the three women accusing him! also I said possible never declared him an official sexual predator.

If you want to believe that 3 random women were paid off to lie and say he assaulted them, go ahead that's not my concern.
You can support heavily controversial politicians if you want since that is your right, however I also have the right to not want a possible criminal in power who is nominated by a man who proudly has said very cruel things about his approach to women. Lets not mock each other with images :)

America isnt an authoritarian country.

The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.

uh huh, but now the post that was being quoted is saying "Hopepefully ford and the democrats like finestein get some punishment for making false acusations." so now the burden of proof is on the person saying they made false accusations. Presumably they are also innocent until proven guilty.

You should have probably keeped reading that it was clarified. Jail time was not what I claimed should happen. I said they draged through the mud kavanaughs name so feinteins name should also be draged throw the mud.

Ok you do understand that possible does not mean he did it, right? Possible does not even qualify here as all 3 "victims" show 0 evidence at all of the crime. theres not even a little bit of a hint of any sexual misconduct. Like someone else already said, its inocent until proven guilty.

Thats fine and your right, nobody can change your mind. But understand that its the same for the other side. And it should be your concern since its the majority thats against you, specially the majority in power. If the majority sees something wrong but you dont, then you probably have to start thinking if the problem is you.

Well if "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply when jail time is not involved then what's the problem with the accusations? I don't recall jail time being on the table for Kavanaugh. Don't believe the hearing was "supreme court or prison". So you should have had no issue with Kavanaugh's name being dragged through the mud considering you want to do the same to Ford now. 

Also, I read through the thread, but how was I meant to realize that the person who quoted a response to your statement was actually trying to respond to the response of the further clarified intent of that quote? Don't see why you would assume that to be the case. 

Finally, this whole argument has been about how these kind of proceedings should have innocent until proven guilty regardless of whether or not there's a criminal proceeding, but now you hope that others get punished without giving them the same benefit of the doubt. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. 

Two of the three accusers' credibility are less than reliable.   Julie Swetnick has changed her story on camera from her sworn statement while her ex-boyfriend has come out to claim that she isn't to be trusted and is an attention hog.  Deborah Ramirez was too drunk to clearly recall what happened.  Neither one of them (plus Dr. Ford) had any corroborating evidence to support their claims.  Obviously, it is your concern.

EDIT: Because I can...

NBC Reporter: Swetnick Changed Her Story

Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, has somehow changed her story from the time she penned a statement about incident, to the time she sat down with NBC's Kate Snow. 

Guy pointed out the specific narrative shifts from her statement to the interview, including how Swetnick first said that she knew Kavanaugh and Mark Judge spiked the punch at parties and gave dangerous drinks to girls, with plans to gang rape them. But in the NBC interview, she admits that she only remembers seeing the two boys near the punch, and that she never "specifically" saw either of them spike it.

Snow noted the discrepancies on air Monday night before the network aired the interview.

Snow said that NBC has also been reaching out to Swetnick's old acquaintances, but have so far found no one who remembers the parties she has described.

Ex-boyfriend says Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick threatened to kill his unborn child, 'was exaggerating everything'

Swetnick is represented by anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti. He did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment on Vinneccy's allegation, but in an interview on CNN Monday night, he cast doubt on Vinneccy's credibility and characterized him as an estranged ex-boyfriend.

Vinneccy, who said he dated Swetnick off-and-on for seven years, maintained that Swetnick never once mentioned to him her extraordinary claims, apparently made for the first time last month, that Kavanaugh had engaged in systemic gang rapes decades ago. He said the relationship spanned from 1994 to 2001.

"Never, never once [did] she mention that to me," he said. "We used to talk about everything. She never once mentioned that at all. ... If you ask me personally if I believe her, I don't believe her. I really don't believe her. Nobody knows Julie Swetnick better than me."

He added that while he was not aware of Swetnick's political tendencies, "She always wanted to be the center of attention. . .. She was exaggerating everything. Everything that came out of her mouth was just exaggerations."

Brett Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez interviewed by FBI as part of assault probe

Ramirez has admitted that she doesn't remember all the details from the night in question and reportedly said she can't be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her.

You can support unsubstantiated claims all you want that has the potential to wrongfully ruin a person's life and family because of blind politics.  And for the record, I don't mock.  I keep it real.