It should be enough for the Democratic Party to renounce him and withdraw all support. Same with anyone who is credibly accused but cannot be criminally convicted.
Pretty sure this Ellison stuff started up from a third party witnessing Ellison dragging the woman.
Came from her son (previous relationship) describing things she had told him and then saying there was a video. His daughter (ditto) says she was a controlling nutjob. It's a generally ugly situation.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Pretty sure this Ellison stuff started up from a third party witnessing Ellison dragging the woman.
No, not as far as I know. From anything I've read this all started when Karen Monahan's son (she's the accuser) said he saw video of Ellison grabbing and dragging his mother and swearing at her. Specifically "dragging my mama off the bed by her feet, screaming and calling her a “fucking bitch” and telling her to get the fuck out of his house". Also some stuff about finding texts and the like from him but it's less clear there exactly what they supposedly say since the son mostly describes his interpretation of them. This was all back in like early August some time.
It should be enough for the Democratic Party to renounce him and withdraw all support. Same with anyone who is credibly accused but cannot be criminally convicted.
What do we understand to be the difference between a credible accusation and a non-credible accusation?
It should be enough for the Democratic Party to renounce him and withdraw all support. Same with anyone who is credibly accused but cannot be criminally convicted.
What do we understand to be the difference between a credible accusation and a non-credible accusation?
1) establishing that the accusation is plausible (I.e. we can show that the victim and accused actually could have met in the way described)
2) absence of any of the traditional markers of false claims: custody battles, exaggerated claims of Hollywood-style rape, an unwanted teen pregnancy to cover up for
It should be enough for the Democratic Party to renounce him and withdraw all support. Same with anyone who is credibly accused but cannot be criminally convicted.
What do we understand to be the difference between a credible accusation and a non-credible accusation?
1) establishing that the accusation is plausible (I.e. we can show that the victim and accused actually could have met in the way described)
2) absence of any of the traditional markers of false claims: custody battles, exaggerated claims of Hollywood-style rape, an unwanted teen pregnancy to cover up for
Those two are sufficient for me. Believe women
Ellison's accuser has been reticent to present evidence she claims to pocess that corroborates her claim, would that fall under 2?
That's incredibly thin as far as evidence, especially when no media outlet can corroborate this. And as EB pointed out above, Ellison's daughter disputes it as well, so two women with two different stories on what went one, who do we believe more?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It’s a crime that almost exclusively takes place in private with only the perpetrator and victim as witnesses.
If we take testimony of the victim as insufficient, we are perpetuating a society that victimized them in the first place, because there will very rarely be more that an investigation could hope to turn up.
I wish I could Agree this 50 times.
As far as Ellison and hard evidence, there was also this:
To be clear here, I'm not saying I don't believe her or think Ellison is innocent. I don't know what I believe and I don't envy anyone who has to make a decision on the ballot. But its worth exploring what our ideas regarding credible accusations and serious investigation mean and where they take us when the results aren't as clear as we might desire.
Two women have said Ellison was abusive. Both say he verbally and physically abused them. Monahan reported the abuse to a doctor. This should all sound very familiar. I liked Ellison but I have been burned before (Weiner) due to wanting to just believe a person because I liked them.
I mean I don't know who to believe either. I have no dog in the fight as it were. But no one else who has looked into the story can find anything to corroborate it. Its not like all the press in MN would cover up for Ellison especially after what happened to Franken.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Regardless of what happened the Democrats probably should cut him loose, as the party's ability to maintain credibility on this issue within the current political environment is more important than his political career.
Honestly at this point I'm okay with erring on the side that sometimes false accusations might be taken seriously because right now the needle is so far towards the "never listen, or listen and not care" side of things that believing women by default would be a massive improvement
+14
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
We have to be able to judge credibility—if we blindly decide to drop anybody who is accused, it’ll be weaponized by Project Veritas or some shit.
This might be credible enough; I’m just saying there does need to be some kind of evaluation.
It should be enough for the Democratic Party to renounce him and withdraw all support. Same with anyone who is credibly accused but cannot be criminally convicted.
