Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Why are the victims always blame?

Politics   (6,216 Views 154 Comments)
6,755 Visitors; 138 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 6 of Why are the victims always blame?. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Should a victim of sexual assault be told to come foward earlier?

  1. 1. Should a victim of sexual assault be told to come foward earlier?

9 members have participated

Oh Daisy, here I thought that it's mostly unpleasant things that come crawling out of the woodwork.. But I'm not a native English speaker so it's possible that I've got my idioms all wrong :whistling:

I don't think that the Republican majority have even once expressed a desire to be able to question Mr. Judge at any single time during this entire process. They seem quite content to repeatedly refer to the short letter/statement from Mr. Judge that they've received. I don't think they want to hear another peep from Mr. Judge. I don't think they feel that would help their case. At all.

That is unfortunate but hardly surprising. They are in my opinion not interested in finding out all there is to know about this alleged incident. If they were, there are many more steps they could have taken but they've chosen not to.

If Dr. Ford's statement is truthful and accurate, then it would seem that Mr. Judge himself could be involved at least to some degree, possibly only as a passive witness and bystander, in the alleged assault. That would seem to indicate that he has a personal motivation for not being associated with the whole mess and it could be the reason why he's reluctant to volunteer further testimony and make himself himself available to follow-up questions. If the allegation is true it's possible that his part in it doesn't involve any criminal acts, but if he was in the room, his testimony is vital if one genuinely wants to find out what happened or didn't happen that night.

Well, I guess they could at least try to if they really wanted to. The will to attempt to do so, seems to be lacking though. But it isn't one or the other. It would be quite possible for the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings in conjunction with the FBI reopening the background investigation since new allegations have been made after they concluded it.

The FBI have trained investigators and they could supply the Senators with more information, so that they in turn can make a more informed decision. That is if they were actually really interested in basing their decisions on facts, instead of on politics.

Yes, an impartial investigation is needed.

I'm sickened by some of the things that some of the Republican Senators have said and done and disgusted by their refusal to actually give Dr. Ford's testimony the respect and serious consideration it deserves. They claimed to hear her out but her testimony has through their subsequent decisions been written off as utterly inconsequential. Actions speak louder than words.

I'm also not in the least bit impressed by the way that I feel some of the Democratic Senators have tried to score political points, using an alleged sexual assault victim as a mean to achieve an end.

About the hearing......

I found Dr. Ford's testimony credible. Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. It's just my read on the testimony. There is also a small chance that while what she claims happened is true, that she is mistaken about the identity of her attacker. However, given that Kavanaugh was a person she knew before the alleged incident, I think the risk of a case of mistaken identity is very, very slim. While victims of crime sometimes make an incorrect identification of a perpetrator, that tends to hapen when the assailant is a stranger to the victim of the crime.

Judge Kavanaugh in my opinion sounded very angry and generally highly emotional.

I interpreted that as partly genuine emotion but listening to his voice and watching his facial expressions and his body language, I can't help but feel that there was also an element of deliberate theatrics fused with the genuine emotions.

Any innocent person accused of wrongdoing of a nature that most people find repugnant would be completely excused for feeling and expressing anger. Any innocent person wrongfully accused whose own life and the lives of loved ones has been negatively affected by the accusations, can reasonably be expected to be very emotional and distraught.

But is this the reason for his anger? Is this the true reasons for his tearful testimony?

A guilty person could feel angry too, but for different reasons.

It can be anger because one's reputation is being tarnished and because one can feel an opportunity of a lifetime slipping away. Anger at having not only one's chances of promotion threatened but also having one's current career and position in society being threatened. It can be arrogance. Anger at being shamed in public. It can also be strategy because it's recognized that this is how an innocent person is expected to react. In fairness, an innocent person with a calculating, mercenary bent could use indignation as a strategy as well.

So, anger and umbrage can definitely indicate innocence. It doesn't however rule out guilt. I'd say it's inconclusive.

One question worth at least taking into consideration is if any of the parties have anything to gain by lying.

What could Dr. Ford gain from lying?

