Gay Man Accuses Sen. Cory Booker Of Sexual Assault In Restroom

[Greenman]

More projection.

I think the last stat I heard on this matter is that something like 6% of rape claims were verified false (as in the victim was making it up).

I don't have a problem believing that. But once politics enters the equation all bets are off.

 

[Greenman]

What’s sad is that UC’s source being immediately shown to be garbage will not prevent him from believing the next conservative opinion piece that tells him what he wants to hear.

Isn't every conservative source garbage?

 

[fskimospy]

Isn't every conservative source garbage?

Opinion pieces are almost by definition garbage because they are not subject to the same standards of factual accuracy of other reporting. If you’re talking about how conservative media is generally non-credible though then yes, that’s also true. This is because they are concerned with conservative advocacy first and factual reporting second (and putting that second might be generous)

I don’t consume partisan media either way and have almost no interest in opinion pieces or opinion shows because they are inherently trying to push you a certain way. I wish conservatives were better able to look at their own media and see its playing them for fools.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I wish conservatives were better able to look at their own media and see its playing them for fools.

Bruh if that was a reference to me the only media I consume regularly is NYTimes, PBS Newshour, and The Hill. None of those are exactly bastians of conservatism.

 

[fskimospy]

Bruh if that was a reference to me the only media I consume regularly is NYTimes, PBS Newshour, and The Hill. None of those are exactly bastians of conservatism.

You literally just quoted an opinion piece by a far right activist uncritically even though it was obvious bullshit.

Regardless it was not a reference to you in particular. This is a problem in conservatism generally.

 

[Sunburn74]

Bruh if that was a reference to me the only media I consume regularly is NYTimes, PBS Newshour, and The Hill. None of those are exactly bastians of conservatism.

The hill is pretty nakedly conservative.

 

[brycejones]

Bruh if that was a reference to me the only media I consume regularly is NYTimes, PBS Newshour, and The Hill. None of those are exactly bastians of conservatism.

So you stumbled across the gem you linked to how?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Other message boards

 

[Ichinisan]

The same way we always do, by evaluating the relative credibility of the two sources. In the case of Kavanaugh the accuser was highly credible and Kavanaugh lied repeatedly under oath.

Here there’s nothing more than an anonymous accusation so that’s not credible.

It has never worked that way. "This person is credible" is not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt."

Seriously.

 

[fskimospy]

It has never worked that way. "This person is credible" is not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt."

Seriously.

It has always worked that way.

Also, while you are correct that ‘this person is credible’ is not the same as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard is used to see if we will imprison someone. It is totally irrelevant to the Kavanaugh nomination.

 

[Ichinisan]

It has always worked that way.

Also, while you are correct that ‘this person is credible’ is not the same as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard is used to see if we will imprison someone. It is totally irrelevant to the Kavanaugh nomination.

No."Beyond reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with sentencing. It has to do with conviction. You don't charge someone unless you can prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. It's foolish to even consider charging someone when you already know you don't have what you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[fskimospy]

No."Beyond reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with sentencing. It has to do with conviction. You don't charge someone unless you can prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. It's foolish to even consider charging someone when you already know you don't have what you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

I didn’t even mention sentencing.

Regardless you are mixing up your standards of proof. It is 100% irrelevant to Kavanaugh. 100%.

 

[brycejones]

Other message boards

So your concerns aren't even your own original concerns?

 

[Brainonska511]

You don't charge someone unless you can prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.

LOL, people are charged all the time on flimsy evidence. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard for convicting someone in a criminal matter.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, people are charged all the time on flimsy evidence. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard for convicting someone in a criminal matter.

He appears to think the standard for sending someone to prison and the standard for declining to give someone a lifetime position of enormous power are the same.

 

[HomerJS]

Booker "grab em' by the dick" = President Booker

 

[brycejones]

He appears to think the standard for sending someone to prison and the standard for declining to give someone a lifetime position of enormous power are the same.

Deep down conservatives know who they put on the court. They are just lying to themselves in a pathetic attempt to justify it.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Deep down conservatives know who they put on the court. They are just lying to themselves in a pathetic attempt to justify it.

A person who drank in high school / college. So basically a normal person.

 

[mect]

What of the authors points do you discount?

Eskimospy already covered one fallacy of the piece, but the other one people continue to claim is suspicious is that she remembers that she was sexually assaulted, and who did it, and where, but doesn't remember all the other details surrounding the event. However, if you actually listen to those who have been sexually assaulted, this is extremely common. Traumatic events stick in the mind, along with details immediately relevant to those events. Peripheral details tend to be forgotten. Ford's memory of these events is completely normal.

 

[brycejones]

A person who drank in high school / college. So basically a normal person.

Who appears to have lied about the extent of his drinking, who lied under oath about the meaning of words during his high school years, etc, etc, etc.

But hey the majority made sure to shut down any investigation into that and the other incidents of troubling behavior he was implicated in.

Way to miss the fucking point though.

 

[Paladin3]

I haven't yet read through this thread, and I don't know who or what side of the isle any of these folks are on, but this story smells, IMHO. What person, gay or not, would let another push him back into a private restroom, then allow his crotch to be grabbed, then allow his hand to be pulled to the other person's crotch, then allow himself to be pushed slowly to his knees BEFORE objecting to the assault? It's like the script of a bad Lifetime movie.

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, just that the story begs that question be asked.

 

[Ichinisan]

I didn’t even mention sentencing.

Regardless you are mixing up your standards of proof. It is 100% irrelevant to Kavanaugh. 100%.

Prison is a sentence.

It has always worked that way.

Also, while you are correct that ‘this person is credible’ is not the same as ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard is used to see if we will imprison someone. It is totally irrelevant to the Kavanaugh nomination.

You don't sentence unless you get a conviction.

You don't get a conviction unless you have proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You don't charge unless you believe you can prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt."

If investigation does not reveal evidence that can prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't go any further.

 

[mect]

Prison is a sentence.



You don't sentence unless you get a conviction.

You don't get a conviction unless you have proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You don't charge unless you believe you can prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt."

If investigation does not reveal evidence that can prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't go any further.

None of which negates the point that was being made, that the burden of proof for a criminal trial is very different from the burden of proof for a job interview.

 

[UglyCasanova]

He is now guilty in the court of public opinion by half of America, and by more than what he was even accused of. Ford said he almost sexually assaulted her, ask many what he did and they’ll claim he’s a rapist. I’ve heard the term serial rapist used more than once on here. It certainly became more than a job interview, so trying to downplay it as such downplays the reality of what happened.

 

[Meghan54]

It has never worked that way. "This person is credible" is not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt."

Seriously.

Seriously, how does someone have reasonable doubt anyway? Could it be from the credibility of witnesses? Yes, reasonable doubt many times hinges on whether a witness is credible or not. Plain and simple.

No."Beyond reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with sentencing. It has to do with conviction. You don't charge someone unless you can prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. It's foolish to even consider charging someone when you already know you don't have what you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

What fantasy world are you living in....besides ATL?

Huge numbers of court cases are taken to trial even if there is reasonable doubt in people's minds. The one person that initially has to determine if there's actually realistic reasonable doubt is the prosecutor, and as has been seen repeatedly, prosecutors aren't always the fair and impartial arbiter of whether reasonable doubt has been overcome or not. Esp. if the prosecutor is elected and it's voting season.

And I've seen numerous cases that are dismissed at trial, be it jury or bench, because reasonable doubt wasn't overcome.......and this after investigation, how ever much was actually performed.