even a close race is mind-boggling. Oh yeah. It's Alabama.
Another untruth. The date and name of the restaurant was added later. A noted handwriting expert said Moore's writing and signature was real. Good try though.
Does that come from your hero the talking snake (as you said is your hero)?
"The talking snake is my hero."
Paul , It must be scary then to see the polls showing Moore ahead by three to six points or so . So much for baseless , unproven leftist attacks. Wouldn't you think that you might learn from all other baseless accusations?
Is your media bias slip showing ?
Someone on the left is accused and it’s as good as a proven fact.
Someone on the right is accused and it’s totally baseless.
Anyone who accepts a woman’s accusation depending on who she’s accusing does not actually care about women being sexually assaulted and it’s as simple as that.
Whats happening is that the left is throwing everything against the wall at any conservative candidate ,Just to see what will stick ! And you know that . Sexual assault is just one more leftist tool for that , 34 four year old accusations ?!!?
"Anyone who accepts a woman’s accusation depending on who she’s accusing does not actually care about women being sexually assaulted and it’s as simple as that."
Very true. Can we also add that anyone who accepts a woman's accusation as proven fact and metes out punishment as a result doesn't care about justice, fairness or our legal system?
But I don’t see anyone forcing the accused into prisons without a trial.
No we don't. Just getting them fired, ruining financial, work and likely private lives, the result of accusations that carry no supporting evidence with them. It's called the "hanging mob" and is something we supposedly did away with a century ago.
So what, victims just aren’t supposed to speak up if there’s no evidence that would get the accused tried in a court of law? One in five plus whatever other number of people don’t even bother to report because they know it won’t go anywhere.
That’s your idea of “fairness”?
That's my idea of libel/slander. Check the law to see if I'm right - making vile claims about what someone else said or did, that damages them in some way, is illegal. That is, unless the claims can be proven to be true, in which case you can say whatever you wish.
Those slander laws exist for a reason, a reason that I agree with.
But not being able to prove a sexual assault does not mean that the sexual assault didn’t happen. Even the presence of DNA doesn’t prove anything, there’s still the issue of needing to prove consent. This usually requires a witness, which aren’t usually present for a sexual assault. You’re saying that unless it can be proven in a court of law you assume it’s slanderous? So the vast majority of women who report sexual assault are lying?
"But not being able to prove a sexual assault does not mean that the sexual assault didn’t happen."
Nope. And it doesn't mean it DID, either, so why the punishment?
"So the vast majority of women who report sexual assault are lying?"
Who knows? And if we don't know, why are lives being ruined simply on an unsupported, unproven allegation? Because it's politically expedient? Because it's PC to ruin a life after an unsupported claim of wrongdoing? Or because we as a people have decided that trials are no longer useful; that the mob will decide guilt with or without evidence?
"You’re saying that unless it can be proven in a court of law you assume it’s slanderous? "
I'm not assuming anything at all: the law is. That's how slander is defined. Consider your reaction if someone went all over your neighborhood/city putting up posters that you were a child beater and a sexual predator, and you knew who was doing it. You lose your job as a result, and your husband leaves you, taking your kids with him because you are a known predator. It's as if you're saying that's all right - that whatever that person says about you is fine.
It's not fine, and you have a right to sue for damages - when proof you are not a predator that beats kids is not forthcoming you have a right to damages. On the other hand, if it CAN be proven that you are a child beater and sexual predator you lose the case and the person continues to put more posters. With perfect impunity as the claims are proven to be true.
Free speech does not include the right to false claims damaging another person. Unless you can prove the truth of the claims, better keep your mouth shut.
Oh my goodness. What effect do you think it has on a woman to be sexually assaulted/raped and have no one believe her because no one was there to see it? You don’t think that ruins her life in a comparable way that believing her ruins a man’s?
Sexual assault almost always comes down to he said/she said. By taking “his” side every time and presuming his innocence over hers you are making a choice that affects someone else’s life negatively, just as I am when I choose to believe a woman over a man. You are no more free of that burden than the rest of us.
