Two Years of Trump

... sit down, kick back and relax, and talk about anything that doesn't belong on one of the other forums.
Ashlee
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:02 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Ashlee » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:11 pm

Jestin wrote:Can you guys please help me understand?


I'll try my best.

Jestin wrote:Given that we can not prove which is true, #1 or #2, don't we have no choice but to go with #2 until some evidence appears? Or at the very least until an investigation and/or trial is complete?


Yes. The majority of people have been asking for a delay and a full investigation, calling all relevant witnesses to testify and to arm the senators with information gained from an FBI investigation. Very few people are flat out saying that there shouldn't not be an investigation, but simply a no vote.

Jestin wrote:It seems to me that there is no question that the vote should be allowed to move forward, and the senators should be instructed to completely disregard any accusations that have not been proven. Then, if evidence surfaces from an investigation that proves he is guilty, or he's found guilty in a court of law, then he should immediately be removed. Until that day, he should be treated as if he was innocent. It seems to me completely irrelevant if you believe him or her. You or I or these senators shouldn't have the power to make that decision. There's a reason we have an entire legal and court system for these things!


No. This is an easy mistake to make given the general misinformation about the legal process and the prevalence of terms like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" in our every day lexicon. Pardon me for refusing to take off my lawyer hat. There is absolutely no protected liberty interest in an elevation to a higher seat on the federal judiciary. There is no protected liberty interest in applying for a job, except in the narrow circumstance that you cannot be discriminated against in the hiring process (and even this is limited, as the 14th Amendment applies to the state and not necessarily to private companies, although most states have by statute barred discrimination in the hiring process and some state constitutions enshrine that as well, but that is a whole different can of worms). As such, there is no due process requirement. Due process comes into play when the government is attempting to burden/limit/restrict/regulate a fundamental right. There is no such right in this case. Put plainly, under our law Judge Kavanaugh is not entitled to any due process in connection with his nomination to the Supreme Court. As an interesting side note, if you wanted to impeach Kavanaugh, then both substantive and procedural due process come into play.

Second, innocent until proven guilty is a standard limited only to criminal law. It is the presumption that the government must prove that a crime has been committed before restraining the accused's liberty. It is a reflection that the government bears the burden of proof and this burden never shifts--this is not true in civil cases, where the burden often shifts after the plaintiff makes out their prima facie case. As mentioned above, Kavanaugh is not having a right revoked or his liberty restrained. Thus, the presumption of innocence is absolutely and completely inapplicable to this. He will, very likely, retain his seat on the DC Circuit.

Edit: Regarding your last sentence...it is quite literally these senators' jobs to vet a nominee. It is their article 1 power, authority, and duty to advise and provide their consent, just as the House may impeach a president and the Senate may convict. Saying that advise and consent should completely ignore credible accusations of sexual assault/attempted rape flies in the face of the Constitution.

Jestin wrote:If he is denied the seat based on these unproven accusations, aren't we going down an incredibly slippery slope here? If we give unproven accusations this much power, aren't we just encouraging more false accusations in the future? From now on, anytime someone is being considered for a public position, can someone just accuse them of something and take away that opportunity?


This is a straw man. Neil Gorsuch was up for a similar seat last year and there was not a single allegation of sexual assault against him. Arguably, that seat should have inflamed more liberals, as it was "stolen" by the GOP from Merrick Garland, who even the GOP said would be the perfect justice. In fact, in only 2 instances have sexual assault allegations been levied at a Supreme Court nominee in modern history (perhaps history at all). In one case, the judge is on the court (Thomas, J.) and the other is the current nominee. If all it took to sink a nomination was to make "false allegations," it is shocking that one was not levied against Gorsuch, Alito, or even Roberts.

Jestin wrote:I run a small startup company with 12 employees, some male and some female. I'm honestly getting more and more nervous about female employees. I could not even remotely imagine a scenario where one of my employees could ever feel like he/she was sexually assaulted/harassed by me. But if this type of stuff keeps happening, I could imagine many scenarios where an employee is let go, holds a grudge, and levels false accusations to get back at me. It's really scary to think that so many years of hard work could go down the drain because of a false accusation. No proof, no validity, nothing - just an accusation - and poof! my reputation is gone, job is gone, and I have to go hide under a rock somewhere.


Benito has a great response to this. To add, you should perhaps consider making sure that you foster an atmosphere where your employees feel comfortable speaking to you about potential allegations against co-workers, or feel that they are safe to tell you that an off-hand joke was offensive to them or made them feel uncomfortable. Document performance reviews well, so that any such allegations are shown to be retaliatory. As an attorney and a former law clerk to an appellate judge, it is incredibly hard to prove sexual harassment or retaliation suits. And as Reyne pointed out, the rate of false allegations is startlingly low given the overwhelmingly negative backlash that almost all survivors face, even when they are right. Look at what happened to Emily Doe from the Stanford case, which ultimately ended in Brock Turner's conviction.

Treach
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:23 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Treach » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:32 pm

Jestin wrote:I'm honestly getting more and more nervous about female employees.

If it makes you feel any better. Your male employees can also accuse you of sexual assault/harassment. #TerryCrews

Lord Pe
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:20 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Lord Pe » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:52 am

Fron a simple bing search people.com

As of noon Friday, two GundFundMe campaigns had raised more than $683,609 to help 51-year-old Ford,


Paid lib shill through bullshit crowdfunding money laundering scheme.

Demonyl
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:13 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Demonyl » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:52 am

Lord Pe wrote:Fron a simple bing search people.com

As of noon Friday, two GundFundMe campaigns had raised more than $683,609 to help 51-year-old Ford,


Paid lib shill through bullshit crowdfunding money laundering scheme.


Turn off the talk radio & fox "news", unsubscribe from r/the_donald and move out of WV. Good luck...

Jestin
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:15 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Jestin » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:10 am

Thanks guys, some great replies!

Ashlee
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:02 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Ashlee » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:56 am

Lord Pe wrote:Fron a simple bing search people.com

As of noon Friday, two GundFundMe campaigns had raised more than $683,609 to help 51-year-old Ford,


Paid lib shill through bullshit crowdfunding money laundering scheme.


I can’t tell if you’re trolling, too lazy to look up money laundering, or just an idiot. Money laundering requires that the money going into the scheme was illegally obtained. 18 USC 1956-1957. So the crowdfunded money represents proceeds of illegal activity?

The money was used for paying for the heightened security she need due to crazy people sending her death threats, and any excess was going to be donating to charities for violence against women. A simple bing search would show that.

Sidenote, who the fuck uses bing?!

Roadeur
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:22 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Roadeur » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:43 am

I just wanted to jump into the generally interesting discussion to also point out that someone using Bing is not a reliable source of information. I think the scale of reliability goes Breitbart -> Infowars -> Bing. All the rest is fascinating thanks!

Lykan
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Lykan » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:18 pm

Jestin wrote:I run a small startup company with 12 employees, some male and some female. I'm honestly getting more and more nervous about female employees. I could not even remotely imagine a scenario where one of my employees could ever feel like he/she was sexually assaulted/harassed by me. But if this type of stuff keeps happening, I could imagine many scenarios where an employee is let go, holds a grudge, and levels false accusations to get back at me. It's really scary to think that so many years of hard work could go down the drain because of a false accusation. No proof, no validity, nothing - just an accusation - and poof! my reputation is gone, job is gone, and I have to go hide under a rock somewhere.

I just can't understand how someone would support this, but am open to feedback so please help me see the other side.


Murika. Everyone can sue everyone! Stuff like this and the EEOC are a sad fact of life for business owners and there really isn't much getting around it, particularly as you scale. As Ashlee said, there are certainly things you can do to try and prevent or lower the chances of stuff happening, but if you keep growing and you hire from the general public it really is just a matter of time. You'd be shocked how often companies with even 100+ employees have to deal with wrongful termination allegations. Sadly, the result is discriminatory hiring practices as companies recognize that there is a substantially higher risk in hiring certain classes of employees rather than others.

