1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    I have thought about this. I can't put myself in her shoes, exactly, and the Supreme Court is obviously a huge deal. But I don't think I would have done what she did. I think I'd just want to keep living my nice quiet life.
     
  2. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    Please don't make me think about this.
     
    HanSenSE likes this.
  3. John B. Foster

    John B. Foster Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]

    What it looks like on the pee tape.
     
  4. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    Anti-Anti-Trumpers: "At least it ain't a mushroom cloud."
     
  5. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    I'm worried that the nationwide text alert will be a dick pic.
     
    Jssst21, HanSenSE and Inky_Wretch like this.
  6. DanielSimpsonDay

    DanielSimpsonDay Well-Known Member

  7. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    But what are the safeguards for a man NOW who is falsely accused? Do we throw them under the bus to make up for the likes of Weinstein? What about a case like this where ms. Ford has no witnesses or forensic evidence? How can we really know she's telling the truth?
     
  8. Chef2

    Chef2 Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
  9. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Sexual assault cases rarely have witnesses and often there is no forensic evidence, despite the popular conception. We do what we always do: evaluate the credibility of the complaining witness and the accused, if he or she chooses to speak in their own defense.

    In this situation, so far, I am finding her credibility to be holding up. He's already made some statements about other things that make me doubt his truthfulness.

    Is there enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? No. But we're not bound to apply that standard to a Supreme Court appointment.

    There certainly is enough evidence at this point to slow things down and try to gather more information.
     
    Iron_chet likes this.
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    The answer to this depends on the context. If it is a court of law, of course the person has to be evidence for a finding of guilt. If it is a political matter or public opinion, then we have to at least give consideration to the possibility that she is telling the truth. Making accusations and basing actions on them without evidence makes me very uncomfortable, but I think it has to be a factor in the confirmation process for the Supreme Court. It's a lifetime appointment. We should be holding nominees to a higher standard.

    At the very least, there should be a hearing to deal with the accusation.
     
  11. Jake from State Farm

    Jake from State Farm Well-Known Member

  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    There is corroborative evidence on Ford's side. Her conversations with her therapist, her conversations with friends, all of which took place before Kavenaugh was nominated. There's also an alleged witness, Mark Judge, who could be subpoenaed to testify under oath.
     
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page