**** Elections thread *****

[JKDS]

You asked me b4 why I liked Sanders. The below statement is just one of many statements that make me support him

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/12/b...e-not-colleges

[wufwugy]

You asked me b4 why I liked Sanders. The below statement is just one of many statements that make me support him

https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/12/b...e-not-colleges

im not sure he said anything that puts him in a different camp than most (all?) other candidates. police aren't barred from investigating criminal rape on campus and nobody thinks they should be.

[JKDS]

im not sure he said anything that puts him in a different camp than most (all?) other candidates. police aren't barred from investigating criminal rape on campus and nobody thinks they should be.

It's not about barring them...it's about keeping the college put of it. They have no business interfering in that sort of thing, and ruin lives because of it. Bernie supports that idea, seems clinton does not.

Of course every candidate supports police investigations of rape tho ..

[wufwugy]

It's not about barring them...it's about keeping the college put of it. They have no business interfering in that sort of thing, and ruin lives because of it. Bernie supports that idea, seems clinton does not.

Of course every candidate supports police investigations of rape tho ..

if it's interfering regarding criminal stuff, then yeah. they should be allowed to have civil disputes though. like it's okay for a university to expel somebody who they consider having committed rape on campus. granted most universities do it a stupid way and are often wrong, but that's sort of a different issue.

[JKDS]

if it's interfering regarding criminal stuff, then yeah. they should be allowed to have civil disputes though. like it's okay for a university to expel somebody who they consider having committed rape on campus. granted most universities do it a stupid way and are often wrong, but that's sort of a different issue.

I disagree. We're talking about a body interfering with the personal,private sexual relations between two people. I don't want anyone anywhere near that. If it's not rape, sexual assault, etc, then they need to mind their own business. If it is one of those things, it should be left to the state who has experience in the issue and the laws involved.

[wufwugy]

I disagree. We're talking about a body interfering with the personal,private sexual relations between two people. I don't want anyone anywhere near that. If it's not rape, sexual assault, etc, then they need to mind their own business. If it is one of those things, it should be left to the state who has experience in the issue and the laws involved.

I think there's an unintentional misunderstanding. What I said has been law for a long time. It's the freedom of private entities to set policies regarding their private interactions. It is lawful and should continue to be so for a university to expel somebody based on a set of criteria they choose and have been agreed upon. The law sets this aside for certain types of discrimination, but being thought of as a rapist is not one of them. Obviously you know this already, as you're much more versed in the law than myself. I just needed to clarify what I was referring to.

As far as investigation of allegations go, private entities are lawful in doing so except for in ways that interferes with police investigations and rights of others. So even then, universities should be allowed to hold their own investigations into campus rape. The funny thing here is that universities are utterly failing on this because it is normally much more efficient for universities to not have much of an investigation and let the police do their jobs, but universities don't do this for the reason of, you guessed it, too many subsidies. Administrations are absorbing so much extra money that they don't know what to do with, that they are changing their own administrative policies towards campus behavior in negative ways that they otherwise would not.

[wufwugy]

The law sets this aside for certain types of discrimination, but being thought of as a rapist is not one of them.

I want to clarify here, because I think what I said is possibly wrong and it's hopefully currently being explored by lawsuits. I doubt companies can get away with firing people because the boss thinks an employee raped somebody with no evidence or conviction, but the laws regarding universities are probably more favorable to universities than this. Regardless my point was that universities can expel people for breaking T&C, and if that T&C includes being "convicted" of rape by a university tribunal, and if it's lawful for the T&C to include that, then universities aren't breaking the law by doing so.

[spoonitnow]

im not sure he said anything that puts him in a different camp than most (all?) other candidates. police aren't barred from investigating criminal rape on campus and nobody thinks they should be.

[not trolling]

Oh man, I am so excited by this reply. You should totally look into how colleges are handling this right now. It's worse than you could probably imagine at this point.

Let's say Nancy accuses Greg of sexual assault and takes it to their college's disciplinary board, but she refuses to go to the police and file charges. The disciplinary board will not allow Greg to defend himself against Nancy's accusations, and if they decide that there's more than a 50 percent chance that the charges are true, then Greg gets kicked out of college.

This is not a joke, an exaggeration, uncommon or rare. There are several major lawsuits going right now over all of this.

