***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[storm2006]

Please let me know what in those posts you find disgusting, seriously?

I think this is an important conversation to have.

To me, those posts vindicate my position that I am not a Roy Moore supporter.

I am truly interested in knowing what you find disgusting about those posts.

See below.

That's right! It was never about defending Roy Moore - it was about defending due process.

If you don't believe me, just search for all the instances dwalk posted about "due process" on our forums before the Roy Moore allegations surfaced.

What's that? There aren't any? Oh, my mistake.

Thank you for doing the Lord’s work for me.

 

[junglejim]

Please let me know what in those posts you find disgusting, seriously?

I think this is an important conversation to have.

I personally find victim bashing disgusting and part of the reason why most of these victims don’t come forward immediately for fear of reprisal which makes these crimes nearly impossible to convict as all evidence is long gone.

But I’m sure you were just defending due process when you posted that **** bag post. Notice I did not say alleged as there is a paper trail of **** baggery. Did I do that right?

Imagine someone gets accused of rape and this is your reaction to it.

 

[dwalk31]

That's right! It was never about defending Roy Moore - it was about defending due process.

If you don't believe me, just search for all the instances dwalk posted about "due process" on our forums before the Roy Moore allegations surfaced.


What's that? There aren't any? Oh, my mistake.

I’ve posted about Jordans on here more than I’ve talked about my fiancé, or my mom.

By this logic I care about my Jordan collection more than both of them, combined. That’s silly.

I post about due process a great deal. It is especially important to discuss in contexts where people want to jump to conclusions and switch to the guilty until innocent standard because they don’t like a particular person.

That is careless. If you disagree with the merits of my position, that is one thing. But to come to a conclusion on my sincerity is another.

As I said, I truly want to know what in those posts, quoted, is disgusting. I think that helps move the conversation forward.

 

[dwalk31]

I personally find victim bashing disgusting and part of the reason why most of these victims don’t come forward immediately for fear of reprisal which makes these crimes nearly impossible to convict as all evidence is long gone.

But I’m sure you were just defending due process when you post that **** bag post. Notice I did not say alleged as there is a paper trail of **** baggery. Did I do that right?

This is again a part of couching/phrasing. Victim-blaming, on its face, presumes a victim. Without more, it is an alleged victim.

I agree that it is awful, and difficult, for many real victims to come forward out of fear that they won’t be believed. By the same token, that is not a reason to dismantle due process and switch to a guilty until proven innocent standard.

One must look at the evidence, and analyze it. The reason due process is important is because an accused can face their accuser. Witnesses can be subject to cross examination, etc.To immediately say, I believe X or Y, without more, is irresponsible.

God forbid you, or a family member, are ever wrongfully accused of something. But advocates like me defend due process in those situations.

I appreciate that you said what you found disgusting and I hope I helped to give a perspective on my stance. Even if we don’t agree.

 

[storm2006]

I’ve posted about Jordans on here more than I’ve talked about my fiancé, or my mom.

That makes no sense. That merely means as it pertains to this message board you prefer to talk about Jordan’s as opposed to fiancé or mother.

However, if there was a thread about Jordan’s and everyone was saying they had poor quality or were difficult to obtain.You relentlessly defend them for a variety of reasons then when someone finally proved they were ****** you for the first time using the defense “We’ll see when they release”.

 

[junglejim]

This is again a part of couching/phrasing. Victim-blaming, on its face, presumes a victim. Without more, it is an alleged victim.

I agree that it is awful, and difficult, for many real victims to come forward out of fear that they won’t be believed. By the same token, that is not a reason to dismantle due process and switch to a guilty until proven innocent standard.

One must look at the evidence, and analyze it. The reason due process is important is because an accused can face their accuser. Witnesses can be subject to cross examination, etc.To immediately say, I believe X or Y, without more, is irresponsible.

God forbid you, or a family member, are ever wrongfully accused of something. But advocates like me defend due process in those situations.

I appreciate that you said what you found disgusting and I hope I helped to give a perspective on my stance. Even if we don’t agree.

considering rape is damn near an unprovable and convictable offense I am not worried about being falsely accused of rape. Generally when I look at it is maybe at one accuser you give someone the benefit of doubt, at two a pattern emerges, at three it becomes a lot less hazy, and god forbid there was a fourth accuser like there was with Roy Moore. Not sure many people get falsely accused 4 times

But go ahead, keep giving him the benefit of doubt. God help anyone in your family if they do get raped because people like you hold the victim at a higher standard than the attacker. People like you immediately attack the accuser and do not give said accuser the benefit of their allegations. You immediately go to character defamation as a first reaction which is disgusting

 

[dwalk31]

considering rape is damn near an unprovable and convict-able offense I am not worried about being falsely accused of rape. Generally when I look at it is maybe at one accuser you give someone the benefit of doubt, at two a pattern emerges, at three it becomes a lot less hazy, and god forbid there was a fourth accuser like there was with Roy Moore. Not sure many people get falsely accused 4 times

But go ahead, keep giving him the benefit of doubt. God help anyone in your family if they do get raped though because people like you hold the victim at a higher standard than the attacker.