Jeez, next time someone dumbly asks “why don’t women come forward sooner?” I should have a little print-out of your post handy in my purse to show them. You couldn’t have given me a better example if you tried.
Aime, it's a long, steep, rocky road. This attitude is commonplace. We deal with it every day. Most of the time we just suck it up and handle their BS on our own, because addressing it only results in accusations of lying or blaming the victim.
I'm glad to see this new cultural phenomenon of women speaking out. It takes a lot of guts. Still, it will take a long long time for these attitudes to die away.
I feel sad. I guess I’ve never experienced this in direct conversation before. I’m lucky in life to have these conversations with men who at least try to be understanding and empathetic towards what women experience as a result of sexual assault. Makes me wanna puke thinking about my daughter growing up someday, though.
Perhaps it IS a good thing...if it will convince women that it isn't OK to be raped, that they have recourse and that they need to make charges instead of just sucking it up.
Unless they’re part of the 80% of women who don’t have evidence that will hold up in court... in which case they probably weren’t really assaulted and need to just get over it. Right?
Being nasty and putting stupid words in the mouths of others won't help your debate. While you seem perfectly happy to convict based on nothing but a claim I'm saying I don't know whether the assault happened or not...and neither do you. There is no "probably not assaulted" and there is no "probably assaulted"; there is only "what can you show to prove your claim". And when there is "nothing at all" as an answer then there can be no verdict - neither guilty nor innocent can be concluded by an honest listener. Whereupon the basis of the justice system, "innocent until proven guilty", comes into play and the only legal OR moral conclusion possible must be "innocent".
But here’s that tricky “fairness” word again. Presuming a man’s innocence every single time implies a woman’s guilt, or at the very least tells her that her word means nothing. Is that fair?
Yes. Doesn't matter whether a man or woman, young or old, ugly or beautiful, accused of rape, assault or any other crime, a person is to presumed innocent until proven guilty. Proven, not just said to be by someone that can offer nothing but their word.
"Sexual assault almost always comes down to he said/she said."
No it doesn't - there are almost always physical signs of force. Or witnesses of the time period immediately prior/after.
But in any case, the law is pretty clear on just what libel is, and complaining that it will negatively affect a woman's chance to claim rape decades after the incident doesn't change that.
I notice you did not address what it would be like to be falsely accused and not have any chance of defending yourself or avoiding punishment...
First of all, where does your “almost always physical signs of force” claim come from?
Secondly, a witness before/after the time it happened still can not verify what went on when it was actually happening.
I’m not complaining about libel laws, I’m “complaining” about the fact that you seem to think it’s fair to assume that 80+% of women who say they’ve been assaulted are liars. I think that’s absolutely insane and my mind is honestly blown. All over the walls. Don’t know how I’m going to stuff them back into my skull.
I did address the possibility that someone has been falsely accused. That would suck. Kind of like it sucks to be sexually assaulted and have a mixture of people simultaneously telling you that you should have “kept your mouth shut” and “told someone sooner” as ways to dismiss your experience.
Like I said, we all make the choice as to who we hurt if we believe the wrong person.
"I’m “complaining” about the fact that you seem to think it’s fair to assume that 80+% of women who say they’ve been assaulted are liars."
Except that no one, least of all me, has ever said that. No, you're complaining that the word of an alleged rape victim isn't taken as gospel and punishment meted out. And I'm saying that isn't how our justice system works. You're insisting that the entire system is flawed because proof is required, proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that a claim with zero supporting evidence is good enough to convict and punish. Simply put, it is as much about knowing guilt or innocence as it is about the actual guilt. If we don't know we don't punish - guesses have no place in justice.
We aren't going to get together on this; you want a mob rule based on the word of a single person as to what happened decades ago and I'm going to continue to say that as flawed as our justice system is it is still far, far preferable to mob rule. That until a claim has gone before a jury of peers it is not to be used to punish anyone. I've seen our system fail miserably, and recognize that it has severe flaws built into it. I've seen instances where justice hasn't been even close, but I've also watched as the mob convicts people simply because their emotions are roiling - the mob doesn't care about truth, just about hurting someone it has decided is guilty without ever knowing if they are or not.
