Only a truly awful person like Bobbythegreat would make the case that not believing women due to a lack of evidence is somehow morally the right approach here.
LOL, I can't tell if this is serious or sarcasm. You shouldn't believe ANYONE without some evidence supporting their claims no matter what their sex. Only a truly awful person would lynch someone based on the sex of the accuser despite no evidence of guilt whatsoever and plenty of evidence that the accuser is incorrect.
seems like a good time to link to this essay http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02/better-put-guilty-man-court-keep-innocent-man-off/
Why is he always so evasive and refuse to answer questions? Lynch mob? For doing their job and asking questions that he evades? And why does Trump have to hide his past views and dealings with the Clinton investigation. Kavanaugh has shown he has contempt for Democrats and liberals. He is unfit by that alone. A Supreme Court Justice should not be a partisan hack that is under the control of President Putin.
Except that there's not "plenty of evidence" that she's incorrect. The vast majority of women who are sexually assaulted usually don't report it because outside of the crime taking place under camera surveillance, there's never enough evidence to convince awful people like you. For women who do report? They are almost always credible. Kavanaugh made himself look even less believable during the hearing. You're discounting a sexual assault victim because the SCOTUS nominee is on your side of the political aisle. Yeah, you're a terrible person.
Incompetent leaders hire incompetent personnel under them. What an absolute shock that this has kept happening repeatedly under Trump.
This is pretty crystal clear. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/29/leland-keyser-to-tell-fbi-she-has-no-knowledge-of-/
recollection...google this word and apply it in the present sentence... This is the opposite of crystal clear.
The fact that her story is 36 years old (maybe), she can't come up with any specifics such as where or when the incident happened, everyone she claimed to have been there have failed to corroborate the story, some even going so far as to say that they never met Kavanaugh at any point ever.....then you have the holes in her story like how she got there or how she got home as someone too far to walk from home who didn't drive and there weren't cell phones back then. Also her story about music being played in a random upstairs room when the party was downstairs....also the music was allegedly turned up but no report of it being turned down but a random suggestion that she could hear talking downstairs seemingly over the music.....also the fact that despite how little she can remember, she claims to know that she had only 1 beer and that it had to have been Kavanaugh but she remembers effectively nothing else. All of that points to her story being inaccurate. Perhaps a similar story actually happened to her and she really was attacked at some point, but there's literally nothing supporting her story. You can feel free to be on record supporting lynchings based on nothing but a baseless claim if that baseless claim happens to come from a woman, but IMO that makes you a pretty terrible person. To be clear, you don't know that she actually is a sexual assault victim, you've just convinced yourself that she's telling the truth on the basis of her sex. That's something I'm not willing to do. The harsh reality is that some women DO lie, even if you don't want to believe that. Here's a quick refresher I could go on with this forever, point is, people lie that's why civilized societies and civilized people require evidence.
There is literally nothing to back her story. There is more evidence to show she is absolutely wrong with her accusations. Now that more evidence is surfacing that she may have been less than truthful with her testimony in other aspects than just the accusations against Kavanaugh her story grows weaker by the moment. You can refuse to look at the whole picture and laser focus on believing her if you like but in the end it will not mean anything when he is confirmed later this week. Face it, your side lost this battle and has looked really bad in doing so. It is time to save at least a little bit of face and give it up.
It's not surprising given that some of the basis for their thought process is the old Marxist conflict theory. It breaks the world down into the oppressed and the many oppressors. You can justify doing just about any horrible thing to someone you view as an oppressor....and all it takes to be an oppressor is to be male, or white, or cis, or able bodied, or wealthy, or just not poor, or....I mean pretty much anyone can be labeled as an oppressor. They believe that there is nothing you could do to an "oppressor" that would be immoral thus they'd justify lynching Kavanaugh because after all, he's an oppressor and oppressors shouldn't get a fair process. They aren't entitled to being viewed as innocent until proven guilty. I really hope they come back from the fringes because this kind of thinking never ends well.
The money is going to run out eventually. Heck, you even have labor bosses like Trumka openly flirting with endorsing Trump. https://freebeacon.com/politics/afl-cio-open-endorsing-trump-2020/ Sooner or later the reasonable democrats will be forced to take their party back like Trump rescued the republican brand from the neoconservatives.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "More evidence" I've seen Kavanaugh get caught in a few lies which hurt his credibility...and I've seen polls indicating that you've lost a few conservative women after this entire debacle.
I haven't read back on this cluster**** of a thread, but now NBC News has text transcripts showing that he knew of Rameriz's allegations before it went public which he stated the opposite during sworn testimony. So another data point of explicit purgery. Not only did her lie under oath, he witness tampered according to the text transcripts. But ya, I guess he is entitled to that Supreme Court position.
This entire thing is a mess. @cml750 , you consider it a win to get him on the court? Nevermind that he lied under oath and has several accusers? Considering all the other nominees Trump could put up this is very likely a win for the Democrats even if he goes through. Already Pelosi hints at impeachment, he's going to be investigated again once the Democrats get power again (and that will undoubtedly happen in this political climate) and in the immediate future polls indicate that this has hurt the GOPs brand quite a bit with women. We'll see how people vote the next two terms and what will happen, but I just don't see how this is a win. Putting up bad justices is not a good look, even if you confirm them, it's still not a good look. It would have been a huge win for the GOP if they pulled him immediately and put up someone else instead of stubbornly sticking with this guy, who has a lot of issues just outside of this whole thing with Ford.
This has already been proven as an out right disingenuous claim by NBC. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...deborah-ramirez-and-nbc-owes-him-a-correction
There's no grounds for impeachment, so if they feel like wasting their time, they should go for it. It'll just end up biting them in the ass.
