Saelune said:
Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Until Kavanaugh is formally tried and found innocent, he should not be on the top judicial court of the whole country. If you really cared about law, you would support an actual trial.
So basically, since Ford accused him publicly but refused to report a crime to the state police (which she could have done at any time, even now - Kavanaugh is not immune to the law, especially state law), he should just be permanently barred from the position? You see, that's the thing, when it stopped being politically valuable, suddenly everyone decided it wasn't worth pursuing, Ford included. Montgomery County Department of Police is even on record saying that they stand ready to investigate should any alleged victim file a complaint. Though it's noteworthy that because attempted rape and assault were misdemeanors in that state in 1982 (and you don't get to apply law that wasn't on the books at the time of the conduct), the statute of limitations has long since passed on those, though he could possibly be charged with assault with the intent to rape (which was a felony in 1982).
At the same time, I do support an actual trial, all Ford has to do is report it to the state police - state police don't act on media statements or statements before Congress. And then after investigation a district attorney has to decide there's a chance in hell of a conviction (which unless they get way more info than was made public which uniformly makes Kavanaugh look guilty, is itself unlikely). But that would imply that anyone (even Ford herself) cares one whit about the accusation beyond its political value.
Oh, speaking of "he was accused, so he shouldn't be allowed to have the position until he can conclusively prove otherwise", there were two "feminist art projects" back in the 90s worth some attention. At Oberlin, "Rapist of the Month" posters went up declaring a randomly selected male student to be a rapist. At University of Maryland, it was a listing of nearly every male student under the heading "NOTICE: THESE MEN ARE POTENTIAL RAPISTS." What jobs should they be banned from?
Saelune said:
Unfortunate. Doesn't make up for all the women raped and murdered and no one believing them. Funny how people suggest 'one example doesn't mean its true' until one example supports them.
I just happened upon an example that was conveniently recent. It's far from the only example of presumed guilt going wrong. The problem is that I can find tons and tons of examples of wrongful convictions for sex crimes, and tons of examples of people being subjected to violence for being accused of sex crimes. Also, to be fair, if someone told me they were murdered, I wouldn't believe them either.
I'd make a joke about how we could improve conviction rates for rape by allowing spectral evidence ala 17th century witch trials, but there was a fairly recent case where a guy spent 28 years in jail because a woman identified him as her rapist after she dreamed his face (turns out he didn't do it). Though that's a good example of why presuming innocence for Kavanaugh is not presuming guilt for Ford -- no one argued that the woman in the dream case wasn't raped and just made the whole thing up, but she still managed to get someone who did not rape her thrown in prison for nearly 3 decades. By misidentifying him, based on a dream.
Saelune said:
If Trump's presidency is legal, then the law is shitty. Legal doesn't equal justified. Only robots think otherwise. Slavery was legal once.
He got enough electoral votes to win the election, and no one has shown any real proof of tampering with the vote (and no, social media propaganda [Russian or otherwise] is not tampering with the vote). So, shitty as he is, he's who we elected and who we're stuck with until either A) he serves two terms, B) he does not get reelected after this term, C) both houses of congress can be convinced to vote to remove him from office, D) he dies or becomes otherwise incapable of holding office or E) he resigns. I'm listing those in what I think is the order of likelihood.
Personally, I'm hoping for B because C is highly unlikely with a GOP congress (which could but is unlikely to flip in 2020), D is either an assassination or blind luck, E is extremely unlikely. But B requires either the other GOP candidate (who is comparatively quite moderate and reasonable) to miraculously beat Trump in the primaries or the Dems to put forth a candidate who can actually win enough electoral votes (which means not totally alienating everyone who isn't in a coastal metro area).
On the upside, once he's out of office, he could be arrested and charged with anything there's enough evidence for, and that process is very much less a matter of party politics than impeachment.
Saelune said:
Progressives don't try to sugar coat men's rights as only straight white men's rights.
No, instead they only care about men's rights at *all* when those men happen to be in another demographic they actually care about and what they're fighting for is primarily about benefiting that other demographic, some of whom just happen to be men. Literally an afterthought, an accident of intersectionality.
You'll notice MRAs don't pretend it's only straight men's rights, they just only focus on things that effect men related to gender. For example the gender sentencing gap effects black men specifically more than other men, simply because black men have worse crime stats. If tomorrow the racial sentencing gap were to vanish but the gender sentencing gap were to remain (men of all colors receiving similar sentences but longer sentences than women of any color), fighting the sentencing gap would suddenly and sharply cease to be "progressive" and magically become "reactionary."
Saelune said:
And go figure, work to make women and men equal, you're also fighting for men's rights. MRA's arent for men equality, they are for men's superiority. And you know that.
You mean like the idea that in contested custody cases, courts should start from a position that shared custody is best for the child, unless there's a good reason it should be otherwise? Because the largest feminist lobby organization in the US refers to those who promote that idea as the "abuser's lobby" and essentially argues that the only reason men would want custody of their children is to use them as an instrument to abuse their ex. Definitely male supremacy there, wanting the courts to start from the position of assuming they should have equal access to their children unless there's a good reason otherwise.
I'd remind you that the recent court decision regarding selective service was the result of a suit brought by one of the oldest MRA groups in the US (the National Coalition For Men).
Maybe opening services for abused men, and expecting the same support by the government offered to services for women? Definitely supremacy there.
Or hell, maybe just trying to have a speaker talk at a college campus without anyone threatening violence or pulling fire alarms to silence them? Again, definitely supremacy there.
Hell, a surprising number of MRA issues are "law, policy, or the execution thereof harms men or benefits women disproportionately."
Saelune said:
If you believed that, you would be mad at Trump. Trump is an uncivil, vile, insulting piece of divisive garbage. Turnabout is fair play.
Yes, Trump is a lot of kinds of awful. But I'm not willing to destroy the system over one shitty president. That's really the fundamental difference here. He won the office by the rules under which the election is conducted, and there are limited ways to get him out of it. Personally, I'm hoping for "loses the election, arrested by New York police immediately after the inauguration", but there's no guarantees there - it's just the mostly likely possibility that doesn't involve two terms of him in office.