Woman's rights aren't about Roy Moore ;
In that sense , It is no wonder that woman's rights , that attaches itself to the democratic party like ticks on a mongrel , always suffers so drastically at the hands of justice , in government , in culture and society .
Why don't and why haven't women questioned that ? If woman's rights defeated Roy Moore , will we all now watch women's incomes , their rights equalize ?
What has the world of minorities attained from it's alignment with democrats ?
What has the black race attained from democrats ? Look at the major of big city strongholds in America , anywhere women earn 30 % less than men !
Is that Roy Moore's fault ? Blacks probably own more of the income divide than women do , has the democratic party changed life for blacks ?
I say this is one less victory for woman and one more for party hypocrisy ?
You’re right, you didn’t say that. I apologize. You said “unless you can prove the truth of the claims, better keep your mouth shut.” Which I guess isn’t saying they’re lying but rather they shouldn’t be speaking out about being sexually assaulted. Or have I misunderstood?
Again, I’m not talking about the justice system. I’m not asking that anyone be thrown in prison or charged with a crime without any evidence that would normally hold up in court. I’m talking about “fairness” which you threw out, which I believe to be much more subjective than the legal justice system. Is it fair for someone who’s had 50+ women accuse them of sexual harassment/assault to be fired? Well, I’d say yes. But that’s really at the discretion of that person’s employer and not the rest of the world.
“You want a mob rule based on the word of a single person as to what happened decades ago.” Mmm, nope, I don’t. All of the men who have been in the sexual assault spotlight recently have had multiple accusers. And I don’t want “mob rule,” I want women to be free to speak about their experiences and to tell the whole damn world they’ve been assaulted if that’s what they feel is right. People will then decide whether they believe her or not, or if they want to just stay out of it.
You did not misunderstand. We simply cannot allow people to make public claims about other people, causing harm to those people, without requiring that they can support their claim. At least that's my opinion, and the law agrees.
"All of the men who have been in the sexual assault spotlight recently have had multiple accusers. "
I'm sorry, but multiple people claiming multiple wrongdoings is not evidence that ANY of them are true. Now if you had multiple people all claiming that one specific person, at one specific time and place, was assaulted, speaking from observation and not third hand stories passed down from the accuser, then you have at a minimum evidence and likely proof.
"I want women to be free to speak about their experiences and to tell the whole damn world they’ve been assaulted if that’s what they feel is right."
Then let her speak without naming names. She can reiterate her experience until the end of time...as long as she doesn't try to harm another person with her tale. This will supply the catharsis wanted and without harming anyone at all. But of course that's not what's being done and not what you want to see; you want to see someone, perhaps innocent, perhaps not, punished because someone tells a story. Vengeance and revenge is what you're asking for but revenge without ever providing evidence anything happened.
I'm absolutely positive you understand why that is unacceptable. Anyone with a grudge could then begin making public claims about anyone else, and to the point of destroying lives, without ever being called on it. "He ignored me; I'll claim rape and cost him his marriage". "I didn't get my raise: I'll claim abuse and get him fired". "She gave my child an "F" in class: I'll claim she slapped him and get her jailed for assault". The list is absolutely endless of why people are angry at someone else, and endless in what can be claimed. We cannot allow that to happen, not in a society that makes any effort at all to give justice. The solution isn't to allow such claims and damage to be done at will; it is to educate women (and men) that being sexually abused (or mistreated any other way as well) requires that they participate in the justice system and request justice through the system. They won't always get it for the system is far from perfect, but we also won't see the hanging mob around every corner.
So we can’t allow a woman to name the person who has harmed her because she might cause him harm. Right. Sorry, but if someone sexually assaults me, protecting him from harm is the last reason I’m not going to name him. I might choose not to name him because I’m afraid of him, but not becuase I’m worried he might lose his job or his wife might leave him. The price you pay for sexually assaulting someone, I guess.
You cannot say that telling the story without holding the person accountable is good enough. It might be for some people, but if women who know the person that assaulted them has power over other women in a position of authority (like many directors and politicians) then not naming names doesn’t really change anything.