What do we understand to be the difference between a credible accusation and a non-credible accusation?
1) establishing that the accusation is plausible (I.e. we can show that the victim and accused actually could have met in the way described)
2) absence of any of the traditional markers of false claims: custody battles, exaggerated claims of Hollywood-style rape, an unwanted teen pregnancy to cover up for
Those two are sufficient for me. Believe women
Ellison's accuser has been reticent to present evidence she claims to pocess that corroborates her claim, would that fall under 2?
Honestly I know nothing about Ellison, and I find the mystery video feels weird, but if multiple people are out and saying hes done this before, then yeah hes probably done this before and now. So get em out of there.
The 2006 accusation was similarly thin on evidence. That Vox article goes into it some.
My main issue with the current accusation is that the accuser seems more interested in winning the internet social media battle than actually finding justice.
Her story has changed a couple times, she has Reasons not to provide the video even to the authorities or reporters, and the texts released seem curated...and not even very damning. Her telling her doctor that she is in an abusive relationship is worrisome, but it is hardly a comprehensive chronicle and could mean a lot of things (compare to Dr. Blasey Ford's therapist notes, loaded with credibility).
Meanwhile Ellison doesn't even seem angry or defensive. He seems sad and worried about her.
The 2006 accusation was similarly thin on evidence. That Vox article goes into it some.
My main issue with the current accusation is that the accuser seems more interested in winning the internet social media battle than actually finding justice.
Her story has changed a couple times, she has Reasons not to provide the video even to the authorities or reporters, and the texts released seem curated...and not even very damning. Her telling her doctor that she is in an abusive relationship is worrisome, but it is hardly a comprehensive chronicle and could mean a lot of things (compare to Dr. Blasey Ford's therapist notes, loaded with credibility).
Meanwhile Ellison doesn't even seem angry or defensive. He seems sad and worried about her.
I was worried this would happen with Dr. Ford becoming a national figure. Victims are all different, they talk to people in different ways, they disclose in different ways, they react to public attention in different ways. Dr. Ford should not become the model we hold other victims up against. That's incredibly unfair and not a good way to judge credibility.
Same with expecting all abusers to act like Kavanaugh. Not all of them will take the same strategy. That doesn't mean they didn't commit abuse.
I have not read all the Ellison stuff but here are some general ways I would look at credibility (note none of these are dispositive either way, I'd look at all of them as a whole)
1. How and when did disclosure happen
2. What type of abuse is described (i.e. rule out simply outlandish stuff possibly)
3. What corroboration can be found (for the specific event and the behavior in general, i.e. do other victims come forward describing similar acts of abuse)
4. What does the accused say about the allegation
5. How willing are either party to give information to neutral investigators
6. What actual, concrete motive exists that would motivate the accuser to lie (beyond generalities like "women want attention and money" or other such gross things)
If the victim is acting counterintuitively to how most people think a victim would act, that doesn't mean she is lying. It might just mean our views of how victims should act are flawed. Especially when thrust into the spotlight.
+4
Options
MaratastikJust call me Mara, please!Registered Userregular
Meanwhile Ellison doesn't even seem angry or defensive. He seems sad and worried about her.
This is not compelling evidence one way or the other.
Abusers are almost always manipulators. This is exactly how a manipulator would act. They want you to see them as the "nice guy".
Kavanaugh on the other hand is an overly entitled goose who thinks he's owed whatever he wants and isn't afraid to act like it. And it shows.
Here's a question - if he is innocent of all charges, how would he act? Because I'm not seeing any reaction that wouldn't be perceived as guilty.
edit: For clarity's sake I'm not saying he is innocent, I haven't looked too much into the accusations but there have parts of it which I'm skeptical about that haven't been as rock solid as the accusations against someone like Kavanaugh.
It should be enough for the Democratic Party to renounce him and withdraw all support. Same with anyone who is credibly accused but cannot be criminally convicted.
What do we understand to be the difference between a credible accusation and a non-credible accusation?
