Trump and the 16 women

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

Just now, Henry Ford said:

I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm just asking what you're observing.

I'm observing most people assuming they're guilty by my interactions with people. 

[Henry Ford 60,520]

Just now, Joe Bryant said:

I'm observing most people assuming they're guilty by my interactions with people. 

Ah.  Okay.  Well, that makes sense, then.

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

Just now, Henry Ford said:

But they still have jobs in public positions.  They're just suspended.  I don't understand.

For now. 

My guess is they won't have public jobs 6 months from now. But again, purely a guess.

 

 

[pantherclub 2,005]

4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I thought I'd seen cut but I'm sure you're right. Cutting them could be a liability before an investigation. Should have said, "All the NFL Network guys are suspended pending investigation. Even if the investigation comes back ok, I'd say none of these guys is getting a job anytime soon in a public position. Again, I could be totally wrong - it's just how it feels to me."

One also has to wonder how the "investigation" is conducted in these crazy times.   If nfl/espn did an investigation and they came back and found nothing wrong and reinstated these guys then can you imagine the hell they would face?  Like I have been saying the pendulum has swung hard and heavy in one direction too quickly.  

[tonydead 7,539]

5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

What I said was "If anyone's still convinced that the accusers are lying about all of this, I know Stacia Robitaille personally. If it makes any difference, I don't believe for an instant she would lie about this."  It is similar behavior to that discussed by other accusers, albeit on a tamer scale.  If that's irrelevant to you, cool.  That's why I included "if it makes any difference."  

I hear what you're saying, but, you know it sounded like, "I personally know someone Trump hit on so all the sexual assault accusers are telling the truth".

[tonydead 7,539]

And hitting on someone isn't similar behavior as sexual assault.  Stop that.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

For now. 

My guess is they won't have public jobs 6 months from now. But again, purely a guess.

 

 

I don't know that Sapp will, but again... https://twitter.com/WarrenSapp/status/941038115103354880

[Sammy3469 10,246]

3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I don't know that Sapp will, but again... https://twitter.com/WarrenSapp/status/941038115103354880

If he was smart he'd claim CTE.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

And hitting on someone isn't similar behavior as sexual assault.  Stop that.

Trying to get a woman you don't know to bail on her husband and sleep with you and being aggressive about it is very similar behavior to what has been described by several accusers.  It's also in keeping with his interview with Billy Bush.  I understand if it doesn't make a difference to you.  But I'm afraid you don't get to be the arbiter of what I do and don't say.

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

And we also have to accept these companies are in the business of perception. They might come back and find Heath Evans didn't do much of anything. But weighing out the cost of what it looks like bringing him back compared to the supply of people out there who can do his job as a replacement and they may just move on. Perception is important. 

Would that be unfair to Evans if he truly didn't do anything? Sure. Is that the kind of "collateral damage" people will accept? That remains to be seen. My guess, and again it's purely a guess, is yes.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

Just now, Sammy3469 said:

If he was smart he'd claim CTE.

Way ahead of you.

Sapp said that there was "nothing that was memorable" about his talk with Faulk since Monday's revelations, although he added "my CTE acts up sometimes."

[Sammy3469 10,246]

Just now, Henry Ford said:

Way ahead of you.

Sapp said that there was "nothing that was memorable" about his talk with Faulk since Monday's revelations, although he added "my CTE acts up sometimes."

Yeah, but if he's going to claim it, he can't go with "sometimes".  

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

19 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Ah.  Okay.  Well, that makes sense, then.

Cool. Nothing outrageous or piling on. Just more "That's terrible about Faulk. I didn't know he was that kind of guy" type stuff. 

[Henry Ford 60,520]

3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

And we also have to accept these companies are in the business of perception. They might come back and find Heath Evans didn't do much of anything. But weighing out the cost of what it looks like bringing him back compared to the supply of people out there who can do his job as a replacement and they may just move on. Perception is important. 

