|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 16, 2018 8:33:38 GMT -5
I think if Cass said she researched it thoroughly and would provide her notes later, you could at least give her the benefit of the doubt and wait until she presents her case. I remember reading a lot of stuff about Broaddrick at the time and not finding her convincing (I am more convinced by the lack of physical evidence of the abuse she claimed than by how she acted afterwards). That said, I agree that a rape victim smiling, socializing, and being "friendly" with her rapist does seem to be a thing that happens. A lot of women have come forward lately talking about how they continued socializing with the person who assaulted them - maybe for professional reasons, maybe because they still liked the guy and were compartmentalizing, maybe for more complicated reasons. I understand the skepticism, and I also tend to be skeptical of rape stories where you find the alleged victim was texting chattily or even flirting with her alleged assailant afterwards. (I really dislike reconstructing a consensual encounter as "rape" afterwards because she had regrets/realized she really wasn't into it/felt like he used his Man-Wiles on her, etc.) But, I no longer assume that "Oh, she was seen smiling in a photograph with him a week later, therefore she's lying about being raped" is necessarily fair. There's a 2 side sword there.
Think of Domestic Abuse. Anyone who is familiar knows it's common for a spouse that has physically battered on Friday night might appear normal and in love on Monday morning. You forget, forgive, blame yourself, or you just feel trapped and you're making the best of it. It happens. It requires some pretty solid evidence to overcome for punishment however. I think it's fine to have serious doubts based on those cases, but I don't think I'd write them off 100%. What other evidence exists? Did the allegation come after one hit too many? Or did it come after a breakup and he's moved on.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 16, 2018 8:52:24 GMT -5
To be clear here, since Cass' "both of you" remark appears to include me, I don't actually default to believing the worst about (Bill) Clinton.
1) I don't know if Broaddrick is telling the truth or not. After all, it supposedly happened in 1978. And in that regard, the atmosphere of 1978--when it came to alleging acts of sexual misconduct--was nothing like it is today, or like it was even in 1999. So pardon me, but I'm not going to pass absolute judgment on a story that is pretty much she said/he said and nothing else, at this point. The mere fact that the allegations were made--and had been circulating for years--says a lot about Bill Clinton imo, just as the rumors out there about Trump say a lot about him. You don't hear such stuff about people like Obama and Romney (to take two easy examples), at all. There's a pretty big gulf there, when it comes to moral character.
2) But as I said, defending Clinton via "Trump is so much worse" doesn't make sense, imo. Because what difference does it make? If we allow that Clinton was ten times worse than Trump, it still doesn't make what Trump has done okay, does it? So why the need to protect Clinton? The guy was a world-class horn dog, imo. The only reason there aren't more stories out there about him is that he was a professional and powerful politician who used his power to cover his ass, one way or another. In contrast, Trump is a filthy rich bastard, whose primary means of covering his ass was and is cold, hard cash. Frankly, I think the best lesson in all of this is that the stick is mightier than the carrot, when it comes to ass-covering.
3) All that said, I voted for Clinton twice and don't regret it. I might feel differently if the rape accusations turned into a conviction, but that's never going to be the case. Clinton had/has no moral compass, imo. And he's the world heavyweight champion of liars, because he's so damn good at it. But he was still a damn good President. I'd take him eight days a weak over the snake in the grass that came before him, and a hundred days a week over the clown currently in office.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 16, 2018 9:35:57 GMT -5
^ Sexual semiconductor was Bill Clinton's nickname in law school.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 16, 2018 9:38:08 GMT -5
Trump's nickname was "semi-rigid"...
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 16, 2018 10:05:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 10:09:34 GMT -5
If anyone is interested, here are a couple of articles citing some, but not all, of what I found fishy about Juanita. www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/21/must_we_believe_juanita_broaddrick_no_135582.htmlarticles.latimes.com/1999/feb/26/local/me-11829Read or don't. I'm not going back to the interviews, transcripts etc. to pull together my previous analysis. I don't have time and I think it's pointless. So I'm done, other than to say I think that a knee jerk "believe the alleged victim no matter what" stance is as bad as a "believe the alleged assailant no matter what" stance. It is he said, she said. But there are reasons, a good number of them, to disbelieve her story. What are the reason TO believe her story, other than "always believe the woman no matter what"? (an attitude that used to get black men lynched, as the RCP article notes). Taking those reasons aside, this is a lone accusation of violent rape by a guy who is otherwise just a chronic philanderer with zero history of violence. We have no stream of similar accusations, as we did with Cosby, et al., and if there were such alleged victims, I think Ken Starr would have turned them up. And after he looked into this particular incident, he found this incident "inconclusive," so he went going after Clinton for getting a blowjob from an intern rather than trying to go after Clinton for sexual assault. Believe her if you like. I don't. ETA: Okay, I'm actively pissed off, so I'm going to add this. Sneer at it if you like. I absolutely do not expect anyone to disbelieve Juanita on my say so. As with anyone else on this site, I have an obligation to support my points, and even when I do so, you don't have to agree with my conclusions and can pick my argument to pieces. But I do think, as Amadan notes, that when I say I've spent a lot of time looking into something, you might give me the benefit of the doubt that I did in fact spend such time, and am not just talking out of my ass, as opposed to sneeringly implying that I'm fibbing about looking into it (e.g., by noting that I misspelled her name in the thread). Surely you all have seen enough of me in argument over the last few years to acknowledge that I don't generally just talk out of my ass. And when I'm coming to a quick conclusion based on a superficial read, I acknowledge it. Indeed, when I determine I got something wrong, I acknowledge it. Acknowledging those things is not the same thing as agreeing with my conclusion or my analysis. I'm perfectly capable of getting things wrong. But I deserve better than a sneering "oh, sure, you SAY you looked into it, but pffft, you misspelled her wonky name, so...." (I am in fact profoundly rotten at names. My memory for facts, dates, numbers, is actually quite good. But my memory for the spelling of names, not so much. Also, I tend to type on my phone, so even when I know the spelling, half the time it's wrong.) To be clear: a "Well, I'd have to see your analysis, but based on everything I've seen, I believe Juanita -- the ball's in your court to prove otherwise" would not have annoyed me at all -- it would have been a perfectly appropriate statement under the circumstances. What pissed me off is not that you believe Juanita, but rather the "pfft" to my statement that I'd spent hours looking into it. I think, based on my posting history, I've earned that much of a presumption, and also a presumption that I at least try to weigh evidence rather than simply parsing and cherry-picking it to support conclusions I like. (Actually, I have no particular interest in exonerating Clinton nor in discrediting Juanita.) Again, this is not at all the same thing as agreeing with my conclusions. Disagree with my conclusions, or note (correctly) that I haven't yet supported them. Fine. That's all fair and more than legitimate. I do not deserve a presumption that my analysis is correct, especially when you haven't seen it. No one deserves that presumption, in fact. This is simply a matter of acknowledging that in general I am a good-faith poster who doesn't generally simply talk out of my ass. I'm frustrated that my posts on the other website appear to be gone so that I can't cut and paste my previous analysis. But I can't. They were in an election-related thread, and I suspect were swept away in the purge of election-related threads on that site. I spent a ridiculous amount of time creating them that I can't afford to spend now. Nor, frankly, am I much in the mood to do so at the moment. Maybe when I cool off and have more free time. Though, again, I don't see much evidence that anyone is interested in seeing it, so I'm not sure it's a great use of my time, even when I do have it. ETA: In justice, I acknowledge that neither Michael nor Rob (nor Prozyan, for that matter) have a yuuuge partisan hatchet out for Clinton generally. I was pissed off last night; I actually don't think any of the three of you are knee-jerk partisans, for whatever that is worth. (That said, I think I deserve the same credit, at least for those who've been reading my posts for any length of time, and seen me rip into Hillary and defend Jeff Flake and John McCain, etc.) I DO think, however, that there an interest around here in bending over backwards and into pretzels -- more than is justified, IMO -- to demonstrate that both sides do it, that Clinton is equally as bad as Trump, etc. I also think that this results in (1) Juanita's unsupported word being given more credence and less skepticism than it would usually be given around here, and (2) in facts tending to cast doubt on her word being given less credence and more skepticism than would usually be given around here. That's possibly bolstered by recent me-too events. The reason I ultimately believe the accusations of Roy Moore's accusers and Bill Cosby's accusers, years after the fact and with no physical evidence at that late date, was because (1) they were part of a well-attested pattern -- lots people had similar stories about such behavior, and (2) there weren't big points that pointed against their stories as (IMO) there are in Juanita's case. Here, there is no pattern of similar behavior. Allegations against Bill Clinton have been dug into and hashed over so many fucking times, and yet -- there's just this one lone incident where it is alleged, without evidence, that he violently raped someone. Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley's stories have been pretty thoroughly discredited, and moreover aren't violent. And please, cheating on your wife and philandering with a consenting adult (even if she is in her 20s and an intern) is just not the same as throwing an unwilling woman down suddenly on a bed and raping her, leaving her all battered and bruised with a "hey, go put some ice on your injuries". He's not a young guy who is maybe a first time offender with more in his future, or some obscure guy who might have lots of dark closets no one has looked into -- he's in his 70s and his history has been thoroughly raked over the coals again and again. There's lots of seedy behavior there, sure. But not violence. Not rape. And sure, it's possible he only committed this one violent rape in his life. But then, there are numerous facts that point against her allegations -- her husband didn't notice her injuries, and she never told him about the incident. She can't remember the month in which it occurred. She later denied there was a rape. She participated in a fundraiser for him a couple weeks later, was seen talking amiably with him and Hillary. And so forth. (Btw, have you read her allegations that Hillary thanked her for not reporting the rape, and threatened her if she did report it? Her claims are fucking ridiculous and completely unbelievable.) COULD some of Juanita's behavior after the alleged incident be consistent with "oh, rape victims don't always act rationally?" Well, maybe. But could it also be consistent with "Yeah, she's totally fibbing." Yes, yes it could. Indeed, IMO, all put together, it's far more consistent with the latter. If there were several women with similar stories, I'd be more inclined to say "well, maybe she wasn't acting rationally." Maybe I'd say "well, so maybe she fibbed about Hillary and really can't remember the month and her husband is incredibly unobservant, etc. etc." But unlike Cosby and Roy Moore, there aren't such victims. And there's nothing to support Juanita's account but a couple of witnesses who have pretty strong motivation to hate Clinton. My conclusion, after reading, comparing, and analyzing everything I could get my hands on, led me to think there was much more reason to doubt her than to believe her. Indeed, the only reason to believe her is a knee jerk "believe the victim no matter what." Again, you can differ. But I do resent the implication that I just talked out of my ass about looking into it. I also resent the implication that I'm just a rapist apologist who doesn't understand that victims sometimes act irrationally. I think I'm on record elsewhere on this site as understanding this perfectly. But I don't buy it here. To note, I similarly doubt the accusation against Trump (much as I dislike him, and much as I think he's a sleazebag) that he committed a violent rape on a thirteen year old. Perhaps it happened, I don't know, but I'd have to see more to believe it. As it is, I've no basis on which to analyze it.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 16, 2018 12:46:08 GMT -5
If anyone is interested, here are a couple of articles citing some, but not all, of what I found fishy about Juanita. www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/11/21/must_we_believe_juanita_broaddrick_no_135582.htmlarticles.latimes.com/1999/feb/26/local/me-11829Read or don't. I'm not going back to the interviews, transcripts etc. to pull together my previous analysis. I don't have time and I think it's pointless. So I'm done, other than to say I think that a knee jerk "believe the alleged victim no matter what" stance is as bad as a "believe the alleged assailant no matter what" stance. It is he said, she said. But there are reasons, a good number of them, to disbelieve her story. What are the reason TO believe her story, other than "always believe the woman no matter what"? (an attitude that used to get black men lynched, as the RCP article notes). Taking those reasons aside, this an single accusation of violent rape by a guy who is otherwise just a chronic philanderer with zero history of violence. We have no stream of similar accusations, as we did with Cosby, et al., and if there were such alleged victims, I think Ken Starr would have turned them up. And he found this incident "inconclusive." Believe her if you like. I don't. So for some reason, the first article makes a very good, (1 that shouldn't be needed) as to why we should give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I agree with her points. I also feel as if there's a little bit of her being a Clinton fan and not liking the pushback being given to the Clintons here. Which is fine.
The 2nd article, IMHO, does a better job of really taking about the case. In other words, the first one would have me be in favor of a not guilty verdict by an easy margin, the 2nd one would make me think there might be charges for Brodrick for filing a false report had this been a criminal case. Not sure if you could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm definitely leaning that way.
I'll note many of the remarks should apply to non political people and often aren't.
Also, like many things, Brodrick is a good Rorschach test. If you're a Clinton opponent, and you can't give him the innocent until proven guilty aspect, it's because of your politics, not because of Clinton or Brodrick.
On the other hand, it confirms my stance on Gillerbrand who now that the Clinton's aren't in power, says he should have resigned. She uses this issue for her own political gain.
Brodrick, like any person, deserves to have been treated with respect and have her accusations treated seriously. She doesn't have a right to be believed.
Bill Clinton is innocent until proven guilty, and there's hardly enough evidence to make that case.
I'd be curious if he weren't a former D president how many people who assume his guilt would flip and vice versa, but I'm not buying it.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 16, 2018 19:50:20 GMT -5
So I'm done, other than to say I think that a knee jerk "believe the alleged victim no matter what" stance is as bad as a "believe the alleged assailant no matter what" stance. I agree. Again, I agree. 1. The witnesses that Broaddrick confided in. (You noted below that there are only a couple of witnesses and they were motivated to dislike Clinton, but I don't think that's correct. Besides Rogers and Darden, there's also Louise Ma and Susan Lewis, as well as David Broaddrick, who corroborated Juanita's black upper lip.) 2. She never wanted to go public with any of this. She was always intensely private. Various people tried to get her to come forward, and she refused. She was even encouraged to come forward during the 1992 election, so if she was merely trying to bring down Clinton, she had a perfect opportunity. Her explanation for why she did eventually talk about it in public--that she wanted to rebut false rumors and set things straight after her private statements to Ken Starr had leaked--seems plausible to me. She could be lying, but I don't see why she would carry on the charade for so long. And unlike Paula Jones, there was no financial incentive. I agree, but I think I don't put as much weight on that as others would. I think it's actually pretty common for rapists not to have other cases of violence in their personal histories. Absolutely. I didn't mean to suggest that I didn't believe you had done research. Of course I believe you've done research. It was more the notion that you knew more about this than I did that I was taking issue with (mainly because it came off as condescending). When I said "That may or may not be the case" that's what I was referring to. I'll go back and quote myself for context: "I get it, you feel you've done a lot of homework on this and know more about it than everyone else (although you didn't know how to spell Broaddrick's name earlier). That may or may not be the case, but I don't think it matters when you start throwing out stuff about how she didn't act properly after the alleged rape. People can judge for themselves whether that's a valid argument, IMO. (And obviously, I think it's quite weak, given that friendly contact with one's rapist is fairly common.)" I'll apologize for not expressing myself clearly here. It was never meant as an accusation that you were being dishonest. For sure. I think everyone in this thread is a good-faith poster. Well, the most serious act of violence alleged against Moore was Beverly Nelson's allegation that he grabbed her by the neck and tried to force her head into his crotch, correct? But if the standard we're looking for is some kind of pattern of similar actions, I don't think Nelson's allegation would qualify. There's the groping allegations, but Clinton had groping allegations as well. Not really a fair reading, IMO. I think my point of disagreement--on the issue of Broaddrick's behavior after the alleged rape-doesn't need to be read as anything more than a point of disagreement, and shouldn't be taken as me implying that anyone who thinks otherwise is a rape apologist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 22:11:38 GMT -5
To be clear, it wasn't any single thing that led me to conclude Juanita is lying. It was decades ago and there is no smoking gun. It was a big pile of things in combination. It is extremely easy to point at any one of them and say "pfft, a victim might do that." "maybe her husband didn't notice" Etc. But added together, I found them formidable. That's why I'm frustrated that my posts are gone. I cited all of them with support. It would be a helluva chore to do it again. And I honestly haven't found an article that went into it to the degree I did. I am still working. I will be working all weekend. But to the extent I get a moment, I'll come back with stuff. Again, no one piece of it is conclusive. But put it all together, and yeah, I don't buy it. ... 1) Juanita couldn't remember the month of her attack. (A fact that standing alone, I found bizarre as hell, especially given the other details she claims to recall. This was allegedly a traumatizing, life changing event, and she can't recall the month it happened? But let's take that aside. Let's assume she really blocked out the memory.) Anyway. She said it was spring and she was staying at the Camelot hotel and she was supposed to go to a nursing home seminar at the hotel that day. But she said that after the attack, she was so upset, she skipped the nursing home meeting and went straight home, driving two hours. Some journalists exhaustively looked into all of her activities during the spring, and lo and behold, they discovered that state records show that Juanita got credit for a nursing home seminar at the Camelot hotel (where the alleged assault occurred) on April 25, 1978. Spring! And hey, the NBC team determined that Bill Clinton probably was in Little Rock that day, and even though there was zero evidence he ever went to the hotel, he potentially could have! And there was a fundraiser a couple weeks later -- and she said there was in fact a fundraiser a couple weeks later! Corroboration, right!? Um, no. It's not. She specifically said she was so upset that she drove right home after the attack and skipped the seminar. It's actually evidence that shows that contrary to what she claims, she DID go to the seminar. I attend a lot of work-related seminars every year for which I get credit (we lawyer types are required to take continuing legal education courses). There aren't state records giving me credit for attending seminars I in fact skipped. (It's at this link, which is a pretty long interview with Juanita. I will cite it again in discussing other details. shadowgov.com/Clinton/DNBCJuanitaTranscript.html ) A few relevant quotes, which you can read in context in the full article: Neither she not the article mentions the discrepancy between her saying she skipped the meeting because she was too distraught to attend, and there being a state record of her in fact attending. The journalists were pretty much all about "we corroborated that this must have been the date!" But being a lawyer type who picks apart other people's evidence for a living, It jumped out at me. Is it possible they didn't pay attention to who came to the seminar and issued state credit to anyone registered? Maybe, but that's sure not the way it works when I register for seminars for which I get state credit (particularly "credit" that they'd retain state records of for decades -- that's not just a little informal sign-up sheet for a casual meeting). Indeed, at such seminars, I typically have to verify my attendance during every segment in order to demonstrate my attendance. (See my ETA below -- Arkansas nursing home admins seem to have similar state continuing education requirements, and if the state kept records of attendees, you can be sure this was such a seminar.) Is it maybe possible one of her friends signed her in? Well maybe, but no one says that happened. Odd she thought to have someone falsify her being at the seminar after just being raped. And who? Norma, the friend who was supposedly with her in the hotel room after the rape, also allegedly drove back with Juanita and so also missed the meeting. So some other person just noticed she was missing and decided to falsify her being at the meeting because... well, why? Is it possible that there was some other nursing home seminar at the same hotel at about the same time period ? Maybe, but that's the only one the NBC team found evidence of. And given that it was a two hour drive each way for Juanita, she might remember going taking that trip twice for two nursing home seminars at that same hotel so close together. Maybe she drive home after the rape, and did go to the seminar but the rape actually happened after the seminar? Only, no, she's pretty specific about the rape happening in the morning and her friend coming at noon and then their driving home... and she only got there the night before and that's not when she allegedly saw Clinton, so, no, doesn't seem like it could have happened after the seminar... Maybe she's just fibbing about going to the seminar for some reason? Or blocked out attending the seminar and misremembered taking that two hour drive. But wait, her friend, her witness who supposedly saw her right after the attack, was allegedly with her on that two hour drive. Maybe the friend is misremembering (or fibbing about) that detail, too? But wait, if Juanita went to the seminar with that swollen lip and all banged up, wouldn't everyone be like "christ Juanita what happened" and there's be a ton of witnesses to her injuries? Or maybe... Go ahead. Pick my point apart. Sure, on its own, it doesn't prove she's lying about the rape. Just remember -- it's one thing, and I said I have a pile. ETA: FYI, In New York, at least, nursing home administrators, like lawyers, are required by law to attend continuing legal education courses and must certify their attendance. www.health.ny.gov/professionals/nursing_home_administrator/continuing_education/program_guidelines.htm I am betting the same was true in Arkansas. If there are state records of attendance kept decades later, I'd bet my 401K that's what this meeting was. And if that's what this meeting was, there were sign in procedures to verify attendance. Only, as I noted above, according to those records, Juanita didn't skip the meeting and drive two hours home in her shock and trauma, as she claimed. She went to the seminar and got the credit. ETA: And yeppers, Arkansas nursing home administrators are indeed required to attend a certain number of continuing education seminars a year. humanservices.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/dms/nhadmin.pdf See page 6. When the state requires this shit, they make you sign in. Generally more than once during the seminar, to prove you didn't duck in and leave. Fun fact -- if you complete legal continuing education credits online (as you can), you must verify every six minutes that you are still watching -- just so you can't put the video on and walk away. They're serious about this shit.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 16, 2018 22:30:14 GMT -5
So for some reason, the first article makes a very good, (1 that shouldn't be needed) as to why we should give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I agree with her points. I also feel as if there's a little bit of her being a Clinton fan and not liking the pushback being given to the Clintons here. Which is fine.
The 2nd article, IMHO, does a better job of really taking about the case.
Both articles point to the biggest problem that I think exists w/ Broaddrick's allegations: the affidavit where she denied Clinton raped her. Most of the other points made I don't think are all that strong. --Both articles point out that Broaddrick couldn't remember the month that the rape occurred. No doubt, there's often an expectation that victims should be able to recall key details. But it's extremely common that this isn't the case. See here and here for more on this. (ETA: Cass, you might be interested in these links as well, because I see you posted this same point about not remembering the month.) --Both articles mention the two witnesses who had good reason to be biased against Clinton, but the LA Times piece doesn't even mention the other witnesses (Louise Ma and Susan Lewis), and the RCP alludes to one of them but doesn't seem to find her credible (for reasons that are not clear). --Both articles point to Gary Hickey not backing up Juanita's story, but then the LA Times piece goes on to note that Hickey had allegedly been abusive toward her. If Ma and Lewis are somehow not credible, why would we say an abusive ex-husband who got cheated on is credible? --The LA Times piece trots out the fundraiser story, but to me, that just goes back to Rob's point about expectations people have about how rape victims are supposed to act. The fundraiser isn't a compelling fact, because we know how common and normal it is for rape victims not to shun their rapists, despite how counterintuitive it might seem. No question, there are reasons why the story is dubious, but there are also a number of bad reasons given for why the story is dubious (and some are downright terrible). In the end, I think where Rob ended up on this (essentially taking an agnostic position) is reasonable. The story could very well be true or not true, but taking a hard position one way or the other is difficult for me to accept.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 16, 2018 22:52:28 GMT -5
So for some reason, the first article makes a very good, (1 that shouldn't be needed) as to why we should give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I agree with her points. I also feel as if there's a little bit of her being a Clinton fan and not liking the pushback being given to the Clintons here. Which is fine.
The 2nd article, IMHO, does a better job of really taking about the case.
Both articles point to the biggest problem that I think exists w/ Broaddrick's allegations: the affidavit where she denied Clinton raped her. Most of the other points made I don't think are all that strong. --Both articles point out that Broaddrick couldn't remember the month that the rape occurred. No doubt, there's often an expectation that victims should be able to recall key details. But it's extremely common that this isn't the case. See here and here for more on this. (ETA: Cass, you might be interested in these links as well, because I see you posted this same point about not remembering the month.) --Both articles mention the two witnesses who had good reason to be biased against Clinton, but the LA Times piece doesn't even mention the other witnesses (Louise Ma and Susan Lewis), and the RCP alludes to one of them but doesn't seem to find her credible (for reasons that are not clear). --Both articles point to Gary Hickey not backing up Juanita's story, but then the LA Times piece goes on to note that Hickey had allegedly been abusive toward her. If Ma and Lewis are somehow not credible, why would we say an abusive ex-husband who got cheated on is credible? --The LA Times piece trots out the fundraiser story, but to me, that just goes back to Rob's point about expectations people have about how rape victims are supposed to act. The fundraiser isn't a compelling fact, because we know how common and normal it is for rape victims not to shun their rapists, despite how counterintuitive it might seem. No question, there are reasons why the story is dubious, but there are also a number of bad reasons given for why the story is dubious (and some are downright terrible). In the end, I think where Rob ended up on this (essentially taking an agnostic position) is reasonable. The story could very well be true or not true, but taking a hard position one way or the other is difficult for me to accept. Here's a counter point argument for the science behind fragmented memories and such. The fact is, in each case, you have to look at the totality. Often times, people use the idea of trauma to say any inconsistencies are proof of the rape, as opposed to disproof. If events are remembered, it's proof. If it's not remembered, it's proof. While I get not wanting to simply dismiss claims, it's not fair to hold these against Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 16, 2018 23:22:57 GMT -5
I find these Clinton vs. Trump comparisons to be nothing more than a spurious distraction and as weak as they are transparent. You want a legit comparison between the two unrepentant horndog cheaters? Here's one: Clinton was impeached by a Republican Congress. Trump will be impeached by a Democratic Congress. Could happen...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 23:27:40 GMT -5
You want a legit comparison between the two unrepentant horndog cheaters? Here's one: Clinton was impeached by a Republican Congress. Trump will be impeached by a Democratic Congress. Could happen... This is what I fantasize about, night and day. And I think there's a shot. ETA: I also agree with you that this Juanita discussion is a profound waste of my time. I'll hate myself for every minute I spend (once again) demonstrating why I think the slippery fornicating adulterer was not in fact a violent rapist. Alas, though, I now feel that my honor is at stake, and you know how that is.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 17, 2018 0:02:19 GMT -5
I also agree with you that this Juanita discussion is a profound waste of my time. I'll hate myself for every minute I spend (once again) demonstrating why I think the slippery fornicating adulterer was not in fact a violent rapist. Alas, though, I now feel that my honor is at stake, and you know how that is. If I can spare you any self-hatred, I'll say this: you don't need to prove to me (or anyone else) you've done your homework on this. As I said before, I believe you. If there's information out there that you really want me to know about and you think I'm unaware of it, that's fine. Always happy to look at new information. But it's not like I'm sitting here saying, "LOLZ, anyone who doesn't believe Broaddrick's claim is a Clinton apologist who has no basis for their opinion." I believe you that you've come to a conclusion that you think is reasonable, and I don't think you're just trying to get Clinton off the hook for political expediency. To be honest, I think this topic is a bit of a black hole, and those who have taken hard positions on both sides of this are on a fool's errand if they think there's some ultimate fact (or set of facts) that everyone else is missing that's going to prove their position once and for all. IMO, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 0:21:04 GMT -5
I'll see how I feel in the morning. I really do have a pathetic buttload of work to do, plus there is my news addiction. I cannot believe I am posting about this stupid shit when there are so many bigger stories and so many better things to do.
If you missed it in the shuffle, and you are interested, I have already discussed one additional point (of the many I discussed in my late, lamented, deleted posts. I am very sad about those. So. Much. Work.)
I have to note, again, that I do not think that this point, or any one of thing alone "proves" anything definitively. Any one of them could potentially be explained, I suppose. It is the sum total of them that lead me to think she's lying.
|
|