That does not reflect what actually happened and I'd rather base my conclusions on actual results rather than hypothetical results.

Lastly, how about you fully read what I wrote, namely my thesis in which you failed to address three times? Considering that you've missed the point this many times even after I already pointed that out to you previously, I don't see the point in continuing. Your response was well within what I expected from you.

I fail to see how one can see “accusation = guilt” being pushed by one side as normal (if you cannot see how frightening that is, then I don’t think anyone would be able to convince you of anything) and par for course and then see someone being upset over accusations (that is being believed by the media, the celebs and half the ppl out there that is extremely damaging to his family/career/rep/life) as some sort of disqualifying variable without some extreme form of double standard here. One is normal for a human being the other may well destroy the foundation of justice as we know it. Sorry to say, not gonna fault someone for having the same failings as I do (because I do my best to not be a hypocrite) but I will fault others who are sinking to levels that I would never ever sink to.

I also find the whole “he didn’t handle pressure well” logic completely disengenouos. I mean how does that even significantly relate to his job? Didn’t think being a SC justice was some sort of a high stress, pressure cooker type of position. Must be really bad for the heart for all them other older SC justices amirite? No offense, but I feel like Dems just like to say that since that’s what they were told to think. I mean it literally makes no sense to me. And let’s be honest here, whatever other reaction or lack thereof he would have had would have just been spun by the media and put in the same negative light in one form or another.

As for partisanship, you might have a point. I mean, if he wasn’t partisan BEFORE, he sure as hell has a damn good reason to be NOW, don’t you think? Personally, if the Dems argued this angle instead of the unprovable unsupported sexual misconduct allegations, they might have still have failed to stop the confirmation but at least the negative perceptions would have landed squarely on the Repub’s laps and they would have avoided polarizing opinions on the issue.

So you think that kind of behavior is acceptable in a interview? If your boss asked you if you ever blackout from drinking, and you say, "I don't know, have you.." Do you think that's not disrespectful? Would you hire that person?

My only question is why is he so angry and combative in a job interview. I would understand his defensive angry behavior if this was a trial in a court of law, but it wasn't.

I agree on the general point you guys are making but I have to question the specific example you are using.  As I recall I looked into this and that quote was taken out of context (what a shock).  Pelosi was responding to all the doom and gloom Republicans were saying, death panels etc.  She was saying, look, none of that stuff is true but they're never going to believe me, so we have to pass it and the results will speak for themselves.  In other words, it wasn't that the text was unknown but that the text's interpretation was being disputed. 

If I'm misremembering the quote, or if there's a different quote closer to the meaning you ascribe, let me know. 

Tbh thats the cop out excuse people have been using to grasp at straws to find anything negative to say about him after one thing after another didnt work

1. Groped someone, that didnt work

2. Raped someone, that didnt work

3. Gang raped someone,that didnt work

4. He drank beers/got drunk, that didnt work

5. He throw Ice at someone at one point, that didnt work

Now since those didnt work they fall on the ''his temper'' and now putting in new rules that makes it illegal to show emotion when you are accused(with no evidence) of a heinous crime.

Left/Democrats should've handled this way better than they did. 

If you would've asked me who I thought was going to win the mid terms just 2 weeks ago, I would've told you without hesitation that democrats seem like they were going to do it. But after this Kavanaugh showing. I'm not so sure anymore, they've not only energized the lazy republican base, but also have turned away independent voters who might have been on their side. Just a really bad strategy. 

He was getting the job anyways in my opinion, but I do think more people have woken up to vote. Those that vote red have always voted red, some are changing to blue, and those who never voted before is going to. Can't wait to see how this turns out.

It's definitely going to be a crazy midterm. Prob most interesting one I can remember in recent memory. 

Really? That’s your question? I’ve actually conducted job interviews before. I wouldn’t expect the person I’m interviewing to be non-angry and non-combative if I opened my door and in my loudest voice, accused him of being a rapist in front of the entire office while his family was waiting at a nearby reception area.

You might wanna think about that a second.

Personally, I didn't follow the hearings as closely as I could have but I didn't see "accusation = guilt" nearly as much as "accusation = maybe we shouldn't railroad this guy through the process at top speed instead of taking some time to investigate". I did, however, see a fair amount of "you don't immediately disbelieve the accusations = you must be assuming he's guilty"

No sane person would do that, but who am I to judge.