Would that be unfair to Evans if he truly didn't do anything? Sure. Is that the kind of "collateral damage" people will accept? That remains to be seen. My guess, and again it's purely a guess, is yes.

Well, she's claiming he sent her nude pictures of himself.  I'd say that if she has nude pictures of Heath Evans, it's pretty likely he'll never work in broadcasting on a national scale again.

[pantherclub 2,005]

4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

And we also have to accept these companies are in the business of perception. They might come back and find Heath Evans didn't do much of anything. But weighing out the cost of what it looks like bringing him back compared to the supply of people out there who can do his job as a replacement and they may just move on. Perception is important. 

Would that be unfair to Evans if he truly didn't do anything? Sure. Is that the kind of "collateral damage" people will accept? That remains to be seen. My guess, and again it's purely a guess, is yes.

Exactly 

[pantherclub 2,005]

Just now, Henry Ford said:

Well, she's claiming he sent her nude pictures of himself.  I'd say that if she has nude pictures of Heath Evans, it's pretty likely he'll never work in broadcasting on a national scale again.

What if she sent him something?  See how this works?

[tonydead 7,539]

1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Trying to get a woman you don't know to bail on her husband and sleep with you and being aggressive about it is very similar behavior to what has been described by several accusers.  It's also in keeping with his interview with Billy Bush.  I understand if it doesn't make a difference to you.  But I'm afraid you don't get to be the arbiter of what I do and don't say.

It's legal behavior that happens in bars and night clubs all around the world everyday.  As long as he stopped when she said no.  Was that part of her story she told you?

[Henry Ford 60,520]

Just now, tonydead said:

It's legal behavior that happens in bars and night clubs all around the world everyday.  As long as he stopped when she said no.  Was that part of her story she told you?

If you'll read my posts, she didn't tell me any story.  But if you didn't read my posts, your responses are making a lot more sense.

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

Just now, Henry Ford said:

Well, she's claiming he sent her nude pictures of himself.  I'd say that if she has nude pictures of Heath Evans, it's pretty likely he'll never work in broadcasting on a national scale again.

Sure. I'm talking more in hypothetical terms. Even if it turns out Evans never did any of the stuff that's claimed, my guess is he doesn't have any sort of similar type job for quite a while. Maybe ever. 

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

@Henry Ford   am I remembering right that you're an attorney? I'm just a Footballguy. You're way more learned in this type of thing than I am. I'm assuming there are legal principles and such that deal with this kind of thing, right? Like where a crime is serious enough that things aren't exactly "fair" in how guilt or innocence is presumed? Granted, lots of this is more in the court of public perception than a real court of law, but are there principles that cross over? 

[Henry Ford 60,520]

2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Sure. I'm talking more in hypothetical terms. Even if it turns out Evans never did any of the stuff that's claimed, my guess is he doesn't have any sort of similar type job for quite a while. Maybe ever. 

Is that what happened to Peyton Manning? Jameis Winston? Casey Affleck? Shaun White? Marv Albert?  Some of those even probably did what they were accused of.  Albert was arrested and pled guilty and he came back, albeit in a very different time.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

2 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

@Henry Ford   am I remembering right that you're an attorney? I'm just a Footballguy. You're way more learned in this type of thing than I am. I'm assuming there are legal principles and such that deal with this kind of thing, right? Like where a crime is serious enough that things aren't exactly "fair" in how guilt or innocence is presumed? Granted, lots of this is more in the court of public perception than a real court of law, but are there principles that cross over? 

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you put it differently for me?

[Henry Ford 60,520]

As far as burden of proof...

In a criminal case, the thumb is heavily on the scale for the defendant.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high burden.

In a civil case (asking for damages) the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence - it has to be more likely than not that the plaintiff is correct.  If it's 50.00000000000000000001% in favor of the plaintiff, it's supposed to be a win for the plaintiff.  In practice, that's not generally how it works with a jury, but it's supposed to be the burden.

[Sabertooth 5,923]

Put them all under oath.  Donnie Two Scoop included.  That's where this ends.  Let's just get it over with.  

