#metoo

[Bedouin]

On 2/6/2018 at 5:22 AM, ToHellWithMe said:

If he really has done it, I suppose it's such a special case we can only shrug.

 

It's not "A" special case, there are dozens of them.  #metoo is all about the shrugging off of abuse. 

 

The passes that DJT has gotten astounds me.  To be sure, his transgressions aren't unique in any way.  But what has brought down so many other rich and powerful men recently doesn't seem to apply to him.  What that tells me is that there are a whole lot of folks in this country that will willfully ignore his oafishness because the Kenyan Muslim is no longer in the Oval Office.

 

"Shrug" it off?  "Special case?"  THWM...come on man.

 

As my OP said, I'm concerned that an allegation is enough to ruin a life.  I don't doubt, from personal experience, that these offenses happen.  What I see now is that we, as men, MUST avoid even a hint of impropriety.  In other words, we must deny any attraction, which goes against human nature.  There are ways to make attraction known.  The key is to do it in an acceptable way, and, should one get rebuffed, back the hell off.

[ToHellWithMe]

52 minutes ago, Bedouin said:

"Shrug" it off?  "Special case?"  THWM...come on man.

 

If you mean he shouldn't be able to settle cases with money it's a different topic. I'll indulge in it this much: if allegations of his harassment could be a strong enough case to bring DJT down with, it would likely have already happened. As it hasn't, there either have been no strong cases or all of them have been settled.

 

The only important link between DJT and this topic is the fact that for him, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is obviously still in effect. Leftist haters ready to make up accusations out of thin air likely exist in great numbers and according to the "fire him just in case" logic in this thread, DJT should indeed be fired.

 

If that standard were to apply to the elite, is there a male who could become and remain a president for one day?

[Bedouin]

3 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

If you mean he shouldn't be able to settle cases with money it's a different topic. I'll indulge in it this much: if allegations of his harassment could be a strong enough case to bring DJT down with, it would likely have already happened.

 

Who else, recently, has been able to settle cases with money?  Weinstien?  Cosby?  Stacey?  Russell Simmons?  Allegations brought all of them down.  The difference?  DJT is in the white house BECAUSE some white folks decided that this was better than the Kenyan Muslim or his alleged hand maiden HRC, ignoring the fact that they were bitter rivals in 2008.  At lease BHO had the grace and acumen to see her worth on the world stage.  C'mon man.

3 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

The only important link between DJT and this topic is the fact that for him, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is obviously still in effect. Leftist haters ready to make up accusations out of thin air likely exist in great numbers and according to the "fire him just in case" logic in this thread, DJT should indeed be fired.

 

He's not innocent.  I don't know when you first heard of him...but I've known him all my life.  Not as in, yeah, I hung out with him. Even if I could have, I would not have.  But, I'm a New Yorker, and have watched him and his antics for the past 40 years or so.  I know him to be a racist, horses ass.  An oafish skirt chaser.  Many, many failed ventures.  Look up the New Jersey Generals.  He's a fake and a fraud.  Always has been, always will be.  To put a fine point on it...HRC has been investigated for DECADES.  She's never been convicted of any crime.  So, by your standard why not give her a pass as well?  As far as I know, she hasn't agreed to settlements to close a case and make it go away.  DJT?  Hundreds.  Many of them involving NDA's.  He's a danger to MY country.  If I, personally, could end his life?  I would.  Maybe I should have done it years ago.  But, alas, I never thought this idiot would ever attain to the highest executive office in the land.  But, here we are.

 

And it's because a lot of white folks were really, deeply and sorely offended that a man who didn't look like any previous president, and with a totally foreign name, who's mom was a white lady that (gasp), laid with a black man, and had a baby fathered by a nigra (double gasp).  OMG!!! Was elected, TWICE!   DJT understands anger.  Knows how to tap into it.  If he has any brilliance, that's it.  Why he's angry?  I don't know.  He has been the benefactor of white, rich privilege all his life.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, Bedouin said:

 

 He's not innocent.  I don't know when you first heard of him...but I've known him all my life.  Not as in, yeah, I hung out with him. Even if I could have, I would not have.  But, I'm a New Yorker, and have watched him and his antics for the past 40 years or so.  I know him to be a racist, horses ass.  An oafish skirt chaser.  Many, many failed ventures.  Look up the New Jersey Generals.  He's a fake and a fraud.  Always has been, always will be.  To put a fine point on it...HRC has been investigated for DECADES.  She's never been convicted of any crime.  So, by your standard why not give her a pass as well?  As far as I know, she hasn't agreed to settlements to close a case and make it go away.  DJT?  Hundreds.  Many of them involving NDA's.  

 

 

The mentality of the supporters is "no forgiveness for the opposition - ever!" but "our side always gets forgiven".  There were supporters going on TV shouting "Jesus has already forgiven him".  That is why one side can be all criminals.  This will not end well.  Did you listen to the defense of the wife beaters?  Ya got to listen if the guy says he is innocent.  As if guilty people somehow can't say they didn't do it.  The photos looked real enough.