Also, fuck Kavanaugh.

Aira
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Aira » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:30 pm

Jestin wrote:I run a small startup company with 12 employees, some male and some female. I'm honestly getting more and more nervous about female employees. I could not even remotely imagine a scenario where one of my employees could ever feel like he/she was sexually assaulted/harassed by me. But if this type of stuff keeps happening, I could imagine many scenarios where an employee is let go, holds a grudge, and levels false accusations to get back at me. It's really scary to think that so many years of hard work could go down the drain because of a false accusation. No proof, no validity, nothing - just an accusation - and poof! my reputation is gone, job is gone, and I have to go hide under a rock somewhere.


It's funny how men are suddenly piping up that they're scared. Essentially every woman has been afraid in certain situations. A woman who picks up their car in a parking garage at night, or in a quiet and dark area, will be nervous of unexpected sounds, people who seem drunk or rowdy and so on. Or just any random guy she sees, you never know. The same for many women who walk home from public transportation, or who cycle home at night. Women live with that fear from their teens until well into their old age. I have a neighbor who is afraid to walk her dog after 8.30 pm.

I can understand being worried about your business and your reputation, but those things are relatively easily fixable, depending on the type of company. If you have an office with large windows, don't put in blinds, or leave them open all the time. Leave the door open when you are alone with a female co-worker. You could even install cameras to prove your point/ keep the company's belongings safe/ to create a safe work environment for women. It's the same for men who work in children's care, they also have to be careful being alone with children, because you never know.

The problem with requiring proof of a guy crossing the line is that there usually isn't proof. A friend of mine gets grabbed in the butt often when she goes out. Of some guy 'accidentally' touches her breast. Obviously, these aren't mega bad issues that should cost someone their reputation, but really, it crosses a line and it happens more often than most men think.

There will likely only be proof if a guy rips apart clothing or grabs someone with such force that it leaves bruises. Then, there is the problem that women will often tell themselves to 'man up' and only later realize the incident had a greater impact than expected and then they consider reporting it to the police. By then, any proof can already be gone. Or when she goes to the police, the police initially refused to take her statement/ gather evidence, because 'it was probably her fault', and so on. Granted, the latter seems less likely in this changed world and that's a good thing in terms of evidence gathering.
Also, women who are raped usually take a shower first. It's completely natural and understandable, but that shower can wash away important evidence.

If you adapt, you can make your workplace safe for yourself, but at the same time protect your female workers from any crazy males you happen to have hired. Then you can stop being afraid so much. Just realize that most women will live with moments of fear their whole lives, so welcome in some women's shoes. Fear is not fun, is it?

Lord Pe
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 11:20 am

Re: One Year of Trump

Postby Lord Pe » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:45 pm

Ashlee wrote:
Lord Pe wrote:Fron a simple bing search people.com

As of noon Friday, two GundFundMe campaigns had raised more than $683,609 to help 51-year-old Ford,


Paid lib shill through bullshit crowdfunding money laundering scheme.


I can’t tell if you’re trolling, too lazy to look up money laundering, or just an idiot. Money laundering requires that the money going into the scheme was illegally obtained. 18 USC 1956-1957. So the crowdfunded money represents proceeds of illegal activity?

The money was used for paying for the heightened security she need due to crazy people sending her death threats, and any excess was going to be donating to charities for violence against women. A simple bing search would show that.

Sidenote, who the fuck uses bing?!


I know what money laundering is and I know that crowdfunding is not directly money laundering but it's close enough especially in this case. I use Bing or DuckDuckGo. Google is a better platform but I refuse to patronize them as often as I can. It's called a personal choice perhaps some of you sheeple should try it. And it's really easy to say I'm going to donate to a charity and then doing it is another thing. Trust me she's making bank if you think otherwise you need to pull the wool off of your eyes.


Return to “Player's Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests