Instant Sunrise posted:

yeah...

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Koalas March posted:

It's not "for Dems" it's "for" black people. I mean really think about the targeted campaigns against MLK, Malcom X, even Deray and Shaun King, and other civil rights leaders then and now. Think about the Tuskegee experiments and COINTELPRO and poo poo. Think about targeted voter suppression in black communities. Think about the bullshit "literacy tests" and every other hoop this country has made black people go though.

If you can't look at all of that and come to the conclusion it's even %1 plausible, then idk what tell ya

Under the vegetable posted:

Deray basically works for the CIA and any corporation willing to buy their way into his tweets.

Condiv posted:

i hate manchin almost as much as fluffdaddy apparently hates bernie sanders

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Just a little something for this thread: my son had a recital today and attends a Christian pre-school. They are all very sweet ladies and I've had no problem with their very kiddie occasional "Jesus loves me" stuff. They never hit or even raise their voices to my son, they're very good with him. Well I went into the church (Baptist) before the show and they were playing "Christmas" music, and it was the most vile poo poo I've ever heard. It was all that terrible brand of contemporary Christian vaguely country-sounding crap, and the lyrics were disgusting culture war vomit like "America's sleeping, a darkness rises in the east, liberals say: save a tree, kill the children" poo poo. I could not believe it, and this was supposed to be a fun thing for parents to enjoy...they thought nothing of it, nothing at all. Warped minds.

khy posted:

So I'm kinda torn here.

My innate distrust of people (What a bunch of bastards) makes me inherently believe that all these rear end in a top hat congressmen that have been accused of sexual assault are guilty.

BUT.

That same innate distrust of people (What a bunch of bastards) cannot help but wonder whether or not there are unethical 'former aides' or 'former colleagues' and whatnot that are making unprovable accusations as either revenge or political assassination.

But then I worry, does my personal political leanings influence my ability to trust whether or not someone's accusations are real? Is it fair to the accused when we simply accept all accusations at face value? Is it fair to the accusers if we insist on actual proof other than he-said-she-said when it's an incident from 15+ years ago? How can I make an educated opinion as to the person's supposed guilt?

I don't want to accuse an innocent man of wrongdoing, but neither do I want to be the one to ignore the cries of a rape victim. What's my options here?

RuanGacho posted:

We shouldn't have heroes, only causes. We resist authoritarians by putting the rule of law and our ideals first, as soon as it becomes a question of a person being treated differently based on the affiliations they have, we've lost part of that.

khy posted:

Okay that is a pretty nice statement but I'm having a difficult time trying to actually apply it. Like, I've never HEARD of half to three quarters of the dems and repubs that have been accused of sexual assault/harassment and I'm trying to find actual evidence to help me understand who's the one telling the truth. I know how easily my opinions could end up being manipulated by what I read/see/hear on the news and internet so I'm trying to figure out a way to make a judgement of my own and that's very difficult.

Futuresight posted:

Not having disbelief is the important part yeah. Unless you actually know the accuser or have power over the situation then you don't really have to do anything but listen to and respect them. You as a random person don't have any other responsibilities in the situation as you can't really do anything about it. It can sometimes be hard to believe that even if you do intellectually know it, but all you can do is keep telling yourself it's not on you to act on things beyond your control.

Instant Sunrise posted:

• Bill Gothard, founder of the Institute for Basic Life Principles, and harassed 34 women.
  
• Josh Duggard
  
• Hana Williams – an adopted 13 year old Ethiopian girl who died from abusive treatment at the hands of her Evangelical fundamentalist adopted family.
  
• Doug Phillips

Also, Gothard's organization published this:



yeah...

Lightning Knight posted:

That actually looks pretty bad.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Welcome to the flip side of mass hysteria and trial-by-media! Doesn't matter if its a really blatant smear, the Dems will eat it.

Ice Phisherman posted:

Forgiveness is cool, but if you molest kids you should go to jail, not handle it internally. People in authority in churches should be mandatory reporters so they don't get cover for tolerating child molesters in their ranks.

People seem to think that forgiveness means you don't go to jail for crimes. Like it's a free pass. gently caress that and gently caress them.

The Virginian Pilot posted:

A former Congressional Black Caucus Foundation fellow on Friday accused U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott of Newport News of sexual harassment while she was working in his Washington office in 2013.

Scott denied the allegation, stating the incidents cited by his accuser never occurred. He said she was working with a Republican known for peddling conspiracies.

“I have never sexually harassed anyone in my 25 years of service in the United States Congress, or in my 40 years of public service, or at any other time,” Scott said in a statement.

M. Reese Everson, speaking at a news conference in Arlington, said that when she rejected the congressman’s advances, she was fired and blocked from finding other work as a congressional aide.

“I was wrongfully terminated. And I was blackballed or blacklisted, whatever the appropriate term is,” she said. “I was prevented in moving forward in my career because I attempted to run from a situation that was sexually inappropriate, where I had been propositioned to have a sexual relationship with my boss that I did not want.”

The focus of her accusations were a meeting in Scott’s office and two other instances where she said she was touched inappropriately on her back and knee.

Everson said that in 2013, during a private meeting with Scott in his Washington office, she asked to serve as a traveling staff member on a political trip to California. Everson said Scott made comments about whether she was “going to be good” on the trip. She promised she would.

“And he said, ‘Well, if you’re going to be good then what’s the point of you coming?’ I was like, huh? Because it didn’t dawn on me what was actually – the conversation – that was actually happening. He said, ‘Are you going to flirt with me?’ “

“I said ‘No. Don’t flatter yourself.’ And I thought that I could lighten the mood in a joking way. But anger flashed across his face. And he was disgusted and angry,” she said.

Everson said in two earlier incidents, Scott touched her back while introducing her to someone and touched her knee while they were riding the underground train between congressional office buildings.

After the meeting about the trip, Everson said she “realized she had to run” from Scott’s office and sought to move to another congressional office.

David Dailey, Scott’s chief of staff, said a long-standing office policy forbids any of Scott’s office staff to travel outside of Virginia with the congressman. He said it was totally ridiculous to suggest a non-permanent fellow would have traveled with Scott, particularly because government funds could not have been used to cover her travel costs.

Scott’s office on Friday provided documents indicating Everson worked in the congressman’s office from September 2012 until the summer of 2013 in the first part of a two-year congressional internship. According to Dailey and the documents he provided, she was not fired but was moving on to the second part of her internship. Scott gave Everson a complimentary letter of recommendation, praising her work on several issues.

Scott’s office also provided an email penned by Everson in September 2013 in which she told Scott’s then-chief of staff, Joni Ivey, that she valued and appreciated her time in the office. In the next phase of the fellowship, she moved to the House Financial Services Committee.

Everson’s accusations against Scott are similar to accusations she made in a 2011 lawsuit after she was fired from Chicago’s Office of Inspector General.

The lawsuit claimed Everson rebuffed a proposition by the office’s chief investigator and then was fired in November 2010 for misusing furlough days.

About a year later, Everson filed the lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages for wrongful termination and defamation. Everson withdrew the suit in 2012 after the defendants moved to have the case dismissed.

Standing next to Everson on Friday was her lawyer, Jack Burkman, a Republican lobbyist and conservative radio talk show host. Everson is employed by Burkman’s firm, according to federal disclosure documents.

Burkman garnered media attention in 2014 when he announced that he was gathering support for a law to ban gay athletes from the NFL. No related bill ever surfaced in Congress.

On Everson’s LinkedIn profile, she says she worked as a “Legislative Counsel/Legislative Fellow” from September 2012 to October 2013.

She also says she is a “Sexual Harassment Expert” and women’s rights advocate, and that in 2014 she founded a group aimed at ending workplace harassment.

Scott, 70, who has represented the 3rd Congressional District since 1993, said in his statement that he welcomes the recent national discussion about sexual harassment but argued “false allegations will squander this momentous opportunity for dialogue on meaningful change in the workplace.

“I am confident that this false allegation will be seen for what it is when the facts are adequately reviewed.”

His district includes portions of Norfolk, Chesapeake, Suffolk and Hampton, as well as all of Portsmouth, Newport News, Franklin and Isle of Wight County.

khy posted:

So I'm kinda torn here.

My innate distrust of people (What a bunch of bastards) makes me inherently believe that all these rear end in a top hat congressmen that have been accused of sexual assault are guilty.

BUT.

That same innate distrust of people (What a bunch of bastards) cannot help but wonder whether or not there are unethical 'former aides' or 'former colleagues' and whatnot that are making unprovable accusations as either revenge or political assassination.

But then I worry, does my personal political leanings influence my ability to trust whether or not someone's accusations are real? Is it fair to the accused when we simply accept all accusations at face value? Is it fair to the accusers if we insist on actual proof other than he-said-she-said when it's an incident from 15+ years ago? How can I make an educated opinion as to the person's supposed guilt?

I don't want to accuse an innocent man of wrongdoing, but neither do I want to be the one to ignore the cries of a rape victim. What's my options here?

Kubrick posted:

I know I'm late, but I just saw the Ajit Pai - 7 Things video You Can Still on The Internet After Net Neutality

Jesus Christ.

What the gently caress.

What the gently caress is happening

Alter Ego posted:

This was not Virginia, a swing-leaning-blue state. This was Alabama. A blood-red hellhole that Trump won by 28 points. THEY DO NOT ELECT DEMOCRATS TO STATEWIDE OFFICES. PERIOD.

gowb posted:

I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS.

The south is quite receptive to leftist policy. We just haven't had anyone willing to really go whole hog on it since Huey Long.

gowb posted:

I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS.

The south is quite receptive to leftist policy. We just haven't had anyone willing to really go whole hog on it since Huey Long.

Lightning Knight posted:

Are you one of those people mad that Franken had to resign?

Captain Oblivious posted:

Quite receptive to leftist policy...until it stops being paired with racism anyway.

gowb posted:

I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS.

The south is quite receptive to leftist policy. We just haven't had anyone willing to really go whole hog on it since Huey Long.

khy posted:

I don't want to accuse an innocent man of wrongdoing, but neither do I want to be the one to ignore the cries of a rape victim. What's my options here?

Condiv posted:

you would think 3 dems well to the left of manchin winning in oklahoma would make that p obvious, but people seem hellbent on sticking to the "centrism is the only way to win" narrative

Condiv posted:

you would think 3 dems well to the left of manchin winning in oklahoma would make that p obvious, but people seem hellbent on sticking to the "centrism is the only way to win" narrative

Condiv posted:

you would think 3 dems well to the left of manchin winning in oklahoma would make that p obvious, but people seem hellbent on sticking to the "centrism is the only way to win" narrative

VitalSigns posted:

Oklahoma is another one yea. Republicans didn't capture our legislature until 2012, for the first time in our history.

gowb posted:

I wanted to address this even tho it was pages ago. I live in the Deep South. It isn't as blood red as idiots like you think. For a long time, Louisiana has had democratic representatives and senators and even governors, like our current John Bel Edwards. Alabama going democrat isn't that amazing. That a race against a loving pedophile was so close IS.

The south is quite receptive to leftist policy. We just haven't had anyone willing to really go whole hog on it since Huey Long.

LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:

In Manchin's case in particular it's more "He's proven he can win and votes with us." When's the other senator's seat up? Definitely run someone more progressive there and see what happens. I can think of worse fates than having two reliable anti-trump votes from WV than neither of them because we gambled and lost.

To be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure why you have such a hardon for getting Manchin out, given he's one of the better senators for voting against Trump and hasn't really done anything to gently caress us over that I'm aware of? I don't like using the term "purity test" much but this really feels like a straight up purity test for no reason.

Also, obvious answer is "None of these places you point to are where Manchin is, therefore not really directly applicable the way you want them to be."

joepinetree posted:

Honestly, after this week the reason for push more left wing policy shouldn't be because of electoral politics, but because of the obvious outcomes of policy.
Republicans will have essentially dismantled the market friendly parts of Obamacare while leaving the medicaid expansion in place. Likewise, they are dismantling all the student loan parts of Obama's education policy, while actually expanding pell grants. Publicly provided benefits all look to survive this republican presidency, while all the subsidy-based, market oriented programs will likely end. Only exception is CHIP, and that is because it was a policy with a phase out deadline.

joepinetree posted:

If the democrats don't expand voting rights the second they are back in power they deserve to lose for the rest of time.