When I said 'not to bring politics into it', I was saying that I didn't want my comment to result in the conversation being about Obama and unrelated policies and whatnot, branching off from there and becoming a toxic clusterfuck with other people going 'fuck obama' and 'fuck you' etc., and that I simply saw some similarities based on what Jerry Jones said. I'm glad you decided to be so mature with your response. I'm sorry I'm so dumb, I just thought there were some interesting similarities. But let's begin by correcting you right off the bat, (and by the way I'm not an Obama hater whatsoever) Obama did not 'simply ask the schools' to deal with the issue unless the threat of losing federal funding is 'asking'. Because that's what not complying to his newly interpreted guidelines meant. So he "asked" colleges to "do something" about rape on campus. But there seemed to be remarkably little attention paid to two crucial facts, the first being that rape is a crime and the second that colleges are obviously not qualified to be law-enforcement institutions.
"All the schools can really do is expel."
Seriously? Like that doesn't have huge ramifications for these kids, like it won't affect future employment opportunities, getting into another school. Yeah, expulsion isn't a big deal. Remember the Duke lacrosse kids. They still get death threats and hate for crimes they absolutely never committed. Are you not aware of all of these schools getting sued and losing for they way they're handling these cases? Because there's a lot of them.
Since you're clearly so informed on the issue, let me just rehash for you some more problems... So lets set aside that if schools didn't comply, they'd be in violation of Title IX, these guidelines were rediculous; schools should use a disturbingly low burden of proof--no mention of the preponderance standard, in adjudicating sexual assault accusations against students.
There was a ban on cross-examinations of accusers’ statements. Do you know what that meant for students accused?
There were also various other provisions which created rushed and arbitrary investigative and adjudicatory processes that, rather than encouraging schools to defer criminal matters to law enforcement professionals, (Which is what you say, and I agree with) instead encouraged schools to instead act independently of them, and at times contradictory to them. You were not allowed to face the person accusing you, and you're assumed guilty until proven innocent, and they (The school) have full authority to expel you.
So yeah, Obama didn't do anything, except subtly making these demands by reinterpreting Title IX. Judges across the political spectrum both share the same views that this is insane and unsustainable including judges appointed by Obama.
So, why did this sound similar to the the experience Zeke is going through? Could it be that the NFL is using a similar method where they have the ultimate authority to essentially do whatever they want to players because they feel like it? Could it be that the NFL's motives in the Ezekiel Elliott case were to appease the public, similar to why Obama did what he did, an outcry from social justice warriors using debunked and faulty studies; that the NFL and Roger Goodell are overcompensating for how the league handled the domestic violence case of Ray Rice? I don't remember the NFL doing anything when Zeke was accused after being drafted by the Cowboys by the way... Is it similar because the NFL's whole argument centered on a case that had been already resolved in the courts? I don't know dude, I'm just an idiot like you said. But, none of that is relevant to the case itself here because the issue is Article 46, as you're well aware. This empowers Goodell to find and determine facts, issue punishments and hear appeals as an arbitrator. Furthermore, even if he is flat out wrong about his conclusions, a court will not disturb those conclusions. Therein lies the fundamental problem ]because as the long arm of Goodell, Article 46 is stacked in favor of the NFL. Look at what he said during Brady's case. He was sharply criticized for some of his flawed comments like on air pressure that some scientists called implausible. And yet... he can be completely wrong, make his ruling and still be compliant with the law. Are there absolutely no similarities here dude? Can you not see any similar concerning behavior? Literally all I wanted to say was, 'X reminded me of Y.' Goodell is set up like Vladimir fucking Putin over there in New York, is he not? And lastly, don't interpret this as me sticking up for Zeke, he has a history of this behavior and should be punished but the procedures are so inherently flawed here and that's also what I said paraphrasing Jerry Jones in my comment.
But yeah, you're right, two inherently flawed procedures that go around the law... definitely no similarities there. Damn, I shouldn't have even bothered replying, but I'M JUST SO STUPID AND IDIOTIC THAT I FORGOT YOU WERE RIGHT.