Unless the supposed victim isn't telling the truth...

I simply believe in innocent until proven guilty as the law states. If she can prove it, and he can't disprove it, then there's no reason not to believe her.

I disagree that a female nominee would simply sail through. The Dems and left don't let anything Trump does just pass and sail through. She may not have to worry about sexual assault allegations and such, but to assume she passes unscathed, without having a few hurdles thrown at her would be like twilight zone. Knowing Trump, he may have even done this all on purpose, thinking ahead. It's looking like he may get the chance to nominate another candidate down the road, assuming Kavanaugh get's confirmed, so if he decides on a female then, and she does pass through rather easily, the Reps and Trump are no doubt going to point out how hard the Dems were on the male nominee and how easy their being on the female. So why the lack of equality? The left won't care for that but the right would eat it up.

While you have some saying it's just the left using political tactics, the right may very well be doing the same thing, one way or another. We'll see what happens Thursday I guess.

If the female gets through easily, it will be because she didn't commit a crime, not because left-of-center people are sexist against men. I'd wager that most males on his list would also not have issues with crime, because these women aren't lying. There aren't women crawling out of the woodwork to come up with a bogus story, there are only women who sincerely believe what they're saying, and even Fox News defends Kavanaugh by saying Ford is confused, not lying. Not every one of those nominees is going to have trouble, because when Kavanaugh first was announced, everyone acted like it was a done deal and Dems had nothing. No one knew about his opinions on states' rights to prosecute someone with a federal pardon (current law says they can, Kavanaugh says they can't, so much for states' rights conservatives). No one knew he was against Presidents being investigated under any circumstances while in office (a position he conveniently took after being of the opposite opinion while Clinton was investigated). And no one knew about the sexual misconduct allegations. Not every nominee, in fact I'd wager almost no nominees, would have sexual misconduct allegations against them. The only one in modern history to have that besides Kavanaugh was Thomas, and he still was confirmed. And it's not like #MeToo is some purely partisan movement out to get all Republicans, I mean its first major takedown was one of the biggest Democratic donors, and it got several left-of-center news outlets too. With enough vetting (and the vetting so far suggested Amy Coney Barrett would have less issues) you could be sure that the only issues a nominee would have would be purely partisan ones like opinions on abortion, and there were several red state Dems that were prepared to vote for Kavanaugh in spite of his anti-abortion views before the other stuff came out, so any such nominee without these major criminal allegations or ethical conflicts would indeed sail through bipartisanly. The main reason I suggested Amy Coney Barrett specifically is because she was high up on the list and thus should already be pretty vetted, because multiple news outlets across the political spectrum said she'd be the easiest to confirm of his top three choices, and because the optics of a woman being the deciding vote on abortion issues undercuts pro-abortion arguments that a council of 5 men are deciding the future of women's bodies, as well as undercutting the idea that Republicans have a issue with women having power. She should be used now because of that, but also because if another vacancy opens up, it will likely be during Trump's second term, if he gets one, and unless Democrats get absolutely crushed in the Senate in this midterm (polls and experts suggest neither side will gain more than one or two seats), they'll likely retake it in 2020 when the map is as bad for Reps as it is now for Dems, and will be able to shoot down nominees for whatever reason they want at that point. It didn't hurt Republicans when they refused to let Obama seat his last nominee, so I don't see how it would hurt Democrats, especially when the court has been politicized to the degree it has and Trump keeps nominating far right judges. Neither their base nor swing voters will care, hell they'll cheer it on. In fact considering how unpopular Kavanaugh already is, if he is confirmed Dems will have an excuse to impeach him. No matter how you slice it, doing things this way is bad for the integrity of the Supreme Court and bad for Republicans. They should have gone with Amy, and their least worst option now would be if Kavanaugh resigns and Barrett gets nominated after Thursday, allowing them to confirm her during the lame duck session.

Nail hit 

Oof, just realized my typo. Sorry guys. 

So I guess we should just let all crimes go because the victim might be lying, got it. All those murders without a literal smoking gun should be ignored, all the rapes without the actual cum from the rapist should be ignored. Because a witness might be lying and there's no way to tell, no way to corroborate their stories, like forcing other witnesses to testify whether they like it or not, checking stories for details and consistency, and making a rational decision on whose story we doubt instead of a political one or an identity based one. Yep, let them all go scot free because victims are the ones that lie, not criminals.

1) Read the article. "Amazing news, Turkish Airlines granted us an airplane to fly to Somalia, a 60-ton cargo plane so we can fly there with food, with water for these people," He went with the relief aid.

2) You can speak your mind. I never said you cannot. I said you cannot make suggestions when all you do is speak your mind. At least, you cannot be taken seriously. Who in their right mind should or would respect you? I certainly do not and neither should anyone actually putting in the work. Your opinion, ultimately means nothing because you have no integrity behind it. So, you can speak your mind, but your suggestions add absolutely nothing to the conversation. Actually, you have added nothing to the conversation, really.

3) To even, "ask" such a question when there has been no evidence presented to the contrary is still an attempt at slander. Point blank, that is a slanderous or at least attempted slanderous question. That is all there is to it.

4) You cannot be serious with that reply. That may be the worst thing I have read this year. "He didn't ask for people to stop being killed or the killers to be held accountable correctly" may be the most insanely stupid thing I have read on the internet this year. At least for that you can have my congratulations. However, that is a very sad thing to say and very, very poor form. People are being murdered and someone has to, "ask the right way" for that to stop happening. Get right the fuck up on out of here with that bullshit. I cannot even respond to you anymore if that is the length you are willing to go to maintain your obviously antiquated and incorrect position. What a waste!

That's a very strange statement, because from what I've been seeing in this thread, you have accepted the misrepresentation of Kaepernick as the truth without hesitation and continuously asked people to disprove the misrepresentation.

But since you said that you would go the extra distance, I now ask you to provide credible sources for whoever and whatever you believe Kaepernick to be.

Like I said about firing up the right, unless her testimony is rock solid and highly convincing, and his is poor, the right is going to want Kavanaugh confirmed. If he backs out himself, it's going to piss the right off to no end, and will have them out is much larger numbers than they would otherwise for the mid terms. Trump could purpose a female at that point in time, assuming one that has been vetted and even better if it's one the Dems and left seemed ok with, because it will make it extremely hard for them to go against her and make it tough, without blatantly making themselves look like hypocrites. Trump and the Reps would still point out how the Dems went out of their way to smear the man and roll out the red carpet for the woman, even if that's not exactly how it plays out for her.

If her testimony is strong, and his weak, then the right is going to lose faith in the Reps, and if Trump then nominates one of the females that the left doesn't seem to have a problem with, it will make him look super weak like he's totally caving to the Dems and left, and that will not be good for the Reps. If Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed due to her testimony, I would bet Trump puts forward another male candidate. I'm not saying that's the right thing to do, but politically I can see why they would go that route.

Not at all what I'm saying. I'm simply proposing accusations be backed up with evidence.

Depends on what you count as evidence. Based on what you seem to be implying, there's not much evidence in the case of the priests who raped little boys, but we believe those little boys.

I'm not sure if it's that automatic. I imagine those accusations are followed up with some amount of investigation.

I wonder at what point does the ignorance become wilful. Where the cognitive dissonance overrules the logic.

Then why haven't these accusations been followed up with an FBI investigation? That's the next logical step here, but it's like they're afraid or something. If he's so damn confidant he did nothing, then an investigation will give him the legitimacy to say so with authority and truly clear his name with the public. Besides, it's a job interview, not a trial. No sane company would hire an applicant with this much baggage, especially with so many other highly qualified applicants. If you want a trial with a full investigation and a guilty or not guilty verdict, there would have to be criminal charges filed, but then we wouldn't be deciding if he gets a job, but rather whether or not he goes to jail. That could come after he was withdrawn, and would probably end with him being acquitted and keeping his current lifetime appointment, so it wouldn't even end his career. Wouldn't that be worth protecting the reputation and trust of the Supreme Court? Gorsuch didn't get these accusations, instead he sailed through and got multiple Dem votes, so it is possible to do even in these polarized times. We need the SC to be the final arbiter of all laws and disputes in the entire country. It would be dangerous to damage trust in it by confirming someone like this to it. Again, this is a job interview, not a trial. Nothing bad happens to Kavanaugh if he isn't confirmed. He just doesn't get a promotion. You have to think about the institution you're hiring him for before you think about him and what you think he may or may not personally deserve. Trump has a long list of applicants just as qualified as him, if not more. It's no harm to Kavanaugh if he's denied, but it's terrible for the SC's reputation if he's confirmed. And that's amongst not just liberals and Dems, but independents and centrists as well, and even many Republicans, especially Republican women. We need the American people to be able to trust the SC. Whatever Republicans hope to accomplish by sacrificing that reputation isn't worth it.