if you didnt believe trumps accusers or roy moores accusers then you should probably keep your mouth shut on this one. the difference in how democrats handle their own vs how trumpublicans handle their own is night and day.
Here's one opinion about the relevance of that second accuser: An unrelated accusation of conduct X does not mean that a previous unsubstantiated accusation of the same conduct is true. However… In the case of habitual or characteristic misconduct—like being a sexual predator or a sexual harasser—the likelihood that there have been more, undisclosed episodes involving the individual accused is high. Thus the absence of a credible second (or third, fourth, and onward) accuser in a matter like this is legitimate evidence arguing for the innocence of the accused. An example would be Clarence Thomas. When subsequent allegations are substantially similar to the original accusation, they are especially damning. Bill Cosby is the poster case for this variation. Another exampole: Kevin Spacey. When the second and additional allegations are suspiciously timed, as during an election or a political controversy, when they involve general misconduct only, lack named accusers or when they are sketchy in their facts and proof, they should be regarded with extreme skepticism. The add-on Kavanaugh accusations fit this description. The fact that a court decision or an official investigation has not definitively determined that misconduct has taken place does not require individuals, groups and the public to discard commons sense, if they can eliminate bias from their decision-making. O.J. Simpson, it is fair to say, is guilty of murder, and it is completely fair to regard him in that light. Barry Bonds used banned and illegal drugs to enhance his major league baseball career. Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator who traded professional advancement for sex. We don’t need admissions here to come to informed decisions. Now what does all of this mean for Justin Fairfax, next in line to be Governor of Virginia if Governor Northam decides, as an honorable public servant should, that he has made such an irredeemable ass of himself by his obfuscations, double-back flips, and tap-dancing around the question of whether he had a photo of himself in blackface in his yearbook that no Virginian in his or her right mind could possibly feel secure trusting such a boob to handle the affairs of the Commonwealth? What is fair? If Fairfax indeed raped or sexually assaulted one or both of these women, and only he knows, then he should resign. No state should have a felon, charged or not, convicted or not as governor. If he did not rape either woman, then his decision is political as well as ethical. Can he do a good job as governor of Virginia if he cannot clear his name and convince objective observers that the accusation is false? Will sufficient numbers of Virginians trust him? Will substantial numbers of Virginians want to be governed by a plausibly accused rapist? The fact that he may want to be Governor, feel he deserves to be Governor, and that his career is being derailed unfairly are irrelevant to the decision. If he cannot do the job, if he will not be trusted, if his continued tenure in defiance of the accusations harms the state, the public, and the party, then he is ethically obligated to step down. innocent or not. The second accusation does not render him guilty. . . . it does render him unable to serve.
the fact that you somehow tie the two together shows exactly what is wrong. Blackface has nothing to do with a politician being removed from office. Just like excusing someone from saying the n word.
Of course it does. You realise the Fairfax stuff was known for years by dems and media? You know why it's coming out now?
https://nypost.com/2019/02/07/virgi...-lt-gov-justin-fairfax-allegation-a-year-ago/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...h-but-spiked-a-similar-story-about-a-democrat
Mainly because most know that in the Kavanaugh case it would have been shown to be true as well as it maybe proven in the Fairfax case the me too movement has shaken up quiet a few skeletons that some of these guys thought would never see the light of day.
I dont think he should resign. Kavanaugh was vindicated and this lad could be too. Once he resigns, there isnt any going back. It is silly to just believe any accusation in this day and age. But if it is true, he should get clinked up.
If he knows he is innocent then by all means he should not resign, but his situation is nothing like Kavanaughs. Nobody could even confirm that Kavanaugh met Ford and every witness she named disagreed with what she said. Not to mention Ford's story changed dozens of times. Fairfax admits to having sex with his accuser, they just disagree on if it was consensual.
He was in no way vindicated. In fact his Trump'esque political performance under questioning was a complete embarrassment for someone who is a judge and certainly someone being considered for a lifetime appointment. It was disgusting. A full and transparent investigation is what would have vindicated him but Trump decided they'd have a sham investigation to rubber stamp his confirmation.
Garbage. Fairfax's long game is probably suing the ever loving crap out of these broads once he gets some breathing room. He may very well have taken the Lt. Governor's role with no expectation of ascending above it, particularly this quickly or under these circumstances. So the harm done to him personally and professionally is far greater than the climax of Northam's saga, and stepping down prematurely would preclude him from asserting the loss of that role as damages.
Not saying I believe or don't believe either side in this kind of case, but the timing of when things come out puts up a little bit of a red flag. Most of these people have been in some form power for awhile. Why wait 10, 20, 30 years to bring it up?
The idea that these things are happening now more than they used to is highly debatable. What is happening is that these terms are being re-defined. Frankly, such re-definition is a key component of the feminist hive mind, and its strategy.
Maybe you're disagreeing with somebody else, because my quote specifically says there is a a continuing problem with sexual assault. The term sexual assault isn't being re-defined. Physically forcing somebody to perform oral sex on you was sexual assault in 2004. The only difference is that if they printed it in the papers in 2004, a lot of people would have said "I don't know if she's telling the truth", "its a he-said she-said", "she probably sent off the wrong signals", whatever it takes to justify inaction. More people now are willing to take action. Maybe that's the feminist hive mind. More likely, in 2004 we suffered too much from the male chauvinist mind that thought rape wasn't a crime that demanded attention.
Perhaps I misattributed or mis-interpreted what you said, but rape *is* being redefined. First, "sexual assault" and "rape" are often used interchangeably, and "sexual assault" can now be something as mild as grabbing someone by the arm. And the definition of "rape" is definitely being expanded. An interaction that was consensual the night before is now "rape," if the woman regrets it the next day.