 

Again, presumed innocent is for when we consider sending somebody to prison but getting them out of power so they can't hurt more victims or obstruct justice should have a lower threshold.

[buffettphan]

1 hour ago, Bedouin said:

He's not innocent.  I don't know when you first heard of him...but I've known him all my life.  Not as in, yeah, I hung out with him. Even if I could have, I would not have.  But, I'm a New Yorker, and have watched him and his antics for the past 40 years or so.  I know him to be a racist, horses ass.  An oafish skirt chaser.  Many, many failed ventures.  Look up the New Jersey Generals.  He's a fake and a fraud.  Always has been, always will be. 

 

Truth^.  I personally know a contractor whose small company was ripped off by Trump.  The contractor is an in-law of one of my kids, who also owns his own business.   Some of the stunts Trump pulled are truly despicable.  He doesn't give a flying fuck about the "little guy" -- or anyone other than himself.  

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

 

If you mean he shouldn't be able to settle cases with money it's a different topic. I'll indulge in it this much: if allegations of his harassment could be a strong enough case to bring DJT down with, it would likely have already happened. As it hasn't, there either have been no strong cases or all of them have been settled.

 

The only important link between DJT and this topic is the fact that for him, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is obviously still in effect. Leftist haters ready to make up accusations out of thin air likely exist in great numbers and according to the "fire him just in case" logic in this thread, DJT should indeed be fired.

 

If that standard were to apply to the elite, is there a male who could become and remain a president for one day?

 

No, every president would be fired because someone from the opposing party would immediately accuse the president of sexual harassment. Very good point you made.

[Bedouin]

8 hours ago, Burnedout said:

Hmm.....

 

What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?  

 

That is mostly myth.  

 

When arrested, and arraigned, the judge may release one on their own recognizance, depending on the severity of the alleged crime, the background of the alleged perpetrator, and other considerations. Should the alleged crime be of a serious nature, and the accused be considered a threat to him/herself or the community, one will be remanded. If one can’t afford bail, one gets jailed until trial, which can be months and even years, because, obviously, if one can’t afford bail, one can’t afford a lawyer. And most Public Defenders are eating Ramen noodles.

 

Regardless of that, however, this applies only to a court of law, where the proof of guilt rests upon the prosecution.

 

But, if one has lots of money, one can settle before trial, and have that settlement be sealed, neither party being free to speak of the terms. This is what DJT has done, literally THOUSANDS of times.  To me, settling is the same as accepting a pardon. Tantamount to admitting guilt.

[Bedouin]

4 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

 

Actually, if you know how to properly assert your rights, you can short circuit the system.  I have done it, at least on a day to day level.  I have beaten lawsuits against me without an attorney.  I have beaten tickets by exposing the phony laws they tried to charge me under.  

 

I will give you a simple one here.  If you are say...caught speeding, and there is nobody injured or property damage, you can virtually win about any traffic ticket.  The reason is that speeding tickets, at least at the city or county level, is under what is known as an "administrative jurisdiction"  under an "administrative court".  The catch is, that if you look in the constitution, there is not such thing as an administrative court.  I found this out when at a traffic court, I told the judge that if he could show me under the US constitution and my state consitution that the jurisdiction was valid, and I pulled the sections of both the US and Florida (my state) constitutions, and then I pulled a copy of case law Hill v Sec in 2016, where a federal appelate judge ruled that administrative courts are illegal and unconstitutional.  Note--before you decide to do this, do some VERY SERIOUS AND LONG STUDY.  In the end, he told me to wait back until everybody had finished, then, when everybody had left, he threw may case out.  He did not want it on the court record. 

 

I have won.  I have helped other people win.  It can be done.  The problem is that the education system in this country is dumbing people down, and I think it is intentional.  Just my rant. 

 

A traffic ticket and serial sexual abuse are two entirely different things. As is serial theft.

[Bedouin]

2 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

If they file a false domestic abuse charge, start by filing a personal lawsuit against the person making the charges citing slander or libel.  

Which DJT has done, and lost, because he couldn’t keep his story straight. Thus, settlement,

[Bedouin]

11 minutes ago, Bedouin said:

 

A traffic ticket and serial sexual abuse are two entirely different things. As is serial theft.

 

Also, your argument is anecdotal.  I don’t accept that as proof of Christianity, or any other religious belief, and I don’t accept an anecdotal argument as proof of anything else.

[Bedouin]

1 minute ago, Burnedout said:

 

Well....that is where you need a better lawyer.  If someone slanders you, that police report is the proof.  You present that to a judge, it then puts the onus on the back of the accuser.  Do not accept a sealed judgement. Keep fighting, filing motions until the accuser is forced into a corner.  

 

Unless you have no money.  Because in that case, usually, a plea deal is made, which essentially keeps you locked up.  If one pleads out to felony, then one can’t work, find housing, or vote.  

[Bedouin]

5 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Here is the court case that struck down administrative courts.  

 

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201512831.pdf 

This was a ruling in a Security and Exchange Commission hearing/case.  Not a traffic ticket.  

