Who is assuming he's guilty?
I haven't said anything about that. I don't assume he's guilty. You're moving the goalposts again.
LOL, OK if you say so. No need to report a crime to police, just make a claim and every woman in america will believe you because all men are rapists
No, you’re just getting splinters on your hind end from sitting on the fence lol.
I’m not on the fence. Sans evidence to the contrary, I give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt. He’s innocent of the charge as far as I’m concerned. Plus the fact he gives every appearance of being an excellent role model for young males.
I wish we could clone him.
It's hilarious that not deciding guilt or innocence without a trial in America is now considered to be "sitting on a fence."
Sign o' the times.
Innocence is *presumed* in a trial.
Are you going to make me do a civics 101 lesson lol?
And Kav ain't no role model. I don't know how anyone could say that, after what we've seen out of him.
Men who get pissed off when accused of vile acts in front of their wife and kids have fallen out of favor in society lol?
I worry about our society then.
Also in a trial, we don't assume that the accusers are liars.
You're just as partisan as those who still call Kav guilty. Unsurprisingly, you see a distinction.
I don't fault him his anger. But he has clear misogynism in his past, imo.
And he was unhinged in the hearing. He's a public figure now, like it or not. Others have endured much worse and kept their cool.
That's a really extreme response. Not what I'm saying at all.
Can't really even try to argue w/ that. What you posted above is what I'd consider "weak." Don't put words in my mouth.
No. Credible here just means that she believes what she's saying - she's not intentionally lying for some conspiratorial reason, as the OP suggests.
I thought Kav was credible as well, in that he believed what he was saying. I still don't know what happened, though - and neither do you. Could have been mistaken identity for her, could have been a black out thing for him.
OK, you're right. You haven't said that, but by believing accusations without evidence, that's what you're telling us.
Lots of women get raped, so we should believe every woman who says she was raped. No evidence besides their claim! We don't need evidence. Men rape and we know it!
This discussion is going nowhere, but I'll give it a last go: the mistake you're making is the you think I believe her accusations. I don't, necessarily - but I believe HER. I think she is credible, and believes what she's saying.
No one here knows what really happened. It doesn't mean Kav's lying or that she's lying. As I've said - he could have blacked out, she could have a mistaken-identity thing going. Everyone is rendering a verdict based on politics more than anything. There hasn't been a trial here.
This discussion is going nowhere, but I'll give it a last go: the mistake you're making is the you think I believe her accusations. I don't, necessarily - but I believe HER. I think she is credible, and believes what she's saying.
No one here knows what really happened. It doesn't mean Kav's lying or that she's lying. As I've said - he could have blacked out, she could have a mistaken-identity thing going. Everyone is rendering a verdict based on politics more than anything. There hasn't been a trial here.
And that's exactly how the democrats want it so there's no need for evidence and they can believe it and call people evil for wanting to be convinced that a crime actually took place.
The politics was gutter fuckwit.