What could Judge Kavanaugh gain from lying?

Again, not conclusive evidence one way or the other, but I think it should be pondered before arriving at a conclusion.

There were a few things about his behavior during the hearing that really bothered me.

He refused to give straight yes or no answers regarding whether his high school friend should be called to testify infront of the Committee. He was in my opinion deliberately evasive.

Despite saying in his opening statement that he welcomed any investigation into the matter he was in my opinion suspiciously reluctant to ask for an FBI investigation. He was pressed on this multiple times, but he simply would not say that he wanted investigation. An investigation could actually help clear his name if he's innocent. Why doesn't he seem to want that?

By angrily dragging up the Clinton's he firmly injected conspiracist partisanship into the discussion. Not at all what I'd expect from a Supreme Court nominee.

Another thing that troubled me was his attitude towards some of the Democratic Senators. To me, he came off as angry, belligerent and confrontational. If this is how he's like when he's sober, I don't think I want to know how he's like when he's drunk. I realize that the man has been under enormous pressure but I expect more decorum from a Supreme Court nominee. What I saw was either a lack of self-control or a lack of respect. Neither are good.

The way he spoke to Senator Klobuchar, who in my opinion was very mild and respectful compared to the tone of most that day, was particularly bad. Who the hell does he think he is trying to turn the tables on her, asking whether she'd ever blacked out from alcohol consumption? To me, that came off as supremely arrogant. Well, either he realized his own misstep or one of his Republican supporters told him during a break, because he came back and apologized to her. But I firmly believe that he revealed a side of himself that we weren't meant to see.

I still can't be 100% certain about his innocence or guilt, but his performance yesterday definitely failed to convince me of his innocence. In my opinion he didn't do himself any favors.

Yes, for the reasons you have outlined, I felt an FBI investigation was necessary before Kavanaugh's nomination could advance.

Some of his "talking points," we're straight out of Fox News, and Trump's mouth.

I am surprised the phrase, "deep state" didn't come out of his mouth.

As I stated in another post, he was flippant. And that was not the tone I expected from a person in his position.

But, it is the tone of a privileged male. I think most of us have come across that tone a few times in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never reflects well when a wealthy white man who has known nothing beyond privilege and deference in his adult life spits and sputters, with a red face and nose that he is being questioned in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when I was a new grad LVN on evening shift. A post op patient was complaining of pain. I noticed firm swelling at the site.

When I reported it to the RN she assessed the patient and called the surgeon, who had a reputation for temper tantrums.

He came to the nurses station asking many questions.

The RN said to him, "Rather than question me, how about looking at your patient?"

He continued asking about the size and appearance of the incision.

She said, "If you don't go to your patient now I will call the resident on call."

That surgeon became loud and red faced as he yelled, "Why don't you arm wrestle me for five bucks?"

He then went to see the patient. He then began the process of taking the patient back to the OR.

A couple months later that same surgeon was telling everyone that he was an alcoholic in AA going to meetings almost every day.

And no more irrational yelling and no more non-sequitur outbursts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember when I was a new grad LVN on evening shift. A post op patient was complaining of pain. I noticed firm swelling at the site.

When I reported it to the RN she assessed the patient and called the surgeon, who had a reputation for temper tantrums.

He came to the nurses station asking many questions.

The RN said to him, "Rather than question me, how about looking at your patient?"

He continued asking about the size and appearance of the incision.

She said, "If you don't go to your patient now I will call the resident on call."

That surgeon became loud and red faced as he yelled, "Why don't you arm wrestle me for five bucks?"

He then went to see the patient. He then began the process of taking the patient back to the OR.

A couple months later that same surgeon was telling everyone that he was an alcoholic in AA going to meetings almost every day.

And no more irrational yelling and no more non-sequitur outbursts.

Yes, I was asking myself the same thing.

I found many of his answers to be nonresponsive and rambling, and some of the emotional outbursts were in my opinion over the top and rather odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh Daisy, here I thought that it's mostly unpleasant things that come crawling out of the woodwork.. But I'm not a native English speaker so it's possible that I've got my idioms all wrong :whistling:

I don't think that the Republican majority have even once expressed a desire to be able to question Mr. Judge at any single time during this entire process. They seem quite content to repeatedly refer to the short letter/statement from Mr. Judge that they've received. I don't think they want to hear another peep from Mr. Judge. I don't think they feel that would help their case. At all.

That is unfortunate but hardly surprising. They are in my opinion not interested in finding out all there is to know about this alleged incident. If they were, there are many more steps they could have taken but they've chosen not to.

If Dr. Ford's statement is truthful and accurate, then it would seem that Mr. Judge himself could be involved at least to some degree, possibly only as a passive witness and bystander, in the alleged assault. That would seem to indicate that he has a personal motivation for not being associated with the whole mess and it could be the reason why he's reluctant to volunteer further testimony and make himself himself available to follow-up questions. If the allegation is true it's possible that his part in it doesn't involve any criminal acts, but if he was in the room, his testimony is vital if one genuinely wants to find out what happened or didn't happen that night.

Well, I guess they could at least try to if they really wanted to. The will to attempt to do so, seems to be lacking though. But it isn't one or the other. It would be quite possible for the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings in conjunction with the FBI reopening the background investigation since new allegations have been made after they concluded it.

The FBI have trained investigators and they could supply the Senators with more information, so that they in turn can make a more informed decision. That is if they were actually really interested in basing their decisions on facts, instead of on politics.

Yes, an impartial investigation is needed.

I'm sickened by some of the things that some of the Republican Senators have said and done and disgusted by their refusal to actually give Dr. Ford's testimony the respect and serious consideration it deserves. They claimed to hear her out but her testimony has through their subsequent decisions been written off as utterly inconsequential. Actions speak louder than words.

I'm also not in the least bit impressed by the way that I feel some of the Democratic Senators have tried to score political points, using an alleged sexual assault victim as a mean to achieve an end.

About the hearing......

I found Dr. Ford's testimony credible. Of course it's possible that I'm wrong. It's just my read on the testimony. There is also a small chance that while what she claims happened is true, that she is mistaken about the identity of her attacker. However, given that Kavanaugh was a person she knew before the alleged incident, I think the risk of a case of mistaken identity is very, very slim. While victims of crime sometimes make an incorrect identification of a perpetrator, that tends to hapen when the assailant is a stranger to the victim of the crime.

Judge Kavanaugh in my opinion sounded very angry and generally highly emotional.

I interpreted that as partly genuine emotion but listening to his voice and watching his facial expressions and his body language, I can't help but feel that there was also an element of deliberate theatrics fused with the genuine emotions.

Any innocent person accused of wrongdoing of a nature that most people find repugnant would be completely excused for feeling and expressing anger. Any innocent person wrongfully accused whose own life and the lives of loved ones has been negatively affected by the accusations, can reasonably be expected to be very emotional and distraught.

But is this the reason for his anger? Is this the true reasons for his tearful testimony?

A guilty person could feel angry too, but for different reasons.

It can be anger because one's reputation is being tarnished and because one can feel an opportunity of a lifetime slipping away. Anger at having not only one's chances of promotion threatened but also having one's current career and position in society being threatened. It can be arrogance. Anger at being shamed in public. It can also be strategy because it's recognized that this is how an innocent person is expected to react. In fairness, an innocent person with a calculating, mercenary bent could use indignation as a strategy as well.

So, anger and umbrage can definitely indicate innocence. It doesn't however rule out guilt. I'd say it's inconclusive.

One question worth at least taking into consideration is if any of the parties have anything to gain by lying.

What could Dr. Ford gain from lying?

What could Judge Kavanaugh gain from lying?

Again, not conclusive evidence one way or the other, but I think it should be pondered before arriving at a conclusion.

There were a few things about his behavior during the hearing that really bothered me.

He refused to give straight yes or no answers regarding whether his high school friend should be called to testify infront of the Committee. He was in my opinion deliberately evasive.

