They should if the accused is running for public office. And why does it matter if they are unproven? Does that justify the behaviour of Trump and the audience?

That's ridiculous. So if you run for any position of power, anyone can come out with a claim, an unsubstantiated claim and then you're disqualified automatically? That's a dangerous and undemocratic precedent and bound to be abused.

Should Trump have done what he did? Depends on how you look at the situation, did he mock her or the fact that her accusation is taken as fact by anyone on the left? Did he mock a sexual assault victim or a person who expects to be believed even without an ounce of evidence? I agree that he shouldn't have mocked her but she has provided nothing as proof other than "I remember that it was him". 

He's making fun of someone who can't even state which year this traumatic event supposedly happened. The supposed witnesses are against her and disagree with her, she can't say what place, who was there, she can literally not say anything except "it totally happened and it was 100% him". Look, if it actually happened, yeah, that's horrible. But we have seriously zero reason to believe it actually happened. I've heard more coherent stories from 4-year olds who are trying to explain who ate the last cookie. It's absolutely ridiculous and I would've laughed too if I were there, regardless of Trump support or not. Hinging your wagon to this story is only going to make you look stupid.

It is actually IS being used and abused. One cannot look at the timing and nature of the accusations (whether true or not) and not see this as anything but the #metoo movement being polically weaponized.

Can't watch the video. Did he really make fun of Kellyanne? Oh wait, she actually defended it. Nevermind.

As much as I wish all the worst for Kavanaugh I cannot stand this obsession. I don't have any reason to believe her, but he trial revealed plenty of other good reasons why he should never ever be any kind of judge anywhere. Things that will get pushed under the rug because people are unsubstantiated claims instead of actual real reasons.

Then again, using the over emotional social justice route is probably the only way to stop him, seeing how logic and facts have done nothing to stop this administration.

This 'believe all woman' thing doesn't make sense without context, just like how 'fake news' doesn't make sense without context.

It's not that the news is literally fake, it's that the news can be heavily biased, or an outright lie sometimes, which isn't what the news is supposed to be. It's not that people don't believe woman, it's that there are a few woman who've come forward and claimed that Kav is a horrible person for different reasons using mostly personal evidence, but there are also 50+ woman who've come forward claiming he's a stand up guy who's been anything but horrible, using mostly personal evidence. Do they not count? Which woman are we supposed to believe? What method do we use to ascertain the truth?

Do we use first come first serve? That doesn't make any sense because there is no reason for those woman to come forward backing him because he's assumed to be innocent unless someone claims otherwise. Do we use democracy, and simply say because more woman are backing Kav then attacking him that the majority rules? The only way to solve this, that's as fair as it can possibly be, is by using the rules and laws that we have in place. Those same rules and laws that weren't just learned and written yesterday, but have been through trial and error for ages, and are the best we've come up with until now.

Beyond that, the past is something that's always going to put a wrench into the future, since things were different in the past. You can't demand the future should cater to the past or you either get stagnation, or reversal. Think about what happened to Bill Clinton. Has he really paid the price, during or after his terms in office? Why is he still so beloved by certain people? The world is an extremely complicated place, but assuming the accused is guilty until proven innocent, just makes it that much more chaotic in the long run.

Where did I claim he was disqualified by being accused? He disqualified himself by his behaviour during the hearing, not by the accusations in itself.

And for the second part, assuming someone is lying is equally as bad as assuming someone is quilty.

You know that makes zero sense buddy. Innocent til proven guilty. Otherwise I could accuse you of some made up BS here, point and laugh "haha, theres no proof that you didn't do the BS I just accused you of!"

Wrecking a mans life isn't being taken seriously. What would be proper conduct is not going public, but privately going to the police so they can investigate. In this case it's past the statutes, so they woudn't. Well that's too bad, next time don't wait 20 years to come forward. But don't come out with unprovable accusations that can ruin a mans life infornt of 6 billion people.

What behavior are you referring to? Him raising his voice when facing accusations that can ruin his life isn't out of bounds.

There's a reason they arent admissible in court. And by your logic as long as 3 people come up with BS accusations against someone they should not be put in office regardless of whether they're true or not. Someone on 4chan could organize 3 people to come forward and accuse a random politician, and because of your 3 accuser rule they'd have to be automatically dismissed from office. 

Why does it matter that they are unproven? Is that a serious question? That's ALL that matters. Either you prove it or he's innocent - but when you go public like this, regardless of whether you have proof or not you already ruined the name of the accused. That is wrong. And I dont see an issue with the audience behavior here. I mean, what's worse; Making baseless sexual assault allegations that you can't definitively prove and which will ruin a mans life, or pointing out and laughing at the inconsistencies of the accuser who's doing her best to ruin that mans life?