Here Comes The Left

[Derec]

Yes, the benefit she gains by submitting: safety from more damage—to her or another vulnerable person. . Sometimes to keep housing or her job. Those constitute coercion-ie rape.

What would you consider "coercion" here?

The rate of false allegations of rape is also quite low. Most organizations that collect the statistics estimate 3-5%.

I do not think it's nearly that low, especially since the organizations that claim such low rates tend to be rape advocacy organizations with an agenda. But even if it was that low, 1 in 20 or 30 is no reason not to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do believe that there are plenty of instances where the aggressor does not consider it rape but the victim does—and so does the law.

And there are also instances where the accuser considers it rape but the accused does not - and neither does the law. Or where she knows that there wasn't a rape but she makes up the story anyway.

Some of it is genuine misunderstanding. I get that a young inexperienced person may not pick up on signals that the other person is not enthusiastic about sexual contact.

Not being "enthusiastic" in itself does not mean there is no consent. If she agrees to sex, then it's not rape even if she regrets it later or did not agree to it enthusiastically. And nobody should be required to pick up on subtle signals or else go to jail.

The same grace needs to be granted to the victim, usually similarly young and inexperienced and may find herself ( usually herself) in a situation she did not anticipate. For young people especially it is not unusual to find oneself out of your depth in any number of scenarios unrelated to sex and related to sex. Learning curve can be very steep.

But that "grace" should not mean that if she agrees to sex he should be prosecuted because she maybe didn't really want to agree to sex but did not communicate that in any way.

No one is suggesting that anyone be convicted without due process.

How about expelled from university without due process?

 

[Toni]

Yes, the benefit she gains by submitting: safety from more damage—to her or another vulnerable person. . Sometimes to keep housing or her job. Those constitute coercion-ie rape.

What would you consider "coercion" here?

The rate of false allegations of rape is also quite low. Most organizations that collect the statistics estimate 3-5%.

I do not think it's nearly that low, especially since the organizations that claim such low rates tend to be rape advocacy organizations with an agenda. But even if it was that low, 1 in 20 or 30 is no reason not to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do believe that there are plenty of instances where the aggressor does not consider it rape but the victim does—and so does the law.

And there are also instances where the accuser considers it rape but the accused does not - and neither does the law. Or where she knows that there wasn't a rape but she makes up the story anyway.

Some of it is genuine misunderstanding. I get that a young inexperienced person may not pick up on signals that the other person is not enthusiastic about sexual contact.

Not being "enthusiastic" in itself does not mean there is no consent. If she agrees to sex, then it's not rape even if she regrets it later or did not agree to it enthusiastically. And nobody should be required to pick up on subtle signals or else go to jail.

The same grace needs to be granted to the victim, usually similarly young and inexperienced and may find herself ( usually herself) in a situation she did not anticipate. For young people especially it is not unusual to find oneself out of your depth in any number of scenarios unrelated to sex and related to sex. Learning curve can be very steep.

But that "grace" should not mean that if she agrees to sex he should be prosecuted because she maybe didn't really want to agree to sex but did not communicate that in any way.

No one is suggesting that anyone be convicted without due process.

How about expelled from university without due process?

No one has suggested that anyone be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all legal rights observed, legal counsel provided, etc.

I think that (some) men have a pretty vested interest in believing that women lie about rape. Otherwise, they might have to think poorly of some of their buddies or even of themselves.

Thinking of young adults abd teens, I think that there definitely can be some room for differing perceptions. Certainly judgement can be clouded by growing sexual urgency coupled with lack of general life and sex experience.. it would be lovely to think that couples are deeply in puppy love and heavily invested in their partners well being but honestly, young, inexperienced, flooded with hormones: people do not perceive situations the save way.

Which underscores the need for enthusiastic consent. A more passive person might withdraw emotionally if they are overwhelmed and reluctant it avoids t and a more dominant person could see acquiescence as consent instead of fear and not knowing what to do to get out if a situation. We’re talking heat if the mom t decisions being made without much actual thought process.