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

24 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you put it differently for me?

You answered it in your next post. I mean more like who has the burden of proof.

For what we're talking here with people like Sapp or Evans, it's more like a civil case, right?

 

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

26 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Is that what happened to Peyton Manning? Jameis Winston? Casey Affleck? Shaun White? Marv Albert?  Some of those even probably did what they were accused of.  Albert was arrested and pled guilty and he came back, albeit in a very different time.

There's always nuance to it. When someone as beloved as Manning is accused, there's so much goodwill on his side there has to be damning evidence. I don't think there was enough for him. Not sure on Winston. There's a petition with 16,000 signatures asking the Academy not invite Affleck to the Oscars.  Shaun White didn't seem to suffer much. Marv Albert was fired after being there 20 years and then was brought a couple of years later. 

But all of those cases were in the past. This is a very different time now. 

[Henry Ford 60,520]

8 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

There's always nuance to it. When someone as beloved as Manning is accused, there's so much goodwill on his side there has to be damning evidence. I don't think there was enough for him. Not sure on Winston. There's a petition with 16,000 signatures asking the Academy not invite Affleck to the Oscars.  Shaun White didn't seem to suffer much. Marv Albert was fired after being there 20 years and then was brought a couple of years later. 

But all of those cases were in the past. This is a very different time now. 

Affleck won an Oscar in February after his story had already come out.  That's less than ten months ago.  That's six months after Ailes resigned.  Two months before O'Reilly was forced to resign. 

As for 16,000 signatures... there were that many signatures on a petition to get the Cincinnati Bengals to change their name to the Cincinnati Harambes.  I can't say I take that all that seriously as a number of people who are upset.

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I understand that a lot of people feel scared about what might happen as a result of backlash, but I think it's pretty much akin to people feeling scared about a lot of other checks on white, male privilege.  I think that fear is more from our collective belief that if it were us and we suddenly had some kind of voice and power after years of being treated like something on the bottom of the country's collective shoe, we'd like to think we'd burn this country to the ground and dance on its ashes.  But I think it's fear itself, and not fear of a thing that's actually happening.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Henry Ford

[Joe Bryant 10,304]

17 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Affleck won an Oscar in February after his story had already come out.  That's less than ten months ago.  That's six months after Ailes resigned.  Two months before O'Reilly was forced to resign. 

As for 16,000 signatures... there were that many signatures on a petition to get the Cincinnati Bengals to change their name to the Cincinnati Harambes.  I can't say I take that all that seriously as a number of people who are upset.

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I understand that a lot of people feel scared about what might happen as a result of backlash, but I think it's pretty much akin to people feeling scared about a lot of other checks on white, male privilege.  I think that fear is more from our collective belief that if it were us and we suddenly had some kind of voice and power after years of being treated like something on the bottom of the country's collective shoe, we'd like to think we'd burn this country to the ground and dance on its ashes.  But I think it's fear itself, and not fear of a thing that's actually happening.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there on what people think. As I said, I've just experienced too many people instantly writing off the NFL Network guys to think otherwise. I know I have. I don't think it has anything to do with checks on white male privilege. Certainly not with Faulk or Sapp. And I don't think it's fear. I don't know any of the women personally who've come out with accusations but I don't sense any joy in dancing in the ashes at all. Most seem to be sincere and reluctant and restrained. I think if I were in their position, I'd feel similarly. 

I think if Affleck's situation were to happen today, we'd have a different reaction. I think it's a new reality of where we are in society. 

[tonydead 7,539]

48 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

You answered it in your next post. I mean more like who has the burden of proof.

For what we're talking here with people like Sapp or Evans, it's more like a civil case, right?

 

I dunno, in the past the civil cases were paid off, kept quiet and people kept their jobs.  Seem like that's the opposite of what everyone wants now.

[timschochet 33,373]

1 hour ago, tonydead said:

Almost for sure!!!!   

You're right. I should have just written that he is an abuser of women. Period. I have no doubts whatsoever.

[tonydead 7,539]

Just now, timschochet said:

You're right. I should have just written that he is an abuser of women. Period. I have no doubts whatsoever.

Should he see his day in court or should we just lock him up now?  Because that's what you really meant by "almost for sure"; it's not fair to say otherwise if you believe in our justice system.  

[timschochet 33,373]

Just now, tonydead said:

Should he see his day in court or should we just lock him up now?  Because that's what you really meant by "almost for sure"; it's not fair to say otherwise if you believe in our justice system.  

Oh I don't want to lock him up. Most of his actions weren't crimes (although rape is and if there is evidence of that he should be prosecuted and tried after his time in office is over.)

If I had my way, he would be impeached and removed from office. It's disgraceful that this man is our President.

[pantherclub 2,005]

10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Oh I don't want to lock him up. Most of his actions weren't crimes (although rape is and if there is evidence of that he should be prosecuted and tried after his time in office is over.)

If I had my way, he would be impeached and removed from office. It's disgraceful that this man is our President.

lollers you and commish are exactly the same.

[tonydead 7,539]

23 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Oh I don't want to lock him up. Most of his actions weren't crimes (although rape is and if there is evidence of that he should be prosecuted and tried after his time in office is over.)

If I had my way, he would be impeached and removed from office. It's disgraceful that this man is our President.

So you're judging him against your own morality, not what is legal or illegal?   We had our chance to speak up based on morality when we voted and that didn't work, even after the locker room talk.  That ship has sailed.

[The Commish 13,436]

38 minutes ago, tonydead said:

So you're judging him against your own morality, not what is legal or illegal?   We had our chance to speak up based on morality when we voted and that didn't work, even after the locker room talk.  That ship has sailed.

It really hasn't.  We can learn from our mistakes.  The larger challenge right now is getting willfully ignorant people to acknowledge they made a mistake.  Not sure that is doable and that ship might have indeed sailed.  

It's funny that the "legal vs illegal" line is starting to rear it's head in these threads...reminiscent of all the Hillary lovers trotting out the same tired position.

[The Commish 13,436]

53 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

lollers you and commish are exactly the same.

absolutely brilliant analysis...well done  

[pantherclub 2,005]

2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

absolutely brilliant analysis...well done  

Yeah you both want him to resign based on his policies and you both are reaching for anything and now it appears you guys are using this white knight issue as the latest reason.  It actually all makes perfect sense now.  You hate Trump so you are feigning this outrage. 

[TobiasFunke 29,546]

The idea that the ship has sailed on past controversies or shortcomings once someone is elected is absurd.  It's never worked that way in politics and it never will. Did conservatives stop bringing up "if you like your plan you can keep it" after Obama won a second term?

And in any event, Trump denied the allegations and promised exculpatory evidence and lawsuits against his accusers, which gave his supporters cover to dismiss those accusations, which many did according to polling. He hasn't provided that evidence or brought those lawsuits and the White House continues to say that these women are all lying, so these issues are ongoing. And if the Zervos lawsuit isn't dismissed or delayed by the judge in the next couple weeks they're going to become a dominant story of his presidency.

Edited December 14, 2017 by TobiasFunke

[The Indestructible 2,903]

If you use the term "white knight," you don't understand what the objection is or what the #metoo movement is about.  

 

[The Indestructible 2,903]

3 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

The idea that the ship has sailed on past controversies or shortcomings once someone is elected is absurd.  It's never worked that way in politics and it never will. Did conservatives stop bringing up "if you like your plan you can keep it" after Obama won a second term?

And in any event, Trump denied the allegations and promised exculpatory evidence and lawsuits against his accusers, which gave his supporters cover to dismiss those accusations, which many did according to polling. He hasn't provided that evidence or brought those lawsuits and the White House continues to say that these women are all lying, so these issues are ongoing. And if the Zervos lawsuit isn't dismissed or delayed by the judge in the next couple weeks they're going to become a dominant story of his presidency.

Fun experiment: tell a conservative that the ship has sailed on prosecuting HRC.  

[tonydead 7,539]

16 minutes ago, The Commish said:

It really hasn't.  We can learn from our mistakes.  The larger challenge right now is getting willfully ignorant people to acknowledge they made a mistake.  Not sure that is doable and that ship might have indeed sailed.  

It's funny that the "legal vs illegal" line is starting to rear it's head in these threads...reminiscent of all the Hillary lovers trotting out the same tired position.

It really hasn't.....blah blah.....it might have indeed.   Yeah, nothing confusing with your posts.  

You (and Tim) think it's possible to impeach Trump without charging him with something illegal.   That's nuts.

[TobiasFunke 29,546]

5 minutes ago, The Indestructible said:

Fun experiment: tell a conservative that the ship has sailed on prosecuting HRC.  

Why didn't any of these people tell Trump the ship had sailed on questioning Obama's birth certificate?

[tonydead 7,539]

10 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

The idea that the ship has sailed on past controversies or shortcomings

Nobody said that. 

These two think they can get Trump out of office based on their moral view of the world.  You're only chance to do that was during the election.  

[tonydead 7,539]

8 minutes ago, The Indestructible said:

Fun experiment: tell a conservative that the ship has sailed on prosecuting HRC.  

 

1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Why didn't any of these people tell Trump the ship had sailed on questioning Obama's birth certificate?

RIF

[Henry Ford 60,520]

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

It really hasn't.....blah blah.....it might have indeed.   Yeah, nothing confusing with your posts.  

You (and Tim) think it's possible to impeach Trump without charging him with something illegal.   That's nuts.

It would be helpful to the discussion if you would try reading what people write a little more charitably.

"We had our chance to speak up based on morality when we voted and that didn't work, even after the locker room talk.  That ship has sailed." It really hasn't

But there's an even bigger challenge of getting the willfully ignorant to acknowledge they made a mistake. That ship may have sailed.

Those are two different propositions he spoke on. 

[The Indestructible 2,903]

2 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Nobody said that. 

These two think they can get Trump out of office based on their moral view of the world.  You're only chance to do that was during the election.  

We think that idea is absurd.

[tonydead 7,539]

13 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It would be helpful to the discussion if you would try reading what people write a little more charitably.

"We had our chance to speak up based on morality when we voted and that didn't work, even after the locker room talk.  That ship has sailed." It really hasn't

But there's an even bigger challenge of getting the willfully ignorant to acknowledge they made a mistake. That ship may have sailed.

Those are two different propositions he spoke on. 

What's your objective for getting people to acknowledge they made a mistake?  Because context matters and we were talking about removing Trump from office based on morality.  

Edited December 14, 2017 by tonydead

[Henry Ford 60,520]

8 minutes ago, tonydead said:

What's your objective for getting people to acknowledge they make a mistake?  Because context matters and we were talking about removing Trump from office based on morality.  

People, or the willfully ignorant?  The overwhelming majority of people in this country disapprove of the President right now. But a number of willfully ignorant people would be a problem even if he's removed from office, for a number of reasons.  

He can be removed without "the willfully ignorant" coming to Jesus, as it were.  But that doesn't solve the problems that put him there in the first place, nor does it help this country come back together.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

That's what I mean by reading things charitably.  We all need to be better about it - everyone on the internet.  But when there are multiple possible interpretations of what someone wrote, it can be helpful to (1) ask "did you mean X, or Y, or Z?" or just "can you explain that more so I understand what you mean?"; or (2) assume the person means the one that is reasonable.  Of course, all that goes out the window with history, and long-standing arguments and such.  Just saying it can be helpful to discussion.

[The Commish 13,436]

52 minutes ago, tonydead said:

It really hasn't.....blah blah.....it might have indeed.   Yeah, nothing confusing with your posts.  

You (and Tim) think it's possible to impeach Trump without charging him with something illegal.   That's nuts.

Link?