met probably meaning being in the same place at one point in all their years

people claiming to be feminists are infantilizing women and removing their agency, and actually exacerbating the problems they're claiming to champion.

yeah, I hate this because it make credible claims look bad as well

credible = with more evidence

I expect more claims with no evidence or credibility until some people start looking at their own biases

You guys don't see the trap you're in.

I'll explain in a moment

Is the trap that I want evidence? (and we didn't get it in this case)

I'll check back in and try to respond when you post your thing. Got to do some work.

Lindsey Graham was right. Change my mind

@Beemann He's Republican QED

So was McCain

So is Flake

So was Bush, so is Rubio

So, here's my premise.

I support Kavanaugh. I believe he's innocent until proven guilty. I believe the entire hearing was a farce

I believe one of the most telling moments in the hearing was Booker asking Kavanaugh if he would've preferred the accuser hadn't come forward.

That would be a sustainable objection at best and a disbarment at worst in an ACTUAL court of law.

The trap we fall in to, though, is hypocrisy.

That's because the only thing that differentiated this from a kangaroo court was the number of dems in seats lol

If we believe that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty of his charges

We can't make charges of perjury - and make no mistake that's what you're doing when you call her a liar - without evidence.

And the absence of evidence in one is not sustainable proof of the other.

If you dislike this court of public opinion, you have to step up and take the high road against it.

I think her claims can be ignored due to zero evidence. Whether or not I think she's a liar is irrelevant.

Not someone else, it has to start somewhere.

Both can be true though, she can not be lying and Kavanaugh can not be a sex offender

Which is the position I've consistently held

Because the same protections that protect Kavanaugh are the same that protect Ford.

It's been over 3 decades. She could easily misremember details. Mistake Kavanaugh for someone else, coping mechanisms could have kicked in etc

Unless you have evidence to prove she's lying about ever being a victim, you have to accept an impasse.

Otherwise you risk hypocrisy, and that will only strengthen your opposition

It's not even an impasse

It is, though.

It's not either or

Exactly which is why Kavanaugh would have a very hard time suing her for defamation.

He can't prove she's lying.

Her claim that she was victimized and Kavanaugh's claim that he is innocent can both simultaneously be true

She can also wholeheartedly believe it was him, and that could be false

Which means she isn't lying

It's Hanlons razor