LogFAQs > #909506655

KrissVector posted...

Wasnt Gorsuch sworn in before #metoo kicked off?

If so, there is your answer.

That doesn't make sense, though. Trump was accused by 13 women during the 2016 election, well before #MeToo was a thing, and people were saying those allegations were spurious too. Same story with Tim Murphy and Anthony Weiner. Roy Moore had his day in the spotlight less than a month after the hashtag started to trend, but before the movement gained much steam.

Moreover, there are plenty of vulnerable, highly visible Republicans up for election that could make or break the Republican Party's grip on the senate (Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, and Dean Heller, for instance) yet, strangely, there's no allegations against them, despite the fact that #MeToo is apparently this unstoppable juggernaut of man-crushing power and all a woman need do is ask to dethrone a man from his seat of power.

GreenKnight127 posted...

1.) Did you decide to make this claim against me while I am in the process of becoming a member of the Supreme Court? Because, if so, fuck you.

You know, it's awfully hard to hold a conversation with you if you skip over my questions and pick one single part of my post to respond to.

Anyways, does this matter? Whether I make it when you are applying for a high profile position or not, the accusation is still spurious and easily disproven.

Also, since you're being picky about diction in this topic, I'll point out that Kavanaugh isn't "in the process of becoming a member of the Supreme Court" - he's being vetted to see if that process should be undertaken in the first place. This is exactly the time and place when the senate is supposed to be investigating these sorts of allegations so they don't accidentally put a rapist on the Supreme Court. Which would be bad.

GreenKnight127 posted...

the principle of the matter is that you are doing it as a character smear and nothing more

Of course. And that's shitty. You, naturally, would be super-eager to disprove me in order to fight the media rage-machine you are saying has lined up against you. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't shrug your shoulders and give up in the face of such a nakedly false accusation, right?

GreenKnight127 posted...

I'm pretty sure you are just trolling at this point because you are, almost suspiciously, going out of your way to defend accusations of guilt before proof of innocence.

You and Revvy up there can cling to that one "burden-of-proof" phrase in the hope it'll save your argument, but trying to simplify it down to those three words isn't going to help you for several reasons:

1) Given that Kavanaugh is not on trial here and is, instead, being vetted for a new job, the threshold for "proof" is much lower than it would be during criminal proceedings. Kavanaugh's accusers do not need to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that their stories are accurate; if their allegations, on a balance of probability, seem more believable than Kavanaugh's that is sufficient reason to deep-six the nomination, and the burden then shifts to Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. Is I run a daycare centre and you're applying to work there and your background check shows that you've been investigated several times for pedophilia, I'm not hiring you even if you've never been formally charged or convicted of anything. True, you may very well be innocent... but the risk of what will happen to me and my business if you're not (to say nothing of the children in my care) is too great for me to take.

When we're talking about someone whose decisions will affect the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people, a fairly high standard of care is in order

*continued*
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!