[Bedouin]

12 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

It doesn't matter.  The judge ruled against an Administrative Court based on the fact it was administrative.  If one is not constitutional, NONE of them are.  ANY administrative court is unconstitutional.  

Still...the adjudication in this case is irrelevant to the topic at hand.  That being accusations of sexual molestation, a crime which, unless I’m very, very wrong, would never be submitted to an administrative court, overseen by an ALJ.  

 

I’ve had to fight my entire life. In no way am I a defeatist.  However, the flip side of that is, if I’m guilty of something, I will admit my guilt, and take whatever reasonable punishment may come with that.  I hold all others to my standards, especially the people that hold political, judicial, or law enforcement power.  No one is above the law.

[Bedouin]

14 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Good!  You're not a defeatist.  I am genuinely glad to hear that...SERIOUSLY.  Just taking the case topically, not knowing the details, so I am flying blind.  BUT, just based on what I have heard/read, start by learning how to file a lawsuit yourself, pro se.  File so damned many suits that she has to be the one to hire lawyers to defend.  Does she make the kind of money to afford lawyers?  Find as many grounds that would even sligtly be grounds and file as many possible suits and force her to defend.  That police report is your evidence against her.  You may get her to back down just based on the volume of suits coming at her.  Again, not knowing the full details of the case, I am just throwing it up there.  Just something to think about.  Hey,  I know we have had our differences on here in the past, but I do genuinely wish you luck.  

Dude, I’m not the person accused of a crime.  I asked for feedback in a case that only concerns me as far as this man is a friend of mine.  I don’t need good luck.  We make our own luck, so we have common ground there.

[sdelsolray]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

 

Here is the court case that struck down administrative courts.  

 

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201512831.pdf 

 

 

 

You're full of shit, Mr. Legal Eagle.  That case says nothing of the sort.  Indeed, it rules the exact opposite of what you claim.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, Bedouin said:

In no way am I a defeatist. 

 

47 minutes ago, Bedouin said:

Dude, I’m not the person accused of a crime.   

 

Heads up.  There are a few people around here who do not care about facts.  Not even a little bit.  They should be easy to spot once you know to look.    

[Bedouin]

A tweet from DJT.  Can you say irony?

 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

Did they change the meaning of "mere allegation"?

 

 

 

Like I said earlier, if there is objective evidence of an assault that should be used to remove abusers from positions of power.   I think the same principle works for physical assaults as it does for sexual misconduct.

[Bedouin]

1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

Allegation based on circumstantial evidence. What's next, blaming a car for a wreck?

 

What, exactly, is circumstantial about the above photo?  Which was taken by law enforcement as EVIDENCE.  

 

Now, my whole point in starting this thread was to question the legality of a mere accusation, resulting in a dismissal of employment, absent evidence. Let me repeat that, (in caps no less), ABSENT EVIDENCE.  Obviously, in this case, ample evidence exists.

 

Maybe, just maybe THWM, you should go back and read through this entire thread, instead of “flying blind,” and offering legal advice that is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.  C’mon man.

[Bedouin]

My friend, you are floundering, scratching, clawing for relevance. If you’re unable to make and sustain an argument, or debate, with your own thoughts and words, then perhaps you need to fall back and regroup until you’re able to do so.

[Bedouin]

3 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Fine, I posted a legit point and it is rejected.  Have fun and play.  

In other words, you have no argument, and are retreating into the fallback of ... I’m taking my ball and going home.  Poor thing you. Come back when you’ve grown up.

[Bedouin]

1 minute ago, Burnedout said:

 

No...I am just tired of hanging around people who don't believe in thinking outside the box, and are defeatist. 

Poor baby.  Nobody understands you. Awww....

[Bedouin]

6 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

Equals  

Wow.  That is a well thought out, downright erudite, reasoned and logical response. And, I’m duly impressed.

[Bedouin]

20 minutes ago, Burnedout said:

 

I am responding to how the responses to me have devolved.  Not with a reasoned answer when people just want to be defeatist bitches. 

Oh, so now you have chosen to fall back on ad homs?  Really sir?  

 

Let me refresh this topic.  I said that I’m against people being unjustly accused of criminal sexual behavior with no supporting evidence.   That is my argument.

[Orbit]

On 2/10/2018 at 6:38 AM, Bedouin said:

 

It's not "A" special case, there are dozens of them.  #metoo is all about the shrugging off of abuse. 

 

The passes that DJT has gotten astounds me.  To be sure, his transgressions aren't unique in any way.  But what has brought down so many other rich and powerful men recently doesn't seem to apply to him.  What that tells me is that there are a whole lot of folks in this country that will willfully ignore his oafishness because the Kenyan Muslim is no longer in the Oval Office.

 

"Shrug" it off?  "Special case?"  THWM...come on man.

 

As my OP said, I'm concerned that an allegation is enough to ruin a life.  I don't doubt, from personal experience, that these offenses happen.  What I see now is that we, as men, MUST avoid even a hint of impropriety.  In other words, we must deny any attraction, which goes against human nature.  There are ways to make attraction known.  The key is to do it in an acceptable way, and, should one get rebuffed, back the hell off.