I’m not giving him, or anyone else, the benefit of the doubt.

I am saying that in the US people are presumed innocent unless and/or until they are proven guilty.

When you take it out of the political sphere. My stance doesn’t change.

Does your position change in a discussion about Kobe? Or Michael Jackson? Mine does not. The standard is innocent until proven guilty.

I respect your position. But the idea that it is disgusting to presume someone innocent until they are proven guilty is not something I can get behind.

 

[junglejim]

I’m not giving him, or anyone else, the benefit of the doubt.

I am saying that in the US people are presumed innocent unless and/or until they are proven guilty.

When you take it out of the political sphere. My stance doesn’t change.

Does your position change in a discussion about Kobe? Or Michael Jackson? Mine does not. The standard is innocent until proven guilty.

I respect your position. But the idea that it is disgusting to presume someone innocent until they are proven guilty is not something I can get behind.

You didn’t read any of what I just type and just went back to your same rehearsed talking points. I found you bashing the Roy Moore victim to be disgusting, not the presumption of innocence.

If you don’t find it disgusting that you spent more time condemning the action of the accuser instead of the actions of a man who was accused of multiple rapes from multiple individuals then that tells me everything I need to know about you

 

[dwalk31]

You didn’t read any of what I just type and just went back to your same rehearsed talking points. I found you bashing the Roy Moore victim to be disgusting, not the presumption of innocence.

If you don’t find it disgusting that you spent more time condemning the action of the accuser instead of the actions of a man who was accused of multiple rapes from multiple individuals then that tells me everything I need to know about you

I read every word. Saying that the *alleged victim admitted altering the yearbook in question is not victim bashing, in my opinion. It is a factual account of what the alleged victim stated.

An admission that many deemed true prior to her admitting it was altered.

These are the reasons that the presumption of innocence is so important.

 

[junglejim]

I read every word. Saying that the *alleged victim admitted altering the yearbook in question is not victim bashing, in my opinion. It is a factual account of what the alleged victim stated.

An admission that many deemed true prior to her admitting it was altered.

These are the reasons that the presumption of innocence is so important.

And the purpose of posting this was what? That Roy Moore couldn’t have raped her because of a yearbook?

oh wait, you posted it because you wanted to attack the accuser and establish a pattern of lying

Are you even reading what you are typing?

 

[Methodical Management]

I’ve posted about Jordans on here more than I’ve talked about my fiancé, or my mom.

And how often have your mother and fiancé come up in public discussions you've participated in on our forums in the past thirteen years? More frequently than Air Jordans, would you say?

I post about due process a great deal. It is especially important to discuss in contexts where people want to jump to conclusions and switch to the guilty until innocent standard because they don’t like a particular person.

Oh, you mean like Jeffrey Epstein.

No, wait - maybe I'm thinking of Harvey Weinstein. It was someone widely reviled - other than Roy Moore.

You know, it was probably Hillary Clinton. I remember when bravely you stood up to your fellow conservatives and said, in defense of your cherished ideals,

This is some serious mental gymnastics. If there is not enough evidence to bring criminal charges.... then... there is no crime.

Sorry, that wasn't about Hillary Clinton! I'm so forgetful today.

Wait, who was that about then? Hunter Biden?

Oh, it was Donald Trump. That's right.

Close enough.


The important thing is that you were consistent.

 

[heelsandeers]

things Alabama Republicans said about Roy Moore:

"much ado about very little"
that they will support him "even if proof comes out"
"let's be honest, he's not a Democrat"
others called it a conspiracy theory by Democrats

I get the cognitive dissonance of DWalks and others. Must be tough to see the sickness of your party put into such stark relief

 

[dwalk31]

And the purpose of posting this was what? That Roy Moore couldn’t have raped her because of a yearbook?

oh wait, you posted it because you wanted to attack the accuser and establish a pattern of lying

I posted it because there was a discussion surrounding the facts related to the alleged rape.

Facts were posted about Moore and the alleged rape.

Obviously, one can be raped if they altered a yearbook. That’s not a question.

The issue, often, comes down to credibility. During trial, people impeach testimony by showing that people said one thing on one occasion and another thing later. This is why cross examination is such a powerful technique.

Like I said then, and I’ll reiterate now, if he did what he is accused of it is truly disgusting. But I don’t have any idea whether he did or not. Do you?

In this country, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

 

[dwalk31]

And how often have your mother and fiancé come up in public discussions you've participated in on our forums in the past thirteen years? More frequently than Air Jordans, would you say?


Oh, you mean like Jeffrey Epstein.

No, wait - maybe I'm thinking of Harvey Weinstein. It was someone widely reviled - other than Roy Moore.

You know, it was probably Hillary Clinton. I remember when bravely you stood up to your fellow conservatives and said, in defense of your cherished ideals,


Sorry, that wasn't about Hillary Clinton! I'm so forgetful today.

Wait, who was that about then? Hunter Biden?

Oh, it was Donald Trump. That's right.

Close enough.


The important thing is that you were consistent.

