A murder leaves behind a dead body. A rape does not.

A dead body can't tell you who the murderer is. If you could get an eyewitness in the form of the victim themselves, it would be the ultimate witness. Instead we want the weapon as evidence. In rapes, we want DNA evidence, when we have the ultimate witness in the form of a surviving victim, yet we disregard it and say she was "confused" or some nonsense like that.

Lol, the cure for cancer is definitely more important than one protest, yes. And I'm suggesting you don't believe her, because you don't. You keep saying you don't. She told you who did it, you don't believe her. The system has no set order that witnesses go in, it could easily go Kavanaugh first. He knows what he's been accused of, he's just there to tell his side of the story. If he says he never met her before in his life, and she credibly refutes that, then he's caught in a lie. If he says he was at the party, but gives a credible explanation of what really happened that throws her story into doubt, and she can't back her story up, then he probably wouldn't be convicted by a jury. Of course, this isn't a jury, it's a congress, and really, it doesn't matter because Kavanaugh could confess to rape but ask to be seated on the court and the Republicans would do it, and Ford could say "sorry guys I was just kidding" and Kavanaugh wouldn't get a single Dem vote because even the red state dems have reasons around his opinions on campaign finance and the role and scope of the executive branch to vote against him. Really, though, if after both have given the testimony, there's even a hint that maybe he's a rapist, confirming him would damage the court's integrity, and he shouldn't be seated. Of course, all this could have been avoided if Trump nominated a different judge from his list. He had a lady lined up that would undercut most of the Dems arguments right now, and almost certainly wouldn't have even an alleged history of sexual crime or misconduct, and she would have been confirmed before September with several red state Dem votes, but Trump wanted the guy who would vote in any Mueller related case that he couldn't be indicted or even investigated as a sitting president because it's too "distracting". It's his fault we're in this mess arguing whether to believe a woman when she says who raped her when you know if this didn't have political consequences we'd all be much more likely to take her account seriously. They keep saying she should have come out in high school, and it's true that if a regular, unknown high school girl accused a regular, not-destined-for-the-supreme-court high school guy of rape, she'd have an easier time, but a)it doesn't always feel that simple when you're a high school girl and b)that's precisely why Republicans come out looking so scummy here, because everyone knows they're only ignoring her complaints because of politics (and no, "hearing her out" is still ignoring her complaints if after hearing what she has to say they ignore it as several have already pledged to do no matter what she says), even as they accuse her of only coming out now because of politics, as though there were any better time to find your courage and speak out about your rapist than when he's about to gain the power to affect a lot of women. And again, Trump could end this at any time by nominating another candidate. He has several that could be confirmed by year's end or even pre-election if he wanted if he would just withdraw this asshole and nominate say, Amy Coney Barrett, who would sail through confirmation and probably instantly become the conservative Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But no, Trump refuses to do that because he can't stand the thought of "losing" even though it wouldn't be an actual loss. He would just perceive it as one and as such is taking the whole country on a ride that needlessly creates conflict.

Could I get a source for this?

As a philanthropist, he seems an outstanding person. As an orator, he's disappointing. Somewhat troubling...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B8VU3JykvI

At around 3:25, he refers to Stephon Clark's shooting as a lynching. Clark was not lynched, he was shot... He mentions "Lawful lynchings" earlier at around 2:03 but as far as I know, I know nothing of any lynchings by police...

Also, he makes constant references to "black and brown" victims of police brutality... No love for white victims? They're the most numerous!.. Per the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

1. I don't mean to sound rude but are you afraid to use Google?  I searched Kaepernick Somalia and got 262,000 hits.

2. lynching does not mean hanging though that was a common means of lynching.

The reaction to the ad campaign fell into two camps:

1. Those who support Kaepernick's cause and oppose the poor treatment he has been given by Trump and his supporters. They buy Nike products as a token of support and to stick it to Trump and his supporters.

2. Those who support Trump and his smear campaign. They buy Nike products to burn them in order to show support for their own cause. Now of course that isn't a logical thing to do, to make a company you are against richer by buying their products. But if Trump's supporters were levelheaded people, they wouldn't be Trump's supporters in the first place.

https://www.essence.com/news/colin-kaepernick-plane-aid-somalia/

I do not understand why you would not google, "Colin Kaepernick Somalia" instead of asking me for a source. But, whatever.

Also, you left out that he specifically demands accountability for those police officers that unjustly murder black and brown people He may not be up to date on white people being murdered, the percentages, or the facts surrounding your claim but he is invested in the current events which he has seen play out. Even if you think he should include white people, he is not obligated to do so. His position is not less valid because you want him to include some other group. He can go out and be a social justice warrior for any group he feels deserves his attention. It is up to you to go out and advocate for the groups you deem worthy of your effort and energy. It is a specious way of thinking about things to say, "other people are affected and he seems to not include them" when he can only speak on and advocate from what he knows. An attempt to slander a man that has done so much good is rather weak, especially coming from you right now. He should be recognized as trying to help move the country to a better place and instead, you give me semantic reasoning to hold him back.

1. I don't mean to sound rude but are you afraid to use Google?  I searched Kaepernick Somalia and got 262,000 hits.

2. lynching does not mean hanging though that was a common means of lynching.

"Don't say that thing, say the other thing."

Are you catching on yet?