1) establishing that the accusation is plausible (I.e. we can show that the victim and accused actually could have met in the way described)
2) absence of any of the traditional markers of false claims: custody battles, exaggerated claims of Hollywood-style rape, an unwanted teen pregnancy to cover up for
Those two are sufficient for me. Believe women
OK, then this accusation fails massively on point 2. Because this a white woman accusing a black man of sexual assault. Which is one of the few sorts of claims which is proven to be lies again and again. Far more of the cases of 'white woman accuses black man' end with the black man being proved to be completely innocent (likely after 10 years in jail) than any of the examples you gave.
Are we just going to forget about the massive endemic racism our society has? Because while we have plenty of both, we have far more racism!
Meanwhile Ellison doesn't even seem angry or defensive. He seems sad and worried about her.
This is not compelling evidence one way or the other.
Abusers are almost always manipulators. This is exactly how a manipulator would act. They want you to see them as the "nice guy".
Kavanaugh on the other hand is an overly entitled goose who thinks he's owed whatever he wants and isn't afraid to act like it. And it shows.
Here's a question - if he is innocent of all charges, how would he act? Because I'm not seeing any reaction that wouldn't be perceived as guilty.
edit: For clarity's sake I'm not saying he is innocent, I haven't looked too much into the accusations but there have parts of it which I'm skeptical about that haven't been as rock solid as the accusations against someone like Kavanaugh.
Well, he asked for an investigation from the House Ethics Committee, so that's somewhat indicative.
I have not read all the Ellison stuff but here are some general ways I would look at credibility (note none of these are dispositive either way, I'd look at all of them as a whole)
1. How and when did disclosure happen
2. What type of abuse is described (i.e. rule out simply outlandish stuff possibly)
3. What corroboration can be found (for the specific event and the behavior in general, i.e. do other victims come forward describing similar acts of abuse)
4. What does the accused say about the allegation
5. How willing are either party to give information to neutral investigators
6. What actual, concrete motive exists that would motivate the accuser to lie (beyond generalities like "women want attention and money" or other such gross things)
If the victim is acting counterintuitively to how most people think a victim would act, that doesn't mean she is lying. It might just mean our views of how victims should act are flawed. Especially when thrust into the spotlight.
I'd add that our ideas about how people should act depending on their specific 'role' (victim, accused, grieving parent, etc.) are all generally stupid and wrong.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Meanwhile Ellison doesn't even seem angry or defensive. He seems sad and worried about her.
This is not compelling evidence one way or the other.
Abusers are almost always manipulators. This is exactly how a manipulator would act. They want you to see them as the "nice guy".
Kavanaugh on the other hand is an overly entitled goose who thinks he's owed whatever he wants and isn't afraid to act like it. And it shows.
Here's a question - if he is innocent of all charges, how would he act? Because I'm not seeing any reaction that wouldn't be perceived as guilty.
edit: For clarity's sake I'm not saying he is innocent, I haven't looked too much into the accusations but there have parts of it which I'm skeptical about that haven't been as rock solid as the accusations against someone like Kavanaugh.
Honestly, if someone's a potential abuser, you can't really trust how they react. What I'm saying is you shouldn't really use how they react as evidence in and of itself.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Hi thread. In case you didn't hear, Joe Biden has been accused of being shitty. This week he made a video, uh, talking about it but not apologizing. So there's been time for him to be made aware of peoples' dissatisfaction with how he handled it. Surely, today, he will change how he answers right? Vox journalist below, with a video:
REPORTER: Do you think you owe these women a direct apology who have come forward so far? BIDEN: "I made it clear that if I made anyone feel uncomfortable, I feel bad about that" R: But an apology? B: "I'm sorry I didn't understand more. I'm not sorry for any of my intentions"
I've jokingly said that people are "dead to me" before but this is the first time in a long, long, long, long time where I've said it in absolute seriousness.
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited April 2019
Help I gritted my teeth so hard i ate my own head and i'm fucking dead now
edit: like, i get that he's a shitty old creep, that much is obvious by now, but how could he have watched these last couple years happen in the popular culture with the MeToo movement and that, and be this fucking completely insensitive and uncaring and callous? has he always been this shitty and it was just never so obvious?
It's worth remembering that Biden already had a boat anchor around his neck with regards to his atrocious behavior in the Thomas confirmation hearings - this has just made me want Biden to kindly go fuck off to anywhere but the media eye.
Former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner has been ordered to register as a sex offender as he nears the end of a 21-month prison sentence for having illicit online contact with a 15-year-old girl.
A New York City judge on Friday designated Weiner a Level 1 sex offender, meaning he’s thought to have a low risk of reoffending.
Weiner must register for a minimum of 20 years. He’s required to verify his address every year and visit a police station every three years to have a new picture taken.
It's worth remembering that Biden already had a boat anchor around his neck with regards to his atrocious behavior in the Thomas confirmation hearings - this has just made me want Biden to kindly go fuck off to anywhere but the media eye.
Ah, I had forgotten about all that. That was a bit before my time, but I suppose it's my own fault for not being educated about, like, still-living and active political figures.
The people this will really bother are not the people who are his core support in the Democratic party base.
+8
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
They were talking about Biden yesterday on NPR and basically came to the conclusion that the reason people like him is that he is older and they hope he can pull people back from trump and regain the lost blue states. The commentators brought up a history of saying and doing questionable at best things going back to things he said when he was running against Obama.
I think the nicest thing that they said about him was that he was the equivalent of a liberal Bush 2. "lovable and folksy"
For what it's worth, he will absolutely peel away wary trumpers and republicans who are sick of him. I know several personally who will wake up early to vote for Biden
In short, is fear. Fear of doing the right thing because you need Wall Street/AIPAC/Rayteon permission to be elected and if you don't have it, they will put forward a Republican to punish you. So you need obviously flawed politicians that won't threathen the power structure.
I think Biden is dead in the water once he starts talking more and more of his past decisions comes to light. Right now he's not getting full attention due to not actually* running. So for now Biden is whatever people imagine him to be with a sprinkling of uncle joe revisionist history.
I think Biden is dead in the water once he starts talking more and more of his past decisions comes to light. Right now he's not getting full attention due to not actually* running. So for now Biden is whatever people imagine him to be with a sprinkling of uncle joe revisionist history.
Also, as a reminder, Bill also thought that what he did didn't mattered. And yet, a big reason why Trump is President is because it did.
Speaking off, here's the first of (many) poorly edited attack ads:
Posts
Came from her son (previous relationship) describing things she had told him and then saying there was a video. His daughter (ditto) says she was a controlling nutjob. It's a generally ugly situation.
No, not as far as I know. From anything I've read this all started when Karen Monahan's son (she's the accuser) said he saw video of Ellison grabbing and dragging his mother and swearing at her. Specifically "dragging my mama off the bed by her feet, screaming and calling her a “fucking bitch” and telling her to get the fuck out of his house". Also some stuff about finding texts and the like from him but it's less clear there exactly what they supposedly say since the son mostly describes his interpretation of them. This was all back in like early August some time.
What do we understand to be the difference between a credible accusation and a non-credible accusation?
1) establishing that the accusation is plausible (I.e. we can show that the victim and accused actually could have met in the way described)
2) absence of any of the traditional markers of false claims: custody battles, exaggerated claims of Hollywood-style rape, an unwanted teen pregnancy to cover up for
Those two are sufficient for me. Believe women
Ellison's accuser has been reticent to present evidence she claims to pocess that corroborates her claim, would that fall under 2?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I wish I could Agree this 50 times.
As far as Ellison and hard evidence, there was also this:
http://www.startribune.com/ellison-ex-girlfriend-posts-medical-record-alleging-abuse/493785421/
http://lexiconmegatherium.tumblr.com/
Two women have said Ellison was abusive. Both say he verbally and physically abused them. Monahan reported the abuse to a doctor. This should all sound very familiar. I liked Ellison but I have been burned before (Weiner) due to wanting to just believe a person because I liked them.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This might be credible enough; I’m just saying there does need to be some kind of evaluation.
