Message from grant in Subverse #debate

2018-09-28 14:32:26 UTC  

and you admitted she was not based on things we knew before she testified

2018-09-28 14:32:35 UTC  

Why do we put people on trial if they can just be found not guilty?

2018-09-28 14:33:07 UTC  

You're arguing against an irrational position.

2018-09-28 14:33:10 UTC  

We didn't get any new information

2018-09-28 14:33:46 UTC  

She provided it all by letter she did manage to stall the vote

2018-09-28 14:34:42 UTC  

The dems saw this worked and "new" allegation just started popping up demanding their own day at the hearing with more demands

2018-09-28 14:39:06 UTC  

As kavanaugh pointed out, she asked for anonymity.

2018-09-28 14:40:59 UTC  

It was a political operation that exposed her.

2018-09-28 14:41:26 UTC  

She was lawyering up in august almost a month before the allegation came forward

2018-09-28 14:41:40 UTC  

This isn’t a trial this is a witch hunt

2018-09-28 14:42:21 UTC  

An anonymous accusation would have been worse

2018-09-28 14:42:53 UTC  

this is common is dem playbook see: trump, herman cain, clarence thomas. difference is the #metoo movement

2018-09-28 14:43:32 UTC  

in past we would not have allowed the circus without real evidence

2018-09-28 14:43:52 UTC  

in the mean time keith ellison wins elections

2018-09-28 14:45:05 UTC  

@Faticati I agree if they would have allowed it to remain anonymous it would have been worse

2018-09-28 14:45:25 UTC  

we have a right to face our accusers.

2018-09-28 14:45:50 UTC  

What I do not understand is why you want to destroy the accuser when you don't have to to make your case?

2018-09-28 14:46:16 UTC  

Apparently, we do because believe all women.

2018-09-28 14:46:53 UTC  

It's about as self destructive as saying 'boys will be boys' to dismiss the accusations

2018-09-28 14:47:25 UTC  

If Judge Kavanaugh doesn't get the nomination what job can he get?

2018-09-28 14:48:28 UTC  

Also why do we have to destroy the accuser?

2018-09-28 14:48:59 UTC  

I agree with you to an extent but that is a separate issue

2018-09-28 14:49:13 UTC  

regardless of whether he's put on scotus democrats are going to try to impeach him.

2018-09-28 14:49:42 UTC  

If the Dems weren't playing politics they would have investigated and nothing would have happened because she hasn't provided evidence.

2018-09-28 14:49:56 UTC  

Your stance is to burn the protection that burden of proof applies

2018-09-28 14:50:19 UTC  

what protection?

2018-09-28 14:50:47 UTC  

Lying to Congress is a crime

2018-09-28 14:51:05 UTC  

they crafted the accusation vague enough so she couldn't be jailed.

2018-09-28 14:51:11 UTC  

And you are convicting her in the court of public opinion

2018-09-28 14:51:38 UTC  

You're no better than them in that regard

2018-09-28 14:52:13 UTC  

There's a cultural issue plaguing both sides.

2018-09-28 14:53:18 UTC  

This is extremely simple NO EVIDENCE NO BELIEF

2018-09-28 14:53:27 UTC  

I am saying this never should have gotten this far.

2018-09-28 14:53:53 UTC  

Right now outside they're saying believe all women.

2018-09-28 14:54:06 UTC  

all smiles

2018-09-28 14:54:21 UTC  

What I don't get is the automatic dismissal of someone's testimony based on the fact that she's unclear on certain details.

2018-09-28 14:54:55 UTC  

'false in one, false in all'

2018-09-28 14:55:16 UTC  

Is a legal principle

2018-09-28 14:55:25 UTC  

A person can be sure something happened in childhood and not remember the date/time.

2018-09-28 14:55:36 UTC  

Yeah, why dismiss on lack of evidence? /s

2018-09-28 14:55:53 UTC  

there needs to be corroborating witnesses and/or evidence. individual testimony is worth very little, even less if there is no specificity or if it's unfalsifiable.