Justin Fairfax & Brett Kavanaugh

[Trumpocalypse]

Once again, Democrats are in the position where one of our own is accused of inappropriate behavior by a woman. Recently, the shoe was on the other foot when Brett Kavanaugh was accused.

In both the Kavanaugh and Fairfax cases the incident happened many years ago. Also in both it is a he said/she said situation.

Now everyone has the right to the presumption of innocence until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that the bar for criminal prosecution, not for holding public office.

What is unfortunate, that many of the arguments that were peddled by the right to defend Kavanaugh are now being used by the some on the left to defend Fairfax. That is unfortunate. We can't have two standards of believe, one for those we don't like and another for those we do like. Women deserve to be believed regardless of whom they are coming forward about.

It is a shame that so many are so immersed in a 'our team vs. their team' mentality, that they will defend someone just because they are a Democrat while denouncing someone just because they are a Republican.

As Democrats, liberals, progressives or whatever you like to call yourself, we have to have a higher standard for those we chose to represent us. Otherwise we are just as bad as Republicans.

[theboss]

1. Seriously, where were you guys yesterday?

I was getting my teeth kicked in here.

[Trumpocalypse]

2. Sorry

Was busy yesterday and just catching up.

[theboss]

3. I forgive you....this time.

You're going to get yelled out by the way.

[Trumpocalypse]

21. Thanks

I knew some would.

[Hortensis]

146. Repeatedly drawing equivalences between our party

and what the Republicans have become is astonishingly wrong. I just can't imagine how people sustain these dysfunctional attitudes in the face of new conflicting realities every day.

However, it's certainly better that those inclined come together on one thread to push their inner Chuck Todd, less spreading that around on other threads, so...go to it.

[Trumpocalypse]

148. It is not drawing equivalences

but pointing out double standards.

[brush]

76. The Fairfax case is not that complicated.

It's a "hesaid-she said" case unless one or the other can prove otherwise. She said her suppressed memory, remember she was an adult when the alleged assaault happened, was triggered by a campaing photo of him in 2017 whereupon she then toldanother office holder and WAPO.

He said her account didn't happen and they were in contact afterwards.

She has no chance of proving her version since there were no witnesses. he, otoh,, maybe able to retrieve phne records of futher contact.

That what it hinges on, him finding that info. If he can't, it remains her word against his and nobody wins.

Not complicated. As far as the Virginia situation, even if all three officials resign, I'm betting the 4th-in-lidne repg has some racial incidents in his past too so we may all have to keep digging until we get to an AA woman office who will have no blackface or sex assault history to take over the governorship.

[Kingofalldems]

17. Any posts on Kavanaugh by the way?

[theboss]

29. I wrote a brilliant unpublished essay called "My own personal Kavanaugh"

I actually interviewed a dozen Princeton classmates and three people I know from Yale with the simple question, "Can you tell me about the Kavanaughs in your life?"

Every person who attended an Ivy League school knows a Kavanaugh if not several of them. An entitled prep school jock who knew he was going to rule the world at 17 and was just checking the boxes until he got there.

I finished it after he was confirmed, sent it to some friends with connections, and decided that it was too personal and also out of date at that point. I love it though.

You know what, fuck it. I'm posting it here.

[theboss]

44. Here's my fucking Kavanaugh post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211790288

[ehrnst]

106. That was a bit over the top, don't you think?

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2019, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

No one is persecuting you....

[Trumpocalypse]

78. As I already told you , no

There were already many that I agreed with.

And again, thanks for proving my point.

[theboss]

84. Why are you not commenting on my Kavanaugh post?

Is it too hard on him?

You wanted me to post on Kavanaugh, and I posted on Kavanaugh. In long form. With discussions of penises.

[Kingofalldems]

85. I asked you a question.

[theboss]

87. And I gave you, I dunno, 1000 words that I wrote in September

Are you satisfied that I hate Kavanaugh enough?

Or can I only hate Kavanaugh here for it to count?

[Kingofalldems]

89. No.

[theboss]

90. Do you want more Kavanaugh hate?

I can send you the letter I sent Ted Cruz.

Did you send a letter to Ted Cruz?

Why don't you hate Kavanaugh as much as I do?

Why are you even here, freeper?

[ehrnst]

100. Easy now.... Interesting accusation there.

[Eliot Rosewater]

143. Yeah, this is getting fucking old. Making my blood fucking boil actually.

[George II]

113. You called a member of DU "freeper"?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Freeper

"Right-wing political activist. So-called, because it is the nickname of the denizens of the ultra-right wing Web site FreeRepublic.com."

[George II]

91. September?

[theboss]

92. I pulled the essay from an email I sent on 9/28

Now what's the fucking conspiracy?

[marble falls]

96. Have you ever tried decaf?

[ehrnst]

98. That's really over the top, don't you think? (nt)

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2019, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

[ehrnst]

101. And yet you return. (nt)

[moriah]

115. Some of us would rather not be driven from our favorite Democratic forum...

.... simply because we disagree with the assumption that going to a person's hotel room means consent to sex.

Or that only dumb women with no sense of self-preservation would go into a hotel room with a man.

Or claims that forced oral sex is a physical impossibility.

Or equating any convention (let alone one with a business theme) with a single's cruise, OKCupid, or a standard "date" insofar as romantic expectations of participants.

-----

Some of us feel like we have to keep speaking up, despite being told to "grow up" for saying that the above themes are ... frankly, embarrassing to see here.

[EffieBlack]

120. And some of us would rather not see anyone - especially, given our ugly history, a black man -

assumed to be a rapist and be forced to bear the resulting consequences solely because a woman said he is, without any corroboration, investigation or opportunity to defend himself.

[moriah]

140. I agree that *assuming* he's guilty is wrong.

I don't want to believe any version of events -- that a professional woman who said she already had her own #MeToo story to share with the world long before 2004 would feel like she had to create a new one involving someone she had a consensual fling with who later went far in politics, that he had nefarious intentions all along and deliberately intended to violate her, or that anyone would think tears and gagging with head immobilized was a "normal" first romantic encounter (the "bad sex" version attempting to meld both stories -- which still paints Fairfax in a terrible light even if it tries to suggest he's not a deliberate predator, and if true would probably have yielded other similar stores during the WaPo's attempt to check things out.)

At the same time... people do sometimes make false accusations, and their reasons aren't always something we can explain. And while not every man is or should be assumed to be a rapist, some men are. Someone IS lying here, because any attempt to meld the stories doesn't make sense.

I have some small hope that if the other critical discrepancy between their stories is also a lie -- that she cut contact -- that Fairfax can dig up some proof of contact that wasn't strictly business-related. That's very difficult nearly 15 years after the fact, though. And it absolutely sucks that he's put in the position of having to prove a negative, especially if it is (for whatever reason) a false accusation.

I just think this can be discussed without sounding like Fox News did during the Kavanaugh hearings.

[EffieBlack]

141. "I just think this can be discussed without sounding like Fox News did during the Kavanaugh hearings

I agree fully.

By the same token, I hope it can be discussed without sounding like Fox News talking about any black man accused of a crime (or innocent black man killed by the police).

I think we're on the same page ...

[ehrnst]

126. That's quite a strawman there. That or you meant to reply to someone else.

If it was meant as a reply for me, do you have the same low opinion of DU that theboss has indicated in their posts?

[moriah]

138. All I know is I've seen those arguments used, and they are terrible.

I could wish it was possible for Fairfax to disprove the assertion she cut ties after, but that might be difficult nearly 15 years later. I think it's the best chance he has to clear his name, but then again often it's impossible to prove a negative. It's why, when the issue is criminal, the burden of proof is on the prosecution -- even if that means often there is not enough evidence to disprove the argument of consensual sex even when a victim reports within 48 hours.

And none of us were in that hotel room to know what happened. I can understand not rushing to judgment and questioning the motivations of the RW outlets -- I honestly doubt they would have cared *what* happened if Fairfax hadn't been a Democrat. But at the same time, some of the things said when attempting to defend him have been... again, frankly embarrassing.

I believe most of DU is better than those examples of themes I've seen on discussions of this, but I've been surprised to see them at all.

[ehrnst]

139. So is that a yes or no answer to my questions?

I'm not clear.

[moriah]

142. That I meant to respond to you?

Well, I don't believe any of your particular posts were ones that made my top list of "what the fuck did I just see on DU?" regarding this matter.

But I was here yesterday, and saw enough stuff that made me sick to my stomach. Some from people I ordinarily have great respect for, and did my damndest to not totally go off the handle in responding to, especially when I desperately hoped some wording while responding to a bunch of posts was just that -- hasty words not meant to sound how they could have been interpreted.

Do I have a terrible opinion of DU? Not normally. Most of the veteran posters around here ARE better than that.

But again, I've been surprised this week. I probably shouldn't be. Not because DU sucks but because this whole situation sucks, and when trying to defend someone accused of something vile, sometimes people don't think about how vile what *they* say can sound.

[Drunken Irishman]

129. I've been here...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. The hypocrisy is stunning.

[treestar]

5. Every case is identical and the woman always to be believed?

That means any woman can be used to oust any man from any office!

This is a different case! Absurd to say we have no choice but to say he did it because we thought Kav did it.

You are just changing the teams to man vs. woman.

[MadDAsHell]

54. Yes. The woman is always to be believed. nt

[ehrnst]

99. In general, one must believe women. But one doesn't shirk investigative responsibility.

We don't automatically believe every person accusing another of a crime. If we did, we wouldn't need a judicial system.

The weight opf credibility has historically always been given to one gender in the case of he said, she said, but the #metoo movement isn't about simply switching this one-sided view of sexual misconduct.

The incorrect interpretation of the metoo movement has been weaponized against itself and Democrats, because the RW has decided that Dems HAVE to believe every single woman, without question:

A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

The Washington Post did their due diligence, and discovered that this individual was not to be believed.

But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

There is good reason to

A company that appears to be run by a pro-Trump conspiracy theorist offered to pay women to make false claims against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the days leading up to the midterm elections—and the special counsel’s office has asked the FBI to weigh in. “When we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation,” the Mueller spokesman Peter Carr told me in an email on Tuesday.

https://www.axios.com/women-offered-money-accuse-mueller-sexual-harassment-0207ea64-9f63-4da5-9149-48796bb81121.html

And NO, I'm not saying that Vanessa Tyson is doing ANY of this. I am responding to your claim that any woman's claims concerning sexual misconduct must be given the weight of fact.

In fact, that can backfire. Victims of trauma often are fuzzy on what happened just up to the traumatic event, because of the way that brains process information during stress. That has been used against women, such as Blasey-Ford. SHE was credible, even if her reporting of all the factual details (address of the house, day of the week) may have been mistaken. To believe that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh is not the same as believing that every single detail she reported was "fact." To equate the two is what the GOP and the RW did.


Confusing the legal definition of a "credible witness testimony" with the concept that a trauma victim, and women, writ large, are as credible as men in their claims concerning Sexual misconduct is very problematic for women.

[treestar]

102. That is not justice.

It is referring to the time, say the 1960s or earlier, when a woman's claim was automatically laughed away and not believed. It was to give her a chance.

What you are proposing is just like that. It's not justice.

[ehrnst]

104. +1000. It feeds a mistaken assumption that women and the metoo movement

simply want the tables turned, not to be taken credible as a whole when they report sexual misconduct, and that women simply want punitive power over all men, and not justice.

It feeds the assumption that women are liars and want to get away with it - just as many powerful men have.

[EffieBlack]

108. Exactly

The point is not to assume that every woman is telling the truth and if the person she accuses denies it, he is lying and guilty. The point is to reshift the balance so that women are no longer dismissed and their allegations are given fair and respectful consideration.

But it is NOT justice for every allegation a woman makes to be taken as fact and to assume the accused is guilty as soon as the allegation is made.

