Virgina Governor’s hours are numbered, per any standard
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
I’m not sure any of them. We’ll see. But I guess we can’t make them step down. But you’ve seen how many Dems have asked them to. As opposed to GOP with Steve King and of course, Trump.
I think some people are of the mindset that if you don’t 100% believe the accuser immediately, then you’re 100% dismissing the accuser. Then others think if you’re even looking into the accusations, that automatically means you 100% believe the accuser. You’re obviously neither, but those folks are out there and that’s unfortunate. It makes it difficult to even discuss these situations with some people.
My bet is on the AG becoming Governor. Democrats are all in on believing the accused is guilty when it comes to a sex crime allegation. The classically liberal presumption of innocence is no longer relevant when it comes to politics and sex crime allegations against men in your party - the accuser must be 100 percent believed. He and the Gov will be pressured to resign and they’ll salvage the office for the Democrats with the AG. That’s my guess anyway.
The presumption of innocence exists only in criminal trials. Period.
According to yesterday's NY Times piece, the only one of the three who have suggested they might resign is the AG. The Gov and Lt Gov have said they won't.
Now, I know I'm in the minority here but not inclined to think the AG and Gov should be forced out based on 30+ year old behavior, absent evidence that such attitudes continue to be representative of who they are today.
The Lt Gov...well if the accusations against him are true then he should go but, as with Kavanaugh, it's a tough thing to prove. Though I admit I haven't read the detail's of his incident.
That’s what you say now. That’s not the way it has been for most of our history. The presumption of innocence is a principle most people lived by in day to day life as well. Many of us still do.
Last edited:
I say it because it’s true. There’s no presumption of innocence in civil trials, there’s no presumption of innocence in job interviews (or Supreme Court nominations), and no one employs such a presumption in their daily lives. You’re defending a hallowed principal that has never existed.
We've had this conversation before. It's still baloney. Most people make snap judgments about people, often based on extrinsic factors that have nothing to do with relevant facts, and always have.
Now you're just lying. Republicans came out in droves asking for King to step down.
Yes we have, and we still disagree. I don’t presume a person is guilty of a crime soley because he/she is accused of it. I may come to believe that as evidence accumulates, of course. I was always taught not to make those kind of judgments about others. I know others were too.
And just like last time, you are confusing an aspirational personal behavior with some kind of foundational national principle. It's great that you try not to judge people. But it only became a deep-rooted principle among conservatives during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Nope. It has been an observable principle of most Americans for my entire life. It has only changed in politically motivated Democrats (mostly) in recent years - and they totally abandoned the principle during the Kavanaugh hearings. Why would anyone aspire to presuming people are guilty on unproven and unprovable allegations? Seems like a crappy and judgmental way of living life to me, but to each his own I suppose.
A presumption of guilt is not the only alternative to a presumption of innocence. Perhaps the reason you must cling to this delusion is that you haven't considered this.
Burdens of persuasion exists in everything we do. Its an integral part of decision making. The mirror image of this is a presumption. I acknowledge that some presumptions are stronger than others, but they are realmost always present, including in civil trials and job interviews. The reason a given presumaption is not always couched in therms if “innocence” is because that isn’t always relevant. But where it is relevant, Aloha is correct, it’s pretty much universally recognized.
Show me where the presumption of innocence is actually applied outside of criminal trials.
It's applied by republicans when other republicans are accused of sexual misconduct.
I don’t cling to delusions. We’re done with this discussion if you must cling to the presumption that your opinion an everything is valid and all other opinions are delusions. I have work to do anyway. Lunch is done.
Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaderick and Paula Jones say "hi"
If we're going to go with the "Kavanaugh" effect then, yes we absolutely believe the accuser. Of course it doesn't really matter, it was in the past, and he continues as is.
Because as reasonable Republicans have demonstrated in this thread we should believe the accuser and then pronounce it not a big deal and it has no affect on how the LT Gov will do his job.
Am I doing this right?
Because as reasonable Republicans have demonstrated in this thread we should believe the accuser and then pronounce it not a big deal and it has no affect on how the LT Gov will do his job.
Am I doing this right?
So sometimes "that was a long time ago" is a legitimate excuse and sometimes it isn't.
The answer depends on the color of your shorts?
It worked for Clinton with the exception of the accusing women being called "bimbos".
Color of shorts has no impact on me. You think I’m unaware that Northam is a Democrat?
I am just pointing out the laughable hypocrisy we see based on who's ox is being goared.
It all seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.
The Governor's reaction sealed his fate. He could have approached it differently and might have survived.
When someone is accused of sexual assault, I don't automatically believe the accuser...but then are there really lots of people saying that is what should happen? I believe we should automatically take the accusation seriously, consider all the relevant details, and try to get to the bottom of it. Aloha keeps bringing up Kavanaugh and the idea that Democrats said people have to believe every accusation against him. That's not the case at all. A couple of the accusations weren't credible. Ford was credible and more credible in her testimony than Kavanaugh was. So, yeah, I believe a lot of what she said while I don't believe much of what some other people said (and that includes Kavanaugh.) Moreover, there are huge differences between voting for someone after taking into account the accusations and all of the relevant details vs. having them removed from elected office once you learn about those details...just as there is a huge difference between removing someone from appointed office as there is deciding to give them a lifetime appointment after learning about accusations and relevant details. So, the Lt. Governor's fate is decided by the details of the accusation and how he reacts to them.
This isn't a court of law. It's deciding who should hold positions of leadership in our government. So, if the accusers are credible, the accused lacks credibility, and the response to the accusations is ugly, it's gonna go bad for the accused.
Poor Paula, she was so traumatized she endorsed an accused sexual predator for president. Jaunita Broaderick? Not sure what to think. Was she lying when she said Clinton never did anything to her, or when she said Clinton did?
You might be right but let's bet on it. I'll bet on the Lieutenant Governor becoming the Governor and you've got the AG. The loser pays for two rounds of scotch. If the Governor survives or someone else becomes Governor the bet is off. Bet?
FWIW, Jill Harth asked for and received a job on Trumps campaign after her “assault”.
Summer Zervos told everyone she knew about how much Trump helped her out in life and how he’d make a great president, after being assaulted.
:shrug:
The Governor has stuck it out this long. Absent any additional embarrassments why would he resign if he hasn't already?
I'm of the opinion that neither the Gov nor the AG should resign over poor costume decisions from 30+ years ago. But I also found the Kavanaugh thing ridiculous (which supposedly occurred at an even much younger age). So I'm not likely the type of person that matters in these topics.
I don't know the details of the It Gov....but if true.... that's actually a full fledged adult operating at a professional level....and fully fair game.
I don't know the details of the It Gov....but if true.... that's actually a full fledged adult operating at a professional level....and fully fair game.
I agree. I think much of the outrage is disingenuous posing. How many of these people were calling for Robert Byrd's head in the 70's, 80's, 90's, or beyond? And that guy was an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK. The fact is...whether any of The Woke admit it or not...things were different 35 years ago. If that's not so, why was Robert Byrd in office for so long?
I'll take Northam serving out his term, and if that happens you can both buy me a scotch.
So that only leaves 17 others....
And both things can be true. People do and say things to advance their careers.