Hillary Clinton is innocent until proven guilty of any crime.

Pretty sure Epstein was a convicted pedophile/sex offender.

Weinstein is still on trial, but he is innocent until proven guilty.

Obviously if any of these individuals committed what they are accused of then it is disgusting.

But to say that supporting an innocent until proven guilty standard makes someone a supporter of individual people that are accused belies reason.

 

[IATT]

In this country, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

 

[dwalk31]

I disagree with that just as I disagree with people on here calling people rapists and rapist supporters. It is irresponsible.

But, he (like many in here) seems to want to adopt a guilty until proven innocent standard.

 

[junglejim]

I posted it because there was a discussion surrounding the facts related to the alleged rape.

Facts were posted about Moore and the alleged rape.

Obviously, one can be raped if they altered a yearbook. That’s not a question.

The issue, often, comes down to credibility. During trial, people impeach testimony by showing that people said one thing on one occasion and another thing later. This is why cross examination is such a powerful technique.

So you are saying you posted it for the sole purpose of attacking the credibility of the accuser? Got it

Like I said then, and I’ll reiterate now, if he did what he is accused of it is truly disgusting. But I don’t have any idea whether he did or not. Do you?

If someone has been accused of multiple rapes from multiple different individual I will believe the victims 100% of the time.

 

[IATT]

I disagree with that just as I disagree with people on here calling people rapists and rapist supporters. It is irresponsible.

But, he (like many in here) seems to want to adopt a guilty until proven innocent standard.

Methodical Management

junglejim

aepps20

I’d love to bet everything I got that when mr due process over here was defending Roy Moore he didn’t have zero to say about the lack of due process afforded Hillary by trump and cult 45 and especially the Central Park 5

 

[dwalk31]

So you are saying you posted it for the sole purpose of attacking the credibility of the accuser? Got it

I posted it to give a full factual account of the factors surrounding the accusation.

A bad fact on Roy Moore’s side was that a a security guard said that he was banned from the mall and was on a list.

This isn’t picking individual sides. I’m on the side of due process.

But I’m not on the side of blindly believing accusations. I think that is dangerous.

 

[dwalk31]

Methodical Management

junglejim

aepps20

I’d love to bet everything I got that when mr due process over here was defending Roy Moore he didn’t have zero to say about the lack of due process afforded Hillary by trump and cult 45 and especially the Central Park 5

Cashapp? Because I’ve spoken on the Central Park 5 SEVERAL times. In fact, they are an example of what happens when you carelessly remove the innocent until proven guilty standard.

Hillary Clinton isn’t facing criminal charges, that I know of.

But if she is, my presumption of innocence still holds. You won’t find a single post on here where I’ve adopted an alternative standard. Everything ain’t about politics.

 

[dwalk31]

If someone has been accused of multiple rapes from multiple different individual I will believe the victims 100% of the time.

That’s your choice and I respect it. I just disagree that it makes me disgusting that I don’t adopt that view or a rapist supporter.

But we can agree to disagree on that. I think you at least know my stance now, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[junglejim]

That’s your choice and I respect it. I just disagree that it makes me disgusting that I don’t adopt that view or a rapist supporter.

But we can agree to disagree on that. I think you at least know my stance now, whether you agree with it or not.

I did not call you disgusting for that. I called you disgusting for posting **** that has nothing to do with a rape allegation to discredit a credible accuser for the sole purpose of trying to establish a pattern of lying

You in your own words posted that's why you did it.

I posted it because there was a discussion surrounding the facts related to the alleged rape.

Facts were posted about Moore and the alleged rape.

Obviously, one can be raped if they altered a yearbook. That’s not a question.

The issue, often, comes down to credibility. During trial, people impeach testimony by showing that people said one thing on one occasion and another thing later. This is why cross examination is such a powerful technique.

But please, continue to move the goalposts of what I did and did not say.

People like you are the reason why people spend more time trying to figure out and bash whistle blowers instead of investigating whether or not said whistleblower's complaint holds credence.

 

[dwalk31]

I did not call you disgusting for that. I called you disgusting for posting **** that has nothing to do with a rape allegation to discredit a credible accuser for the sole purpose of trying to establish a pattern of lying

You in your own words posted that's why you did it.

The alleged victim initially pointed to the yearbook as evidence of the accusation. And later admitted to altering it.

This was not a random yearbook alteration. The yearbook was central to the initial evidence the alleged victim brought forward. That’s how the comment came forward. Like I said that’s not dispositive, but it was relevant.

Did you think this was a random comment about an unrelated yearbook the alleged victim altered?

 

[aepps20]

Methodical Management

junglejim

aepps20

I’d love to bet everything I got that when mr due process over here was defending Roy Moore he didn’t have zero to say about the lack of due process afforded Hillary by trump and cult 45 and especially the Central Park 5

He is not someone that I respect. He said he wouldn't feel comfortable if his underage relatives were left alone with Roy Moore but he will cape for the guy until the end. Disgusting.

 

[heelsandeers]

Hillary Clinton isn’t facing criminal charges, that I know of.

is Roy Moore?