You assume that I want to see people punished. What I want to see is people taking women, and sexual assault, seriously. I want men to know that they cannot silently keep doing this and that there’s a very real possibility there will be consequences if they do it. I am not over here wanting to burn anyone at the stake, I am not saying I hope people’s lives fall apart. That doesn’t give me a sense of joy. But 1 in 6 women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Seven out of 1000 accused will be charged. These things are, I’m certain, directly related. A crime that is not likely to see you face any consequences will be one that is frequently committed. I am not wanting to see people suffer, but rather give men a reason to second guess assaulting someone. To know that even if it’s hard to see any consequences in a court of law that people will still hold you accountable. The people who are suffering the most right now and who have always been suffering the most are the victims and I want it to stop more than I want to see revenge.
I don’t really believe that the “mob mentality” or swift judgments without evidence holds the same weight in regular, day-to-day circumstances. I think that because very public figures are being called out in huge numbers the impact is much greater.
Aime, just chiming in to say I support everything you are saying here. Wilderness believes that the court of public opinion shouldn't exist at all (A notable exception: he says Hillary is guilty of 100 crimes even though she was investigated and not charged. Odd, isn't it?).
Just letting you know I've been down this road. He will even defend a video of a cop shooting a man in the back, because it hasn't yet been tried in a court of law. He once told me a 16-tear-old girl who said she was gang raped bore some responsibility for the rape. This is how he thinks. He is not alone. Many men and some women also think this way. I remember when I first realized it how horrified I was. I am still horrified, but have gotten over the initial shock.
This attitude is why we have a rich and powerful man who has been accused by 16 (?) different women occupying the oval office. This predator called them liars and threatened to sue them after the election. It is why women have been reluctant to report sexual abuse. Why subject yourself to the additional torment of being called a liar and dragged through the mud, when it is the predator who should be tormented and dragged through the mud?
I have a friend who was molested by her uncle. When she told her Mom, her Mom didn't believe her. Her uncle went on to molest over 30 girls and was eventually convicted and went to prison. Her own Mom didn't believe her. It's truly disgusting how some people think it is more likely a girl or woman will lie than the other way around. It defies logic and it is disgusting, but it is real.
I agree, it’s the attitudes we’re seeing right now in this forum that make it seem totally not worth the extra stress and suffering of reporting any sexual assault or harassment. Yet the same people have the audacity to pretend it’s as easy as filing a police report.
I will have no problem believing my daughter and fighting for her if she ever comes to me with something like this, not only because I trust her but because I’m very familiar with how often women and girls experience unsafe situations with men. I’m willing to bet that a large number of women who don’t have sexual assault stories have stories of a time when they got awfully close. I know I sure do. I feel lucky every single day not only that I didn’t have to experience the assault itself but that I didn’t have to deal with people telling me not to talk about it or flat out saying I must be lying for personal gain. I imagine in some ways that’s as bad as the experience itself.
You forgot to mention that I find Hillary guilty of using a private server because the FBI provided that information to congress, with itemized details. Have any of these complainants have done that, or have they just made the claim without any supporting evidence?
It is a rare court case indeed where the complainant is held liable for false statements. I have seen it, but the claims were completely out of whack with reality, and the defense proved it beyond any doubt. And the complainant didn't even try to support some of the charges she filed on - between the two the complainant was charged with paying the defense lawyer costs, along with her lawyer (he signed off on the charges, but didn't bother to even mention some of them in court).
"It's truly disgusting how some people think it is more likely a girl or woman will lie than the other way around."
As I told Aime, and she agreed, it's a good thing I've never made such a claim, isn't it? They only question remaining is why you would insinuate that I, or anyone else in this thread, did. You might carefully consider the difference between "I don't know" and "She lied".
Interesting that the accusers seem to first accuse through media and not through the justice system ? If the legal system fails you justice, what will the media gain you , attention ? Sexual assaults have always been a pretty secretive legal procedure , Now however the open media is trying them ?
Only one in five sexual assault cases go to court, often because there is no substantial proof or witnesses to qualify as evidence admissible in a court of law.
