Wife-beating likely rapist in the Senate?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Kevin Graham is a rapist. We know this because he doesn't believe the current allegations against Sherrod Brown, but did against Weinstein, Kavanaugh, and anyone else he doesn't like politically. Kevin Graham, how many women have you raped?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Weinstein was a Democratic booster with similar politics to Kevin's. Work harder.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Weinstein was a Democratic booster with similar politics to Kevin's. Work harder.

Ah! Good catch. The Democrapists are represented well by one of their own.

- Doc

[_Chap]

It's your fault Chap for arguing in post after post that all allegations should be believed no matter what. Oh how you'd implore us to believe every allegation for hours and hours on end. Looks like you've been hoisted by your own petard.

You're being ironic, right? Please quote me saying that "all allegations should be believed no matter what".

What you will find me saying repeatedly in the Kavanaugh thread(s) is that if it seems that there is a significant possibility that a candidate for the bench of the Supreme Court may not be a fit person to be appointed to that highly influential office for life, then the precautionary principle suggests that it would be wise to choose another candidate. In such a case the rights of the candidate merit pretty well zero consideration in comparison with the right of the people of the US to have impartial judges set over them.

I have on several occasions said that the allegations made against Kavanaugh were not of a strength to convict him in a criminal court.

I have done my best to be clear, specific and limited in all that I have said on this matter. The difference between us is that the question you apparently want me to answer, in this case as in Kavanaugh's, is:

A: "Do you believe these allegations are true"

The question I am discussing is not that, however, but a different and more important one:

B. "In the given circumstances, what decision should be taken by those with the power and responsibility to do so?"

In the Kavanaugh case, the decision was whether to confirm or not. In the current case, I am not clear what the decision before us is exactly. Possibly "Should the DNC withdraw its support for this candidate?". What do you think? Has that bar yet been crossed?

[_Some Schmo]

It's your fault Chap for arguing in post after post that all allegations should be believed no matter what. Oh how you'd implore us to believe every allegation for hours and hours on end. Looks like you've been hoisted by your own petard.

You're being ironic, right? Please quote me saying that "all allegations should be believed no matter what".

It was clearly sarcasm, Chap. He's just fleshing out the strawman of which the left is accused.

[_Chap]

It's your fault Chap for arguing in post after post that all allegations should be believed no matter what. Oh how you'd implore us to believe every allegation for hours and hours on end. Looks like you've been hoisted by your own petard.

You're being ironic, right? Please quote me saying that "all allegations should be believed no matter what".

It was clearly sarcasm, Chap. He's just fleshing out the strawman of which the left is accused.

Thanks - no doubt you are right. If so apologies to EA for being dense. But some of the people on this board as so ... unusual, let us say, that one is wary about making easy assumptions.

[_subgenius]

It's your fault Chap for arguing in post after post that all allegations should be believed no matter what. Oh how you'd implore us to believe every allegation for hours and hours on end. Looks like you've been hoisted by your own petard.

...
What you will find me saying repeatedly in the Kavanaugh thread(s) is that if it seems that there is a significant possibility ....
...

True, and a "significant possibility" is not creates by a single non-anonymous uncorroborated no-evidence allegation (regardless of bandwagon)...nor is that enough to merit "seems".
Yet here, you have suddenly raised the bar for what must be considered as "significant possibility".

And to keep the Shakespeare going - The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[_canpakes]

True, and a "significant possibility" is not creates by a single non-anonymous uncorroborated no-evidence allegation (regardless of bandwagon)...nor is that enough to merit "seems".

Well, there goes virtually every conspiracy theory that you clutch to regarding the Clintons and Obama.

[_subgenius]

True, and a "significant possibility" is not creates by a single non-anonymous uncorroborated no-evidence allegation (regardless of bandwagon)...nor is that enough to merit "seems".

Well, there goes virtually every conspiracy theory that you clutch to regarding the Clintons and Obama.

Good, now you finally have a frame of reference for how you guys look and sound.
Im sill waiting for the inevitable tie-in to "Russia!".

[_Chap]

you have suddenly raised the bar for what must be considered as "significant possibility".

How, exactly?

Please be specific.