But certainly there are those, mostly males, who feel entitled. They are under the impression that masculine means in charge Abd taking what they want, abd ridiculing any who disagree. Abd some are mean fucks who have a violent streak. Throw in easy access to a lot of porn Abd sexually violent t video games.

Of course the same scenarios existed 50 years ago and more minis such easy access to porn and violent video games.

Plus the whole: a good girl dresses modestly, smiles but not too much, wants to please, but not too eagerly, doesn’t really want it like sex ( so no need to try to please her) so you gave makes programmed by society to act more aggressively than many might Abd girls being more passive and the norm is that all blame us in the girl/woman who should have known better and probably wanted it.

It can be a hard conceit to accept that the object of your attentions may have a different level of arousal or willingness than you do.

Of course almost all of us survive our teens/20’s mostly unscathed but some version of these attitudes persist well past middle age.

 

[Bronzeage]

You're both going too far, just in opposite directions.

In developed countries it comes down to whether there are signs of life. But that is something that we can at best imperfectly measure. There is no magical instant of death to record whether it happened inside or outside. But in some places they do not count it as a live birth if survival is unquestionably impossible. And I suspect the punishment crowd drives up the rate. I'm thinking of a local case, way too premature to have a chance. The doctor did the humane thing and put it in a room and closed the door. A nurse went ape over that. You have to try to save it! The way the country is going the doctors are going to try on cases that would properly be classified as stillbirths.

I think that was an episode of Call the Midwife.

Infant mortality is directly related to prenatal care, or rather the lack of it. This is something socialist countries sort of take for granted. They look at the US and see people and politicians who claim life is sacred, but don't seem to want to do the simple things that preserve it.

A lack of prenatal care is unlikely to cause a prompt fatality, and thus has little effect on stillbirth vs infant mortality.

As with basically every such issue the people who stand to benefit from the issue will make it appear bigger than it is. And the people harmed by it will make it appear smaller than it is.

I'm not sure who benefits from greater infant mortality, however the count is made, but things like high blood pressure and impaired kidney function have a direct effect on the viability of a new born. After been responsible for two pregnancies in which these were severe complications, I can say prenatal care is critical care made the difference. Both these problems have barely discernable symptoms until it's too late.

Those who are solving or purporting to solve a problem benefit from the existence of the problem.

The Republicans have basically raised this to an art form but it is by no means exclusive to them. Real world, the fundamental job of any organization is to protect it's existence.

By this measure, Fire fighters benefit from arson. I'll take you concede value of prenatal care for reducing infant mortality.

 

[Derec]

In the 90’s I doubt there was any surveillance, particularly in Bergdorf Goodmans and certainly not in the dressing rooms.

Surveillance cameras were common in the 90s. What are you talking about?
They would not be in the changing rooms, of course, but they would be outside, overlooking the floors. And the store would likely be busy, with many customers and sales associates around. EJC's story is just inherently unbelievable to me for that reason.

She puts it late 95-early ‘96–so around the holidays.

Which is vague enough that it precludes the "I wasn't even in NYC" defense unless he was away for months.

I agree that she should have gone to the cops. I understand why she did not, particularly because her friends urged her to stay quiet because it was DJTvwhobwas a BFD in the 90’s in NYC.

Again with the "BFD". What is that? I don't think he was ever in the Boston Fire Department.

From the victim’s standpoint, such attacks as what Ms Carroll experienced come out of nowhere.

Allegedly experienced.

I’m only inserting my experience with hers to try to show you the thinking of assault victims.

But you cannot let your experience cloud your judgment here. Just because an assault happened to you does not mean that it happened to her as well. That kind of transference would be as unfounded as me saying that just because I can't imaging trying to rape a woman that Trump must not have tried to rape her either. Personal experience only goes so far in assessing what other people may have done or may have had done to them.
So we have to go by evidence. There is precious little of that in this case, and the baseline probability of someone with as much to lose as 90s Donald Trump trying to rape an acquaintance in a busy upscale department store does not read as very likely to me. That does not make it impossible, but we should require significant evidence to overcome the lack of verisimilitude in the story. Had she claimed that he invited her to his hotel room or penthouse apartment, or any other private space, now there is some plausibility in that plan (even if there still wouldn't be evidence) compared with an assault in a changing room at Bergdorf's.