While I could give countless examples, I don't want to spam you or overwhelm you. Here is a very good read that will probably get you interested enough to look into it yourself: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...05280211043510

I only ask that you please read this response to the WSJ article in popular women's online publication TheFrisky so that you can see what we're dealing with here: http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-04-18/...journal-op-ed/

Another good place to look is the Paul Nungesser case where his accuser turned her [more or less proven fake] rape accusations against him into her fucking thesis because she's an art major.

[/not trolling]

[wufwugy]

[not trolling]

Oh man, I am so excited by this reply. You should totally look into how colleges are handling this right now. It's worse than you could probably imagine at this point.

Let's say Nancy accuses Greg of sexual assault and takes it to their college's disciplinary board, but she refuses to go to the police and file charges. The disciplinary board will not allow Greg to defend himself against Nancy's accusations, and if they decide that there's more than a 50 percent chance that the charges are true, then Greg gets kicked out of college.

This is not a joke, an exaggeration, uncommon or rare. There are several major lawsuits going right now over all of this.

While I could give countless examples, I don't want to spam you or overwhelm you. Here is a very good read that will probably get you interested enough to look into it yourself: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...05280211043510

I only ask that you please read this response to the WSJ article in popular women's online publication TheFrisky so that you can see what we're dealing with here: http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-04-18/...journal-op-ed/

Another good place to look is the Paul Nungesser case where his accuser turned her [more or less proven fake] rape accusations against him into her fucking thesis because she's an art major.

[/not trolling]

I get it, universities handle this stuff terribly. These aren't examples of police being barred from investigating rape though. Like in the hypothetical you created, Nancy didn't charge Greg criminally, so the steps to allow police to get involved in the first place aren't triggered. I do acknowledge that my statement "and nobody thinks they (the police) should be (barred)" is misleading since clearly some accusers and universities think exactly that. There are those with incentives or an agenda to not want cops involved. I should have said "the vast majority of people who will be voting in 2016 do not think that the police should be barred from investigating allegations of rape brought to them regardless of if they happened on campus".

It should be added that it isn't so much that universities are "handling this stuff terribly", like I just said they are, because from the perspective of the university, they are actually making good decisions. The university doesn't want police involved because it would be terrible news for the university and its finances. But it also can't brush the allegations under the rug since the perception among its main consumers (young women) would still do great financial damage to the university. So, the university has great incentive to handle it in-house and in such a way that men are victimized.

The incentive for universities to "do the right thing" for themselves by doing the wrong thing is also created by government subsidies and intervention. I'll explain how this is the case if anybody wants to hear it.

[spoonitnow]

I get it, universities handle this stuff terribly. These aren't examples of police being barred from investigating rape though. Like in the hypothetical you created, Nancy didn't charge Greg criminally, so the steps to allow police to get involved in the first place aren't triggered. I do acknowledge that my statement "and nobody thinks they (the police) should be (barred)" is misleading since clearly some accusers and universities think exactly that. There are those with incentives or an agenda to not want cops involved. I should have said "the vast majority of people who will be voting in 2016 do not think that the police should be barred from investigating allegations of rape brought to them regardless of if they happened on campus".

It should be added that it isn't so much that universities are "handling this stuff terribly", like I just said they are, because from the perspective of the university, they are actually making good decisions. The university doesn't want police involved because it would be terrible news for the university and its finances. But it also can't brush the allegations under the rug since the perception among its main consumers (young women) would still do great financial damage to the university. So, the university has great incentive to handle it in-house and in such a way that men are victimized.

The incentive for universities to "do the right thing" for themselves by doing the wrong thing is also created by government subsidies and intervention. I'll explain how this is the case if anybody wants to hear it.

The bold is the point. The idea is that he's suggesting universities should keep their fucking noses out of it, and if the girl wants something done, she can drag her ass to the police, etc etc.

[wufwugy]

The bold is the point. The idea is that he's suggesting universities should keep their fucking noses out of it, and if the girl wants something done, she can drag her ass to the police, etc etc.

i just wanted to be clear that i dont think his position sets him apart from the field. i think most of the candidates believe it and if asked, most of the gop candidates would also say what sanders said. him having said it, though, does deserve credit.

[spoonitnow]

i just wanted to be clear that i dont think his position sets him apart from the field. i think most of the candidates believe it and if asked, most of the gop candidates would also say what sanders said. him having said it, though, does deserve credit.

His position sets him clearly apart from the field compared to other Democrats, but not so much for Republicans. Liberals are what have enabled this shit to happen and supported it. A good example of this is the "yes means yes" policy towards consent that's popping up more and more in the United States.