Jaicee said:
Alright, I think I'm up to finishing my response to this post now. What follows should be seen as a direct continuation of my first reply thereto before. 5) It's remarkable to me that you view sexual violence as just "personal stuff" rather than as a crime. You also talk like Brett Kavanaugh was on trial for his life or something and thus deserved a presumption of innocence. In reality, the alternative to his confirmation was for Mr. Kavanaugh to retire to a life of luxury unimaginable to you and I, crying all the way to his mansion with only his family, friends, servants, and the entire Republican Party for comfort. Cry me a river. No, when you're simply seeking a promotion like that to a lifetime post, you don't deserve such presumptions of innocence, you deserve the chance to clear your name beyond reasonable doubt, and he failed to in my book. (What Mr. Kavanaugh proved to me in his testimony was that he could barely control his faculties while sober, let alone drunk.) I was personally against giving someone who was realistically a sexual criminal the power to help shape what rights and protections the women of this country will and will not have going forward. So were the vast majority of Americans. So were NOT the vast majority of VGC users, in contrast. I guess that's all I had to add to point 5. Just couldn't resist commenting on the Brett Kavanaugh case. |
Unless there is evidence that proves otherwise, it is personal stuff. His personal opinion vs. her personal opinion. If legal evidence had been brought forward, that would be different. And yeah, he could have just walked away and probably had a lot less stressful life, but why should he? He was clearly qualified for the position, as are the vast majority of candidates that are nominated by Presidents (regardless of ideology). So why should he give up the honor of the office, something he and many others on the court or aspiring to be work their entire careers towards, because someone accused him of something but couldn't prove it? Is that fair to him or anyone else seeking that office to lose everything they've worked towards when someone accuses them of something done decades ago but can't prove it?
Also, whose to say there wouldn't be some other person waiting to accuse the next nominee? And then the next?
As to needing to clear his name absolutely, first of all I'm not sure what else the man could do than provide his calendar with hand written notes from decades ago and his own witnesses. Like, what else did you want from him? I'm sure if he had anything else to offer he would have, just like she would have offered more if she had anything on him. We were given the details that we were given, and we all have to make a choice on that. If you feel that nominees require perfect records with evidence showing no foul play, that is fine and your right to demand that. I'm curious what you would think if a Democratic nominee had something like this happen.
And for the record, if ever there WAS evidence showing he lied and did those terrible things to her, I would ABSOLUTELY want him to resign and face whatever legal consequences.