It’s so much more complicated than having your wallet or your car stolen. Or getting into a fight and someone getting hurt. Getting mugged.

I am sure it is complicated psychologically and emotionally. But it is also complicated morally and legally. That is because sexual assault involves an activity that millions of people engage in consensually every day. For example, what if DJT and EJC did hook up at Bergdorf's. A clandestine affair in a semi-public area is kind of exciting, and far more verisimilitudinous than trying to rape an acquaintance in a changing room. A woman following a man into a changing room seems far more likely in order to have a risque thryst rather than whatever EJC was saying - something about helping DJT select lingerie for a different woman.

 

[Derec]

It’s not really. Do you think that everyone who takes someone else considers it raie? Recognizes that the other person is saying no, trying to avoid the contact, trying to escape. Or just freezing, hoping it will stop soon.

It depends on the exact circumstances. There is definitely a possibility in a breakdown in communications. I think it is important for anybody to speak up if they are not comfortable where things are going. Both men and women.

You think it’s misandrist. I don’t. I think the same applies no matter the sexes or genders involved.

I think this passage was misandrist.

Men have vastly different criteria with respect to their own thoughts, feelings, actions and perceptions compared with the criteria they use when evaluating women's thoughts, actions, feelings and perceptions. Men as a whole do not experience as much empathy as do women. Men are infantilized in this way, to believe that we women must accommodate whatever their needs are, with relation to sex or their fragile egos. And women do this, in part, to avoid greater physical harm. We minimize and excuse when we really should not because as it happens, it's never just that one time or that one person. Nope it's a pattern of behavior.

I think women are far more coddled and "infantilized" in our society than men. Not even close.

 

[Derec]

No one has suggested that anyone be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all legal rights observed, legal counsel provided, etc.

There have been feminists who suggested that the burden of proof should be reversed in rape cases.
This is New Zealand, but still very disturbing:
Accused rapists would have to prove consent in law reversal proposed by New Zealand politicians

And what about being expelled from university? That is a life-changing consequence being meted out with very little evidence or ability of defendant to defend himself. There have been cases where exculpatory evidence, such as communications from the accuser, were ignored - see for example the Vassar case.

I think that (some) men have a pretty vested interest in believing that women lie about rape. Otherwise, they might have to think poorly of some of their buddies or even of themselves.

Some women most definitely lie about rape. The feminist myth that "women don't lie about rape" is the myth of female moral purity and not rooted in reality at all.

Thinking of young adults abd teens, I think that there definitely can be some room for differing perceptions. Certainly judgement can be clouded by growing sexual urgency coupled with lack of general life and sex experience.. it would be lovely to think that couples are deeply in puppy love and heavily invested in their partners well being but honestly, young, inexperienced, flooded with hormones: people do not perceive situations the save way.

But that also means that the female's perception should not be taken as the ultimate standard.

Which underscores the need for enthusiastic consent. A more passive person might withdraw emotionally if they are overwhelmed and reluctant it avoids t and a more dominant person could see acquiescence as consent instead of fear and not knowing what to do to get out if a situation. We’re talking heat if the mom t decisions being made without much actual thought process.

"Enthusiastic consent" can be the ideal to strive toward, but it can nor should it ever be a legal or administrative standard. First, how do you determine sufficient level of "enthusiasm" in a court of law or a college tribunal room? Second, I can think of a plethora of circumstances where one may engage in sex without much enthusiasm, but still completely consensually.
Take couples with differing levels of sex drive. Or take sex workers. The threshold beyond which any administrative or criminal sanction is imposed cannot be a level of "enthusiasm". It can only be consent, given freely, but beyond that without regard as to why it was given.

But certainly there are those, mostl y males, who feel entitled. They are under the impression that masculine means in charge Abd taking what they want, abd ridiculing any who disagree. Abd some are mean fucks who have a violent streak. Throw in easy access to a lot of porn Abd sexually violent t video games.

What evidence is there that porn or "video games" increases the danger of somebody raping someone?

Of course the same scenarios existed 50 years ago and more minis such easy access to porn and violent video games.

There was rape back in time without easy access to porn and without GTA video games or such.

Plus the whole: a good girl dresses modestly, smiles but not too much, wants to please, but not too eagerly, doesn’t really want it like sex ( so no need to try to please her) so you gave makes programmed by society to act more aggressively than many might Abd girls being more passive and the norm is that all blame us in the girl/woman who should have known better and probably wanted it.

But if women being more coy and requiring men to pursue is the societal norm (with some biological "priming" no doubt) then we also have to accept a certain amount of forwardness and non-physical aggression. And while decades past may have too forgiving of "boys will be boys" I think our current society is erring in the other direction.

It can be a hard conceit to accept that the object of your attentions may have a different level of arousal or willingness than you do.

May be. But it is also true that arousal and willingness can change over time. A lot of women like being pursued, at least by a guy they find attractive. Of course, it does not justify rape or anything like that, and a "no" must be respected. But it does speak against the nonsense like saying that if she consents to sex at some point in time after saying "no" previously, then it's not really consent because a woman can't change her mind from "no" to "yes", only from "yes" to "no".

 

[Derec]

By this measure, Fire fighters benefit from arson. I'll take you concede value of prenatal care for reducing infant mortality.

It does happen.
  Firefighter arson

 

[Bronzeage]

By this measure, Fire fighters benefit from arson. I'll take you concede value of prenatal care for reducing infant mortality.

It does happen.
  Firefighter arson

We talked about this before. Irrelevant facts do not strengthen an argument.

 

[Toni]

No one has suggested that anyone be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all legal rights observed, legal counsel provided, etc.

There have been feminists who suggested that the burden of proof should be reversed in rape cases.
This is New Zealand, but still very disturbing:
Accused rapists would have to prove consent in law reversal proposed by New Zealand politicians

And what about being expelled from university? That is a life-changing consequence being meted out with very little evidence or ability of defendant to defend himself. There have been cases where exculpatory evidence, such as communications from the accuser, were ignored - see for example the Vassar case.

I think that (some) men have a pretty vested interest in believing that women lie about rape. Otherwise, they might have to think poorly of some of their buddies or even of themselves.

Some women most definitely lie about rape. The feminist myth that "women don't lie about rape" is the myth of female moral purity and not rooted in reality at all.

Thinking of young adults abd teens, I think that there definitely can be some room for differing perceptions. Certainly judgement can be clouded by growing sexual urgency coupled with lack of general life and sex experience.. it would be lovely to think that couples are deeply in puppy love and heavily invested in their partners well being but honestly, young, inexperienced, flooded with hormones: people do not perceive situations the save way.

But that also means that the female's perception should not be taken as the ultimate standard.

Which underscores the need for enthusiastic consent. A more passive person might withdraw emotionally if they are overwhelmed and reluctant it avoids t and a more dominant person could see acquiescence as consent instead of fear and not knowing what to do to get out if a situation. We’re talking heat if the mom t decisions being made without much actual thought process.

"Enthusiastic consent" can be the ideal to strive toward, but it can nor should it ever be a legal or administrative standard. First, how do you determine sufficient level of "enthusiasm" in a court of law or a college tribunal room? Second, I can think of a plethora of circumstances where one may engage in sex without much enthusiasm, but still completely consensually.
Take couples with differing levels of sex drive. Or take sex workers. The threshold beyond which any administrative or criminal sanction is imposed cannot be a level of "enthusiasm". It can only be consent, given freely, but beyond that without regard as to why it was given.

But certainly there are those, mostl y males, who feel entitled. They are under the impression that masculine means in charge Abd taking what they want, abd ridiculing any who disagree. Abd some are mean fucks who have a violent streak. Throw in easy access to a lot of porn Abd sexually violent t video games.