Not for me. YMMV
My main issue with the current accusation is that the accuser seems more interested in winning the internet social media battle than actually finding justice.
Her story has changed a couple times, she has Reasons not to provide the video even to the authorities or reporters, and the texts released seem curated...and not even very damning. Her telling her doctor that she is in an abusive relationship is worrisome, but it is hardly a comprehensive chronicle and could mean a lot of things (compare to Dr. Blasey Ford's therapist notes, loaded with credibility).
Meanwhile Ellison doesn't even seem angry or defensive. He seems sad and worried about her.
I was worried this would happen with Dr. Ford becoming a national figure. Victims are all different, they talk to people in different ways, they disclose in different ways, they react to public attention in different ways. Dr. Ford should not become the model we hold other victims up against. That's incredibly unfair and not a good way to judge credibility.
Same with expecting all abusers to act like Kavanaugh. Not all of them will take the same strategy. That doesn't mean they didn't commit abuse.
1. How and when did disclosure happen
2. What type of abuse is described (i.e. rule out simply outlandish stuff possibly)
3. What corroboration can be found (for the specific event and the behavior in general, i.e. do other victims come forward describing similar acts of abuse)
4. What does the accused say about the allegation
5. How willing are either party to give information to neutral investigators
6. What actual, concrete motive exists that would motivate the accuser to lie (beyond generalities like "women want attention and money" or other such gross things)
If the victim is acting counterintuitively to how most people think a victim would act, that doesn't mean she is lying. It might just mean our views of how victims should act are flawed. Especially when thrust into the spotlight.
This is not compelling evidence one way or the other.
Abusers are almost always manipulators. This is exactly how a manipulator would act. They want you to see them as the "nice guy".
Kavanaugh on the other hand is an overly entitled goose who thinks he's owed whatever he wants and isn't afraid to act like it. And it shows.
Here's a question - if he is innocent of all charges, how would he act? Because I'm not seeing any reaction that wouldn't be perceived as guilty.
edit: For clarity's sake I'm not saying he is innocent, I haven't looked too much into the accusations but there have parts of it which I'm skeptical about that haven't been as rock solid as the accusations against someone like Kavanaugh.
OK, then this accusation fails massively on point 2. Because this a white woman accusing a black man of sexual assault. Which is one of the few sorts of claims which is proven to be lies again and again. Far more of the cases of 'white woman accuses black man' end with the black man being proved to be completely innocent (likely after 10 years in jail) than any of the examples you gave.
Are we just going to forget about the massive endemic racism our society has? Because while we have plenty of both, we have far more racism!
Well, he asked for an investigation from the House Ethics Committee, so that's somewhat indicative.
I'd add that our ideas about how people should act depending on their specific 'role' (victim, accused, grieving parent, etc.) are all generally stupid and wrong.
Honestly, if someone's a potential abuser, you can't really trust how they react. What I'm saying is you shouldn't really use how they react as evidence in and of itself.
Shot:
Chaser:
(Account is a politics reporter for BuzzFeed.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
edit: like, i get that he's a shitty old creep, that much is obvious by now, but how could he have watched these last couple years happen in the popular culture with the MeToo movement and that, and be this fucking completely insensitive and uncaring and callous? has he always been this shitty and it was just never so obvious?
Ah, I had forgotten about all that. That was a bit before my time, but I suppose it's my own fault for not being educated about, like, still-living and active political figures.
The people this will really bother are not the people who are his core support in the Democratic party base.
I think the nicest thing that they said about him was that he was the equivalent of a liberal Bush 2. "lovable and folksy"
Matthew Stoller has the best explanation so far about this age gap:
In short, is fear. Fear of doing the right thing because you need Wall Street/AIPAC/Rayteon permission to be elected and if you don't have it, they will put forward a Republican to punish you. So you need obviously flawed politicians that won't threathen the power structure.
Also, as a reminder, Bill also thought that what he did didn't mattered. And yet, a big reason why Trump is President is because it did.
Speaking off, here's the first of (many) poorly edited attack ads: