Discussion in 'Politics' started by Grampa Murked U, Nov 9, 2017.
Having a felony conviction does can your reputation, stupid. And you have to serve the time as well.
The court of public opinion is, fortunately or unfortunately, mostly outside the bounds of the law. It is absolutely possible for someone to make false accusations and ruin another person's reputation. However, unless there is some sort of proof, what can be done? There are already laws against libel and slander, against knowing filing false police reports.....I suppose a law could be passed making it illegal to publicly accuse someone of a crime which has passed its statute of limitations. That seems like a horrible idea to me, and even if it happened, it wouldn't solve the whole problem. In the Roy Moore example, at least 2 of the 3 women who say he had romantic or sexual relations with them were legally of age at the time, from what I've read. There was no crime in those cases, but many would still consider it inappropriate or morally wrong, and it's possible it could ruin his reputation. With no crime involved, and probably no way to prove the accusations one way or another, what could the government possibly do?
There may be some legal improvements that can be made, but I see this in large part as more of a cultural than legal issue; people are too quick to accept unproven accusations if they conform to preexisting biases.
"Caught red handed but nothing happened to her for making up the story."
Then blame Trump for not suing.
If the woman who made up the groping story about the Ray Charles concert had sued Trump, the fact that the concert had been cancelled would have been proof she made it up, right? In that case, Trump should not have to sue her, the state should prosecute her.
Hmm, no, not even then, because that could be bad memory. It's a pretty strict standard of proof. But i think we are on the same page, now.
Bad memory? She mistook somebody for Donald Trump at a concert that never took place? That's a stretch.
Good thread, good observations, logical conclusion with which I agree!
But I have another question for many in congress----------->
If most women can't even report being attacked, abused, mentally indoctrinated; then why should they be in the military? What are they going to do when the enemy attacks their foxhole? This is not a statement against women, this is a statement of reality. I did not create, nor report what IS the reality, the media has, and women LIVED the reality that the media is reporting.
I do not get it, I really do not...............what do we hear when a man and a another man gets in a fight? Not much. But when a man fights a woman, it is reported as unfair, because by most accounts, the woman can NOT win as the man is stronger, AND the man is seen as a total bully. So again, why are women in the military, and why do far leftists, and some RINO's support this?
Some women do not report sexual abuse out of embarrassment, or shame, or fear, so women should not be in the military? That's some high class mental gymnastics!
Do you think that no men have ever hidden being sexually abused?
I think that a private organization...I don't know, maybe a conservative newspaper or something should browbeat some potential witnesses (like the Post has done) into stating that they were sexually harassed by Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, and to be equitable, a few who say that 30 years ago, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara's Boxer, and Feinstein sexually assault a few boys.
I wonder how quickly the media's outrage would suddenly dim? Or do you think they'd enter rehabilitation for their 'transgressions'?
One might reasonably guess that most of the Hollywood people currently being accused of sexual misconduct are Democrats/liberals, based on the supposed prevalence of left-leaning people in Hollywood, and the media outrage doesn't seem to have dimmed there. Perhaps you underestimate the current power of this #Metoo movement.
Separate names with a comma.