What evidence is there that porn or "video games" increases the danger of somebody raping someone?

Of course the same scenarios existed 50 years ago and more minis such easy access to porn and violent video games.

There was rape back in time without easy access to porn and without GTA video games or such.

Plus the whole: a good girl dresses modestly, smiles but not too much, wants to please, but not too eagerly, doesn’t really want it like sex ( so no need to try to please her) so you gave makes programmed by society to act more aggressively than many might Abd girls being more passive and the norm is that all blame us in the girl/woman who should have known better and probably wanted it.

But if women being more coy and requiring men to pursue is the societal norm (with some biological "priming" no doubt) then we also have to accept a certain amount of forwardness and non-physical aggression. And while decades past may have too forgiving of "boys will be boys" I think our current society is erring in the other direction.

It can be a hard conceit to accept that the object of your attentions may have a different level of arousal or willingness than you do.

May be. But it is also true that arousal and willingness can change over time. A lot of women like being pursued, at least by a guy they find attractive. Of course, it does not justify rape or anything like that, and a "no" must be respected. But it does speak against the nonsense like saying that if she consents to sex at some point in time after saying "no" previously, then it's not really consent because a woman can't change her mind from "no" to "yes", only from "yes" to "no".

I'm not talking about non-physical 'aggression' except when there is other types of coercion: have sex with me or I will kick you out of your apartment, fire you, tell (someone) (something that is horrible) or your little sister looks pretty cute, maybe I can convince her, etc. etc. etc. Or If you just blow me, I'll let you go. If you don't I'm just going to leave you stranded out here on this isolated road or in this crowd of scary people or....That sort of thing. More forceful: I'm going to do it so you may as well quit fighting.

Honestly I do not scan headlines and try to accumulate a data base of laws and regulations and rules about expulsion from my own state much less other countries. Yes I believe that individuals who are credibly accused of rape on a university campus should be at least suspended pending investigation and yes, I believe that persons credibly accused of rape/sexual assault who live in the same housing should have to move to other accommodations and possibly change sections of classes they share with their alleged victims, etc. I believe that all of these actions are appropriate even if there is no conviction in the court of law. I believe that it is fairly common for the more dominant person to not recognize that they are being overly forceful and that the other person is not actively or willingly participating in whatever sexual activity that is. I'm really certain that except for the first guy, any of the guys/men who were inappropriate (not stopping, grabbing a body part, trying to stick a hand into my clothing, worse, etc.) absolutely did know that I was resisting but would never have considered what they did was not 'part of the game' whatever game it was that they were playing and I was not. The first guy knew what he was doing was wrong and he did not care. In fact, that was the point. To punish me although I do not know for what. There is a sense of entitlement involved in this sort of thing and a certain anger if anyone attempts to deny what they consider they are entitled to do. I've seen the eyes of (not every but a few) guys who were being told no forcefully and it is not lust but anger at hearing no. And nope, in exactly ZERO of these cases was it someone I was dating, was romantically or sexually attracted, leading on, initiating contact, etc. I was just there, existing. Almost always wearing jeans and a t shirt. Once, office wear and about 7 months pregnant. Once, I had simply been sitting in a friend's apartment, talking with her and we decided to drink screwdrivers that night, something neither of us usually did and frankly, I had never done before. Her boyfriend and his friend stopped by, and my friend/her boyfriend went into the bedroom to have a fight because he brought the other guy to the apartment and that guy figured I was drunk so consent was really not an issue. He did not count on me fighting back or being able to reach the phone and calling my boyfriend. No one ever counted on my fighting back, nor expected all 90 something pounds of me to be effective at it.