Despite saying in his opening statement that he welcomed any investigation into the matter he was in my opinion suspiciously reluctant to ask for an FBI investigation. He was pressed on this multiple times, but he simply would not say that he wanted investigation. An investigation could actually help clear his name if he's innocent. Why doesn't he seem to want that?

By angrily dragging up the Clinton's he firmly injected conspiracist partisanship into the discussion. Not at all what I'd expect from a Supreme Court nominee.

Another thing that troubled me was his attitude towards some of the Democratic Senators. To me, he came off as angry, belligerent and confrontational. If this is how he's like when he's sober, I don't think I want to know how he's like when he's drunk. I realize that the man has been under enormous pressure but I expect more decorum from a Supreme Court nominee. What I saw was either a lack of self-control or a lack of respect. Neither are good.

The way he spoke to Senator Klobuchar, who in my opinion was very mild and respectful compared to the tone of most that day, was particularly bad. Who the hell does he think he is trying to turn the tables on her, asking whether she'd ever blacked out from alcohol consumption? To me, that came off as supremely arrogant. Well, either he realized his own misstep or one of his Republican supporters told him during a break, because he came back and apologized to her. But I firmly believe that he revealed a side of himself that we weren't meant to see.

I still can't be 100% certain about his innocence or guilt, but his performance yesterday definitely failed to convince me of his innocence. In my opinion he didn't do himself any favors.

I am so sorry you took my comment (about coming out of the woodwork) the wrong way, I meant no ill will or to be snarky. (To me) it means something like, 'nice to see you-you haven't been around lately', kind of a term of endearment. I have a good friend who's second language is English and she doesn't always get those idioms either, I should have realized...

I agree with much of what you say. I don't think either the Dems or Reps have made themselves look good here. This process should have been handled better from the beginning. We still don't know much more about the facts after the hearing and I wish both had been better about asking pertinent questions. I don't know who is telling the truth but I think they are now talking about doing an investigation. Maybe we will be able to get more facts and get to the bottom of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
Yes.

Sexism is alive and well in the USA.

I know many of you disagree with me, but I still believe sexism played a huge role in the 2016 election.

Nobody wants to be tagged as racist or sexist.

It is much easier to say a candidate has "problems," than to say: I would never vote for a female president.

I would love a female President. But never in a million years Hillary Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been sleeping, as I worked last night.

Just woke up, and will be relying on reports from NPR, NY Times and Washington Post.

Oh my Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my Lord.

Yeah, I know, you detest the msm, and Hillary Clinton.

Read it all before.

You got anything else to add, or just want to rehash old stuff?

Big YAWN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few legal and ethical opinions:

The magazine of the Jesuit religious order in the United States, America, withdrew its endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh, who was educated by Jesuits at Georgetown Preparatory School in Maryland.

In a statement on Thursday, the editors said the nomination was "no longer in the best interests of the country."

The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn | America Magazine

ABA urges Kavanaugh vote be delayed until after an FBI investigation

ABA urges Kavanaugh vote be delayed until after an FBI investigation

The dean of Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh's alma mater, echoed the A.B.A.'s call.

"Proceeding with the confirmation process without further investigation is not in the best interest of the Court or our profession," Dean Heather K. Gerken said in a statement on Friday.

Dean Gerken Joins ABA in Calling for Further Investigation - Yale Law School

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so sorry you took my comment (about coming out of the woodwork) the wrong way, I meant no ill will or to be snarky. (To me) it means something like, 'nice to see you-you haven't ...

What crawls?

What crawls out of the woodwork beyond cockroaches, ants, rodents, and other pests?

It is difficult to believe that you were/are completely unaware of the derogatory nature of that phrase.

Perhaps some cultural sensitivity training might help you to appreciate the negative nature of your word choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would love a female President. But never in a million years Hillary Clinton.

Hi CBlover! Just as an aside, for some reason I always read you name as Clover, but I suppose it refers to a radio?

Anyway, I am curious what qualities you would "love" in a female president? And do you have any potential candidates in mind that you could support?

I for one, would look for someone who has experience in government and a good grasp of the Constitution. And who has a good track record of working with a variety of people, organizations and other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×