Does that mean the 4/5 that didn’t manage to swipe some DNA or get “lucky” enough to be assaulted in front of someone else should just sit quietly and move on?
4 out 5 aren't reported for what reason ? Embarrassment , guilt , lack of evidence , systematic discouragement , drugs , alcohol , shame ?
And yet , lets try these cases in the media huh ?
That doesn't sound fishy to you .
Hey I'm all about a woman's genuine rights , really . But thirty four years later ? It's politics .
The “1-in-5” statistic is referring to reported sexual assaults.
Four out of 5 reported sexual assaults don’t make it to court. You can make your own guess how many more sexual assaults go unreported. Hint: probably a lot.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. That women are right not to report sexual assault if they feel shame about it or were drinking alcohol or know they don’t have any evidence? Do those things make it any less of an assault?
Did you have any issue with the women who told their stories about Weinstein to the media?
It is extremely common for people to not come forward with sexual assault right away and to wait years or even decades to come forward. The women who have accused Moore all did so knowing there were others that would be stepping forward at the same time - it’s a huge reason women wait so long, fear of doing it alone. Especially in the case of a powerful man.
And as to the stigma of sexual assault , let's start by trying someone in the media ?
I stand with women who been assaulted by men , but the double standard with liberals baffles me and probably it's just your party but ;
Bill Clinton ,liberals --- "Lets wait until all the available evidence is in please before we impeach , DNA means nothing "?
Roy Moore , liberals -----" Let's lynch his a$$ Now "?
The fact that you cannot see the double standard coming from both sides does not surprise me in the least.
So you don’t think that the women who were assaulted/harassed by Weinstein should have spoken publicly about it either?
Weinstein is a pig , he admits his crime right ? Deserves what he gets , The weaponization and politicizing by liberals of sex assaults however , just as the left is looking for all and any impeachable stuff thrown at the wall ? It's all just a bit too orchestrated .
How convenient .
Even woman journalist's are saying ,There's a political strategy to all of this .
Well that would be a terrible political strategy as it was made perfectly clear when Trump was elected despite several sexual misconduct allegations that conservative voters don’t really care about that stuff.
And liberals only care when it's the opposing party and pre-election for purposes of an opponents defeat . Then it's Hang Um High , don't need a judge.
Oh, but isn’t Hollywood all liberals? Are you trying to say that liberals are giving Weinstein, Spacey, etc. a pass? Because we most certainly are not and I think that’s been pretty obvious. There was also a big liberal push to get Franken to step down.
Hollywood theatrics and the attacks on Roy Moore are two separate cases ,In Hollywood , anything goes ," Wanna be an actress come over here" . Hollywood sold it's soul long ago .
Is it true the Moore accusers worked for the DNC / Clinton machine ? The hypocrisy of two faced coins is outrageous , Politically , it's mostly leftist orchestrated attacks at the installation of the ballot boxes . Not when they supposedly actually happened 34 years before .
-Moore ,who's next?, Its that same old oft repeated lie that works .
Who's was that big push to get Franken to step down , Pelosi's , Uh huh .....?
Cmon, Ahorseback, must I suffer through more of your horse droppings of wisdom?
The difference is obvious, Impeachment is the legal act of removing a president from office, of course more than heresay is necessary as proof. I never thought it was any business of the dirty GOP to elevate Clinton's amorous behavior to an impeachable offense. That hardly reaches the 'high crimes or misdemeanors" standard.
Roy Moore and his behavior are not being subject to any legal recourse. But people do have the right to judge and make their own call in regards to it and have that call reflected at the ballot box. So, spare me all the 'liberal press' harassment stuff, the man is a jerk anyway you look at it. You would have been free to make the same choice one way or the other prior during Bill Clinton's candidacy based on information gleaned about his behavior.
My droppings of wisdom must hit a nerve or you'd ignore the facts I use , the common sense points I exude . Clinton Lied to congress and on TV for your viewing pleasure and to the point of his impeachment . Of course that happened after a legit trial and finding .
Moore , not so much ! Bring on his legal charges and wait the results .
You are correct: Clinton was tried for lying to congress, not because his sexual episodes were somehow elevated to an impeachable offense.
Let's see if political obstructionists can figure the answer to this , It will be interesting , If I break into your house , take your TV , your computer , your wallet .
Will you wait three or four decades to call the cops ?
Obviously the nature of this discussions and the issue involved has gone completely over your head, to make such a comparison.
The fact that you’re comparing having material belongings stolen with being violated sexually just shows how deeply you do not understand this.
I don’t know why I’m surprised but I feel genuinely shocked and disheartened reading through these responses.
Yes , well that went just the way I expected to . Anybody going to answer my question?
Well why did you ask it if you knew that everyone would think it was dumb?
Because the left is so predictable in it's bias and hatred of our democracy , it's kind of fun to play with that .
Well I’m glad you consider being completely oblivious to the struggles of being sexually assaulted “fun.”
When women politicize sexual assault for ideological gain and not justice , It already
is a game , Did women sit on their lower morals with their slips showing during the whole Clinton charade , including Hilary's war against the Bimbos ?
The ALPP replaced the DNC , American Leftist Propaganda Party and has their media that leads them around by their belt buckles puppeting the strings of it's youthful and uninformed constituents ,
Why reason with the unreasonable ? You gotta love the psuedo -intellectual elitist's.
They've made the word rape into a political club and they question the right's morals.?
Do you also believe the allegations made against Bill Clinton were politically motivated?
The allegations against Clinton were True , You DO mean Hilary's Bimbo's Right ? And as such ,
I also believe that there are a lot of hypocrites here , Aime
Let me ask you this , Did you register the look on Bills face at the debates , That's when I KNEW , you?
But why are they true when the ones against Trump, Moore, etc. are just political lies? Is there evidence to support that? As far as I know he hasn’t been charged with anything in a court of law... hmmm...
You’re right. Lots of hypocrites.
Clinton , Impeached in the House for lying to them about Lewinsky affair , wouldn't you call that ,evidence recorded ? That's why we have DNA.
All allegations deserve legal respect . Even those nasty conservatives say that .
The only thing that’s evidence of is that they had a consensual affair.
But of course in the morals of the new left a married president can get a B J in the cloak room on company time right ? Gotta love those interns ,. If only Monica was 14 or seventeen huh ?
Then the left would have attacked Bill like a pit bull ? Not!
What have you all gained ?
Senates R--240 ..........D -193 .......I - 2 ?
In 2018 - 24 democratic seats are up for grabs / 8 republican and 2 independents ? Stick around !
Uhhh... yeah, if Clinton was having sexual relations with a minor it would be much different than a consensual affair with an adult. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
But please note that nowhere have I defended him or said he did nothing wrong. All I did was flip the script and use the same reasons you’re using to dismiss the claims against Trump/Moore to give you a reason to dismiss the claims against Clinton. Yet you don’t seem to be doing that. Hmm, strange.
If Monica was a minor , The left would have doubled down to defend him because of the danger of immediate impeachment , He was charismatic with the ladies you know , Who are you trying to kid ?
You are actually delusional enough to believe that anyone would have defended him if he was having sex with a minor? I knew you were out there but I really didn’t know you were that far gone. Yeesh.
Cuz, ya know, us ladies,will overlook anything, even pedophilia, for a charismatic man like Bill. [Blushes, bats eyelashes, sighs, and gazes adoringly]
Careful, your misogyny is really showing tonight. Unless you’re just fully embracing it now and don’t care who sees it.
I've had several conversations with co-workers on this election and one though that surfaced was striking similar to what I had heard in the Presidential election - did voters choose the lesser of two evils in this race. Neither candidate would be considered a "good" choice, but maybe one seemed less problematic than the other? Thoughts?
The oft times frivolous accusations and weaponization in sexual harassment cases has surfaced before this , I worked for a company that separated female employment silently and carefully twenty years ago , BECAUSE of the hypocrisy displayed by game playing , false sexual harassment accusations.
Now ;false, frivolous political accusations will hurt REAL women's rights and accomplishments . Real ones will be hidden behind the politics , lost in the courts . shuffled beneath the paper game hurting real women.
Hi RJ, Although it is only informed by the various media presentations - I have a thought.
In a sense it may seem like a "lesser of two evils" choice, but I don't think they are comparable evils in the normal use of the comparison.
While it may only be a paint job, I think Roy Moore could easily be perceived by opponents as an evil choice. But I think the "evil" part of a Doug Jones choice would be that he was such a plain vanilla option - no real substance, other than not being Roy Moore.
My perception is that any other Republican candidate -other than Roy Moore, would have swept the election.
Yes, no doubt. And if Trump didn't have a WORSE disposition and reputation - he would not be dealing with nearly as much 'mistreatment', now. 'We the people' (that would be the majority who didn't vote for Trump or stayed home) don't trust him; and that makes a world of difference.
Misfit Chick -- good points. Let's put this into perspective: Carrie Fisher was 19 when she and 33-year-old Harrison Ford (who was married) had a three-month "passionate" love affair, according to her autobiography published a few years ago. So why aren't the hordes going after Ford?
Moore was about Ford's age when he was dating teens, and he wasn't married.
Like I said... older men and teenagers aren't nearly the taboo as molesting pre-puberty children. Thanks for proving my point.
I doubt that there is anyone who would say that Ford and Fisher's affair was okay - but, it is awfully acceptible, isn't it? That just proves how much our society and the people who make it up don't give a flying fig about what happens to young girls. Once they hit 18, they are DEFINITELY up for grabs - no matter what.
Carrie would be considered a tarty little slut; and Ford would be considered a 'man of the world' who was doing the 'manly-man' thing of taking whatever he wanted.
Its a lopsided distortion; and one that we women complain about a LOT!
What happens in these "legal " cases ;
This isn't justice ----it's simply a media persecution of and for political purpose. What will these women do now , go to the attorney generals ,go file charges , sue for damages , bring out the dresses with DNA on them , the witness',? No , they will slink back into the annals of election night victory parties until one more NEW political party on , I believe they began in political parties and they will end there too .
I don't know a woman in my life who would so sensationalize a attempted kiss , an inappropriate groping or even a rape . No one here does either ?
It is so normal for you to miss the main points. Watch more Fox News. That will help. LoL!
Who don't you educate us all on the finer points of how justice was served over politics , how the integrity of a trial was served over probable innuendo , how one honest reporting was served over a hundred fake stories ,
The" main points I've missed "sure isn't that your ideology is as corrupt as your total DNC leadership has been , it may be effective leadership at times but it's as dirty as it always has been.
Welcome to the world of Trial by Media !
Well, it is sort of obvious that you didn't take the time to read what Moore wrote to his 1st accuser in her year book; and you didn't see what she wrote about him. I haven't been listening to the news about Moore - I just read the interview of that one accuser. It was all I (and many of us) needed.
And again... you are such a flucking idiot for continuing to insist that the DNC is 'mine'; AND you're an idiot for thinking that RNC leadership is NOTHING like the DNC, LoL!
by Paul Winngert6 months ago
Trump Approvedhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/roy-moore-la … 33620.html
by Sychophantastic6 months ago
President Trump is fully backing Roy Moore for the Alabama U.S. Senate seat. Thank God!Jesus spoke to me the other night and said that this was the right thing to do. I personally don't care whether or not Roy Moore...
by Alternative Prime6 months ago
WHY On Earth Are A Few IMMORAL, Heathen Women Turning Roy Moore Into The "Poster CHILD" For Alabama?Talk about TOTAL Destruction of Mr. Trump & Republicans ~ Trump's Ratings SINKING 2 the LOW 30's,...
by Jack Lee6 months ago
With all the new revelations from Hollywood, when will the shoe drop on some politicians like Al Gore?He was accused of sexual misconduct years ago and separated from his wife Tipper.It is funny how selective these...
by Readmikenow2 years ago
Ever been accused of something, proven innocent, yet the accuser doesn't acknowledge they are wrong?A supervisor accused me of something and was proven wrong by his boss. Supervisor refuses to acknowledge he's...
by sweetjulie8 years ago
how do you know when your spouse is cheating
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.