I have a long time friend who was also my roommate in my very first apartment and she used to go out for a while with a guy who had been .....extremely insistent, despite her objections, to sex the first time they went out. She felt obligated because he took her to dinner at a semi-nice place. He treated her badly throughout the brief relationship. I only learned after that he was very physical with her but I knew he was an asshole and if I had been there when he called (for me, actually) I would have told her no way should she ever date him. My friend is still quite beautiful but in our 20's, she bore a striking resemblance to a well known tv actress, only prettier, is exceptionally bright and extremely talented and had self esteem and confidence somewhere in the sub-basement level. Killed me that she wasn't aware. But I digress.

I think quite often, men/boys do feel entitled and quite often believe if they feel aroused that the person who they believe is causing the arousal is doing it on purpose, and wants the attention. A lot of men/boys are not good at regulating their emotions and are not very well educated about sex or sexual arousal and certainly not about female anatomy, or about social interactions with members of whatever sex they are attracted to, etc. I think a lot of girls and very young women are similarly not well educated about the differences in how men/boys experience arousal and how easily at certain points in their lives, they become aroused and the sometimes consequences of that arousal coupled with an inflated sense of entitlement and poor social/coping skills. Frankly, too many people grow up in abusive circumstances and see force as being normal.

 

[Toni]

It’s not really. Do you think that everyone who takes someone else considers it raie? Recognizes that the other person is saying no, trying to avoid the contact, trying to escape. Or just freezing, hoping it will stop soon.

It depends on the exact circumstances. There is definitely a possibility in a breakdown in communications. I think it is important for anybody to speak up if they are not comfortable where things are going. Both men and women.

You think it’s misandrist. I don’t. I think the same applies no matter the sexes or genders involved.

I think this passage was misandrist.

Men have vastly different criteria with respect to their own thoughts, feelings, actions and perceptions compared with the criteria they use when evaluating women's thoughts, actions, feelings and perceptions. Men as a whole do not experience as much empathy as do women. Men are infantilized in this way, to believe that we women must accommodate whatever their needs are, with relation to sex or their fragile egos. And women do this, in part, to avoid greater physical harm. We minimize and excuse when we really should not because as it happens, it's never just that one time or that one person. Nope it's a pattern of behavior.

I think women are far more coddled and "infantilized" in our society than men. Not even close.

Yeah, women are allowed to have and express emotions. That is not infantalizing them. Not allowing them to have and pursue their own ambitions: that is infantalizing them. Making them pay enormous physical, emotional, social and economic costs for sex: that is control and an attempt to infantalize them.

Not allowing men to express emotions (other than anger, frustration and occasionally joy and happiness, usually re: sports or a raise, or sexual arousal) is emotionally repressive and abusive.

Healthy people of all ages are allowed to be happy, sad, angry, hurt, and much much more and are allowed to express those emotions and even cry.

 

[RVonse]

Y'all make is sound like socialism would be worse than what we have right now.

Not my wish to derail the aforementioned man/woman discussion by getting back on topic. I am late to the thread.

But what exactly is socialism? To myself anyway, socialism is when Bush and Obama bailed out the banking system. Our federal government made clear to us all the private banks, their private shareholders, and CEOs were made whole. All by using public assistance coming from middle class workers. Is that not socialism? What about Trump's Iran war? Who is paying for the bombs and the inflation in gas prices? Who are the private people benefiting from AIPAC donations and distraction from Epstein pedophilia that started the bombing? Is that not socialism when the public supplies the funding for Israel's private mission to kill people?

And if you agree with me that these are indeed examples of socialism where the public collects taxes for the benefit of private individuals, then yes I think socialism is worse than we have had and lets not to make it any worse! I'm not saying the Republicans or Libertarians have any better answers or lifestyle. But the one thing even the common man with modest means should be in agreement is that big government causes trouble and small government offers more individual freedom. I live in the state of Missouri that collects less taxes than most states and I like it because no matter how ridiculous the local politicians get..... by collecting less of my labor they will waste less than more with their horrible decisions and management. This is where the left falls down on a national level in my humble opinion.

 

[bilby]

And if you agree with me that these are indeed examples of socialism where the public collects taxes for the benefit of private individuals,

If that's the definition of socialism, then it's very hard to name a single non-socialist government in all of human history.

Which makes it a pretty useless definition.

 

[RVonse]

And if you agree with me that these are indeed examples of socialism where the public collects taxes for the benefit of private individuals,

If that's the definition of socialism, then it's very hard to name a single non-socialist government in all of human history.

Which makes it a pretty useless definition.

If it is not socialism than what is it? Whatever it is called, I want less of it. Not more.

 

[Elixir]

By this measure, Fire fighters benefit from arson.

… which they do.
Eliminate arson and firefighters lose their jobs.
Plumbers benefit from leaks, and anyone else who gets paid to address problems can be said to benefit from those problems. That doesn’t make them bad people.

 

[southernhybrid]

And Trump refused to provide DNA that could be matched to the dress stains.

He could have been compelled to provide a sample by a court order.
But I do not think the dress would be useful forensically given the passage of time and haphazard handling, even wearing to to a TV station for an interview.

https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/articles/2024/dna-on-clothes/

DNA can stay on clothes for several days … or sometimes even decades!

The exact time depends on the type of clothes and the condition they are stored in. But before we delve into each of these factors, let’s review what DNA is and how it can get onto our clothes in the first place.

DNA is a tiny molecule in our body that is unique to each individual. It is contained inside all of our cells. We’re constantly leaving our DNA behind us. Our DNA can get onto the clothes we’re wearing through the skin cells we shed, or from body fluids such as blood, saliva, and semen.

DNA found on clothes can be from not only the wearer but also anyone who has touched the clothes. So DNA traces on clothes can often give important clues in a crime investigation. In a 1967 murder case, DNA extracted from the victim’s clothes over 3 decades after the crime occurred helped identify the suspect and solved the mystery.

You should do some DD before you make claims. Just sayin'

 

[bilby]

And if you agree with me that these are indeed examples of socialism where the public collects taxes for the benefit of private individuals,

If that's the definition of socialism, then it's very hard to name a single non-socialist government in all of human history.

Which makes it a pretty useless definition.

If it is not socialism than what is it?

Taxation.

Whatever it is called, I want less of it. Not more.

Your poorly informed opinion is noted.

 

[ZiprHead]

And Trump refused to provide DNA that could be matched to the dress stains.

He could have been compelled to provide a sample by a court order.

In a civil trial? I don't think so.

But I do not think the dress would be useful forensically given the passage of time and haphazard handling, even wearing to to a TV station for an interview.

Nuh uh.

 

[Bronzeage]

Y'all make is sound like socialism would be worse than what we have right now.

Not my wish to derail the aforementioned man/woman discussion by getting back on topic. I am late to the thread.

But what exactly is socialism? To myself anyway, socialism is when Bush and Obama bailed out the banking system. Our federal government made clear to us all the private banks, their private shareholders, and CEOs were made whole. All by using public assistance coming from middle class workers. Is that not socialism? What about Trump's Iran war? Who is paying for the bombs and the inflation in gas prices? Who are the private people benefiting from AIPAC donations and distraction from Epstein pedophilia that started the bombing? Is that not socialism when the public supplies the funding for Israel's private mission to kill people?

And if you agree with me that these are indeed examples of socialism where the public collects taxes for the benefit of private individuals, then yes I think socialism is worse than we have had and lets not to make it any worse! I'm not saying the Republicans or Libertarians have any better answers or lifestyle. But the one thing even the common man with modest means should be in agreement is that big government causes trouble and small government offers more individual freedom. I live in the state of Missouri that collects less taxes than most states and I like it because no matter how ridiculous the local politicians get..... by collecting less of my labor they will waste less than more with their horrible decisions and management. This is where the left falls down on a national level in my humble opinion.

Socialism is an elephant and everyone is a blind man who thinks he knows the entire thing because he touched one part.

 

[TomC]

He could have been compelled to provide a sample by a court order.

He could have just settled it by providing one and settling things. He refused and I am confident that it's because he is guilty and he knows it.
Tom

 

[TomC]

But what exactly is socialism?

Socialism is policies that benefit society overall.
Tom