And let's not forget there was a time (some might argue it's still the case) that when a woman - especially a white woman - accused a black man of rape, she was believed, regardless how implausible or unproven her story was, and the black man was immediately deemed a criminal and suffered the worst consequences therefore, often without trial or any opportunity to defend himself.

The "believe all women" approach to this case gives me the chills because of that history. It is just as wrong as assuming that every woman who alleges she was raped is a liar or a slut.

[ehrnst]

116. Beautifully put. (nt)

[brooklynite]

103. Are you asserting that Fairfax's accuser is "being used"?

If so, please provide evidence.

[treestar]

111. No. You are doing that straw man overextension.

Maybe we don't want Northam to resign - oh, so you are defending blackface!

Abortion should be the woman's choice - oh, so you want to kill babies!

You think Kavanaugh was guilty but that Fairfax is perhaps not guilty - oh so you have a double standard! We can take each case on its own facts and credibility. We don't have to ALWAYS side with the man or ALWAYS side with the woman or we have a double standard!

[ehrnst]

117. Didn't see that at all in the post.

[LisaL]

6. Well I don't have a double standard.

I never believed case against Kavanaugh was convincing.
I don't like the idea of someone coming up with accusations many years later, and those accusations being enough to destroy someone's career without convincing evidence.

[theboss]

64. I'm intrigued by your views and wish to subscribe to you newsletter

What were your issues with Kavanaugh?

[uponit7771]

7. Overt false equivalency noted, the situations aren't even close but I think you know that

[AncientGeezer]

9. How are they different? This should be interesting.

[EffieBlack]

11. See my post above for a partial description of reason

[AncientGeezer]

16. I don't see any post you made above mine. Look at the time stamps.

[EffieBlack]

18. Sorry - it's below

Post #10

[uponit7771]

12. BK had multiple accusations, lied multiple times regarding the situation and denied investigations

... multiple times ... etc ... etc.

Fairfax has none of this attributed to him

[EffieBlack]

15. Exactly

Except the part about being blown away. I've become accustomed to it ...

[AncientGeezer]

19. Lied...when was a Lie proven? Just asking.

We have a well respected AA PhD Democrat making an accusation that has YET to be disputed by anyone besides the accused...she went to Rep Scott's office LAST yr to give a heads up..but she is what...a ratf***er?

[EffieBlack]

22. Do you know who BK is?

[AncientGeezer]

30. SCOTUS Judge...so?

[EffieBlack]

37. So ... when you respond to a post about BK lying with

"Lied...when was a Lie proven? Just asking." with a cut and paste reply about Dr. Tyson's credentials that you've included in two posts so far, it might appear to some that you don't know who BK is.

That's all.

[AncientGeezer]

45. If you assume that...shows you are wrong...I watched ever minute

Of the Hearings on C-Span....you have YET to show anything about a lie...other than you perception......right?

[uponit7771]

27. The lies were proven after he made them, that's when. It was obvious he was lying about some of the

... words in his calendar and some of the sex games he played while he was shit faced ... under oath.

Ford never lied, her testimony was very credible ... BK's testimony was not to the point he started at 11 and took it to 15.

lofl ...

He liked beer

[AncientGeezer]

33. So you still can't show lies...did Dr. Tyson lie?

[uponit7771]

43. I just did, ... did you pay attention to the hearings on BK at all? I believe Tyson enough to ...

... call for due process which is the basis of #metoo

#metoo is ... NOT ... guilt by accusation

[AncientGeezer]

48. "..Ford never lied, her testimony was very credible.."

That's not proof....that's your opinion

[uponit7771]

51. under oath was my context, nice try though ... better question, you got any proof she did lie?! tia

[AncientGeezer]

144. People lie under oath all the time...

I have no more proof that she did than you do that she didn't.

We now have 2 credible accusations against the LG...that remember where, when, how..and leave NO details out...

[uponit7771]

147. Someone accused Muller also I'll wait for the investigation

[AncientGeezer]

149. Yep....idgits with NO credibility. Apples to cactus comparrison.

[dsc]

93. To give one example

he claimed that the call out of Renate Dupree was intended to be complimentary. That would be a lie plain and simple.

[EffieBlack]

95. Why are you having to offer proof that Kavanaugh lied?

[MichMary]

20. There were only two

credible accusations. The rest were absurd and/or retracted. I believe a person or two is facing prosecution for false allegations.

[EffieBlack]

24. Really?

Care to elaborate?

[MichMary]

39. Sure.

The allegations by Blasey Ford and Ramirez were credible. The allegations by Swetnick seemed um, flimsy, at least, perhaps a bit over the top. She saw him standing by (gasp!) Solo cups!! She supposedly attended something like 10 parties where gang rapes occurred, which really doesn't seem plausible.

Some guy made an allegation about knowing a woman who was raped by young men named "Brett and Mark" on a boat. He later recanted. Said he'd made a mistake. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html

Judith Munro-Leighton also accused him of rape. She later recanted. I think she said she was just looking for attention, or something. She was referred to the FBI. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-referred-fbi-doj-investigation/1863210002/

[EffieBlack]

50. LOL

Chuck Grassley referring one person to the FBI isn't even close to "a person or two facing prosecution for false allegations."

But I hear you.

[MichMary]

53. "A person or two"

So, okay, one person being investigated. I don't know how far the investigation turned out. Do you?

[EffieBlack]

56. I don't even know if that one person is actually being investigated by the FBI. Do you?

And since you don't, perhaps you should stop repeating this particular talking point.

[MichMary]

65. Regardless,

one person making a false claim makes it harder for actual victims to be believed. I think we can agree on that.

[Kingofalldems]

26. Got a link on that?

[MichMary]

40. See above n/t

[EffieBlack]

28. You've mentioned in previous posts things you've seen on FOX. Maybe you shouldn't rely on them for

your information ...

[MichMary]

42. I don't

Above I linked to articles from CNN and USA Today.

If either of these articles isn't factual, please let me know.

[uponit7771]

59. So you don't believe the other women who accused BK? Why were they absurd and Tyson accusation

... is not?

Thx in advance

[MichMary]

70. See the links I provided above

Judith Munro Leighton was decades older than Kav and admitted that she had never met him. The guy who claimed he beat up Kav and Mark Judge because they had raped a woman on a boat later said he had been mistaken. What other accusations were made?

[MadDAsHell]

55. Are you saying don't believe the woman??? Unfuckinbelievable. nt

[uponit7771]

57. Of course I'm saying that, also anyone who makes an accusation should be drowned in shallow ...

... water and burned at the stake afterwards :rolleyes:

#metoo does ... NOT ... mean guilt by accusation #NoFranken2.0 !!!

[AncientGeezer]

8. That ship sailed....

Dr Tyson is a well respected AA civil rights proponent, warned Rep Scott's office last yr that this was an issue...but I've been told...at least twice...she didn't take a lie detector test

[EffieBlack]

10. That's just NOT true

Very few people are repeating the arguments that Republicans made about the Kavanaugh matter. There are some VERY different circumstance.

While both instances occurred long ago, one occurred over 30 years ago, the other less than 15.

Kavanaugh's accuser produced substantial corroborating evidence, including considerable evidence of a pattern of similar and consistent behavior by Kavanaugh.

Fairfax's accuser, to date, has produced no corroborating evidence. The ONLY evidence is her accusation.

Prior to Dr. Ford going public, no independent entity, like law enforcement or a reputable publication had done any investigation. Dr. Tyson's claim was investigated by the Washington Post, which could find no substantiation.

And, most important, while most elected Democrats insisted that Dr. Ford should be heard and taken seriously, they waited until both she and Kavanaugh had testified under oath before saying that they believed her and thought Kavanaugh was lying. Very few of them jumped out within days of learning about her allegation to state that she was telling the truth and Kavanaugh was lying.

Here, less than a week has passed since the allegation first came to light. We have no information other than Dr. Tyson's statement and Lt. Gov. Fairfax's denial. Claiming that Democrats should, at this stage, take the approach that Democrats took well into the process for Kavanaugh - and accusing anyone who doesn't of "peddling Republican talking points" is WAAAAY off base.

You seem to have a misconception of what the #MeToo movement is about. It doesn't mean that every woman must be believed but that every woman must be taken seriously, have a chance to be heard and an opportunity to go through a fair process. It's not about a blanket insistence that every woman must be believed - any more than the Black Lives Matter Movement means that every black man accused of a crime is innocent.

Expecting that it's important to balance an accusers right to be heard with an accused person to have a right not to be presumed guilty with no evidence other than an accusation does not make us as bad as Republicans. It's one of the fundamental reasons we're NOT Republicans.

[uponit7771]

13. +1, I'm sick of the false equivalencies

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Thanks for proving my point

about team mentality.

[EffieBlack]

38. Riiiight

Ok. Whatever.

[Trumpocalypse]

41. You're welcome nt

[uponit7771]

46. Facts matter

[Trumpocalypse]

47. My point is about a principal

that should be consistent.

[AncientGeezer]

36. "Kavanaugh's accuser produced substantial corroborating evidence,"...

What was that evidence? I watched the hearings on C-Span...keep that in mind

[MadDAsHell]

63. Believe women. PERIOD. nt

[EffieBlack]

68. No.

LISTEN to women and TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. Period.

[uponit7771]

75. +1, this is part of what wasn't happening before #metoo

[customerserviceguy]

69. Well said

You've made some important points here.

A few days ago, I posited the idea that if there was a chance of a Republican taking the governor's office in VA, that you'd probably see a lot more folks here saying Northam should stay:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11766949

You didn't answer me then, but now that we've got a few more revelations in the news cycle about the chain of succession for that office, didn't my prediction seem to come to pass?

[Kingofalldems]

14. So where were you on the Kavanaugh situation?

Did you start any threads on the subject?

Links?

[Trumpocalypse]

31. I believed Christine Blasey Ford

And no I didn’t start a thread. Didn’t need to.

But my point is about the principle. You can’t have one for Republicans and a different one for Democrats.

[Kingofalldems]

32. Sure thing.

[wildflower]

136. I agree with you

And thought you put it well in the OP.

[Trumpocalypse]

137. Thank you

It is unfortunate that many don't or refuse to get the point.

[OnDoutside]

23. That's all very highminded. The downside of viewing everything from the higher moral ground

is this may result in handing control of Virginia back to Republicans, who will seize the opportunity to once again, target and disenfranchise African Americans in Virginia. That to me is the dilemma. There is no evidence against Fairfax, and if it was anything like Ford's situation, then that would be a different situation. Three takeouts in the same week, smells awfully like coordination.

[Trumpocalypse]

34. Never said that

So please don’t put words in my mouth.

But thanks for proving my point about team mentality.

[OnDoutside]

105. I agree, you didn't, but that's kinda the point.

I'm saying the irony of being so hardline on this, is that potentially this is going hurt African Americans in Virginia, if it results in Republicans/Racists ripping back control. But sure at least you can keep your head held high, while the RW chop Virginians off at the knees.

[Trumpocalypse]

110. Still not the point

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the Governor's problems.

[OnDoutside]

122. I was including all three, but even with Fairfax, how is anyone to defend themselves against any

accusation if there is no evidence, or even the appearance of what might be evidence ? I'm well past the automatically believe the woman, after what was done to Al Franken. To ruin Justin Fairfax's life on the basis of one person's word, when they had a decade and more to do so, is not on. If evidence comes out, then we can revisit it.

[Trumpocalypse]

125. And still not the point. Nt

[OnDoutside]

127. Yes it is. Your OP is the essence of Pollyanna, to which I responded with a real life point that

there are consequences to that attitude.

[Trumpocalypse]

128. No it is not My OP was about a principle

But thanks for proving my point.

[OnDoutside]

131. Yes, the Pollyanna principle, for which there are consequences for African Americans in Virginia.

[Trumpocalypse]

132. No still not the point

And again you're proving it.

[OnDoutside]

133. No, your point is to destroy someone's life without evidence vs enough evidence in Kavanaugh's

case (which was covered up by Republicans) to warrant further investigation, just because he is a male, and to satisfy your biases. It's the illogical outcome of the MeToo movement

[Trumpocalypse]

134. No I'm advocating a simple principle

Nothing personal against anyone.

[OnDoutside]

135. Absolutely yes, it is a simple principle. If only life were as simple, which is where I disagree

with you.

[Kingofalldems]

25. Wow--what an interesting thread.

[uponit7771]

49. #metoo doesn't mean guilt by accusation, #NoFranken2.0 !!!

[MoonRiver]

52. Well, as I recall, there was some evidence regarding the Kavanaugh accusation.

I haven't heard any about the Fairfax accusation. But maybe I've missed something.

[LisaL]

58. What evidence was there on Dr. Ford's story specifically?

Even her friend claimed to not have remembered even the party happening.

[uponit7771]

61. Ford coming forward way before BK was put on a short list and BKs overt lying and avoiding an ...

... investigation by the FBI into the issue.

[LisaL]

62. That's not evidence of a crime taking place.

[uponit7771]

67. Goal post move, the question wasn't about a crime taking place but did I believe Ford. I did...

... because of her actions before he was short listed and his actions afterwards.

[MoonRiver]

71. She knew the address and that checked out.

And, as I recall, there was another woman who claimed to have been assaulted by Kavanaugh at a different party. It was a pattern.

Not saying there was a whole lot of evidence, but more than in the current situation.

[LisaL]

72. What address did she know?

Provide a link. Because that's the first I heard of this claim.

[MoonRiver]

73. My memory isn't that good.

Why don't you check it out?

[LisaL]

74. Because I already know it's not accurate.

You want me to look for something that doesn't exist?

[OnDoutside]

124. Ouch!

[theboss]

81. She didn't

That's what led to that bizarre Twitter story where that GOP dude tried to say, "Hey....it was Kavanaugh's friend that raped her" before he realized exactly how many millions of dollars in libel and defamation of character judgments he was facing.

[Drunken Irishman]

130. There's also evidence to suggest something happened between Fairfax and Tyson...

We know Fairfax and Tyson were together the night she alleged being sexually assaulted.

We know they had a prior relationship.

We also know both are claiming entirely different stories - including Tyson saying she hasn't spoken with Fairfax since and Fairfax saying they had a continued friendship after the event.

The latter point is probably the best way to prove who's telling the truth.

[ooky]

60. You didn't say what specific arguments you are referring to

so I will just say in general. They both have rights. She has every right to be heard, and he has a right to defend himself. She has the burden of a reasonable element of proof before he should be expected to step down, whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion. My opinion is that burden has not been met and it's a non-partisan opinion.

[uponit7771]

66. +1, #metoo doesn't mean guilt by accusation. #NoFranken2.0!!!

[Trumpocalypse]

79. That is not the point.

The point is we can’t have two different sets of principles.

[ooky]

86. And again, you didn't share any of the actual arguments you were objecting to in your OP

so maybe you didn't think that detail was important to your reader. I don't know. I think most of us are reasonable enough to comprehend and agree to your point about not having two sets of standards based on partisanship. But without any reference to any of the actual posts you were objecting to in your OP, and again generally speaking, it seems that two sub-points could reasonably be made for this situation:

(1) That all women deserve to be heard, and,
(2) That there needs to be reasonable proof of an allegation before we demand people to resign.

So I didn't miss your point, I was adding to it. Perhaps you only intended to address that point, which is fine, but then my difficulty with your OP is that it appears you are really only arguing sub-point (1) in support of your standards argument, while sub-point (2) gets lost, and both points are important to me.

[Trumpocalypse]

88. Still not the point

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Teams? I wish, there arent teams anymore, there is literally decent patriots

and traitors.

Decent patriots OR people who are also almost to a PERSON racists, misogynists and homophobes as well as xenophobes.

There is NO situation where replacing any democrat with any republican makes any sense ESPECIALLY to African Americans, women, gay folks and other minorities.

The INDIVIDUAL person is not what matters, one party legislates hate and death, the other doesn't. You leave whoever it is in office until you can replace them with someone who is NOT a racist, traitor, misogynist and homophobe.

Short of conviction of a violent crime, that is.

The days when the difference between D and R was taxes and guns or whatever are OVER. We have to start thinking along the line there are NOT 2 parties, there is one party and one group of Nazi defending no good fucking assholes.

[Hortensis]

145. THIS. +10,000.

[dansolo]

80. This is bullshit

The two situations are not at all similar. Kavenaugh was a partisan political operative with a long history of slimy behavior. He repeatedly lied during his hearings even before the Ford allegations came out. In addition, there were multiple allegations of a similar nature against him with corroborating witnesses. We went after Kavenaugh because he had zero credibility and a history of drunken, aggressive behavior. That is not the case with Fairfax, so some of us are more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to establish what really happened.

[Midnightwalk]

82. Different cases

One difference I don't see any comments on is that Kavanaugh was a candidate for a lifetime appointment while Fairfax is already elected. Fairfax is in line for governor which is yet another layer. It seems sensible that there are different standards

I'm not sure where I stand but I'd break it down like this. All of this is outside of a conviction or other admission of guilt which changes things Finding out the facts usually seems like a good idea to me.

There should be a high bar to remove an elected official. Over turning an election means disenfranchising some voters. They are removed by end of term anyway so there must be sufficient evidence and urgency.

Lifetime appointments don't have "end of term" as a mitigation. I'm not sure whether that should change anything for a single allegation, but should for repeating allegations. There has to be faith in the integrity of the office.

Candidates can be rejected for all kinds of reasons, including credible allegations. Voters should be aware of the consequences. In the general election is the other person even worse? Does morality / "doing right" matter? In the primary electability of the alternatives is a factor.

Appointed positions is in my opinion easier and more unfair. What is so special about this person that they deserve appointment over doubts of their suitability? That's particularly true for lifetime appointments.

Just my thoughts. I don't think there is a formula or even a list of criteria that would work in all cases. I think individual cases are likely to break any sense of consistency.

[EffieBlack]

83. The lifetime appointment v. limited term elected office is an excellent point

[standingtall]

94. The two situations are completely different

If we create hysteria by removing people from office based merely on an accusation than we our going to lose in 2020. We cannot write off 49% of the country and expect to win. The electoral college will not be abolished by 2020, nor are republicans going to stop cheating so we need every vote we can get. We cannot afford to scare anybody off. Believing all accusations made by women without evidence will actually undermine women's rights once republicans get to appoint more judges.

As far as the Fairfax/Tyson situation goes. My position is I don't know yet, and I will not know until I get more information.

[Trumpocalypse]

97. Not the point

But thanks for proving it for me.

[Solomon]

107. Nobody here has proved any fricking point for you.

Keep saying that like a broken record. Get over yourself. 2 different situations as has been pointed out, but you want to hide behind Kavanaugh to crucify Fairfax. Let's wait for the investigation and the facts. I recall democrats asking for an investigation on the Kavanaugh matter, but for some reason, you think it's hypocrisy for democrats to ask for an investigation in the Fairfax matter. Ridiculous.

[Trumpocalypse]

109. Again not the point

[Empowerer]

112. You keep saying this to everyone who challenges what you've written

Obviously, you think that many people have missed your point. Given the number of people this applies to, perhaps your point wasn't clear.

Care to restate it in order to clear up any misunderstanding so that everyone can be sure what you're saying?

[Trumpocalypse]

114. No some got it

and some didn't.

[Empowerer]

119. I see

You're not interested in a discussion or even really communicating any actual point.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Trumpocalypse]

121. You either get it or

you don’t.

[ooky]

118. +1000

[OnDoutside]

123. Well said.