Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He handled it the way I would have handled it if he was indeed innocent - fight back. You don't indulge people attacking you, you punch them back (figuratively speaking).
See, you automatically believe he's innocent. You cannot consider the possibility he might have done it, but that he doesn't remember it. This is precisely your problem.
See, you automatically believe he's innocent. You cannot consider the possibility he might have done it, but that he doesn't remember it. This is precisely your problem.
Perhaps you don't understand the words - if he was indeed innocent inside the quote. What do you think those words mean?
See, you automatically believe he's innocent. You cannot consider the possibility he might have done it, but that he doesn't remember it. This is precisely your problem.
EVERYONE is innocent until someone proves that they are guilty, welcome to America. Democrats never even came close to proving that we should suspect Kavanaugh could be guilty, not even remotely close.
See, you automatically believe he's innocent. You cannot consider the possibility he might have done it, but that he doesn't remember it. This is precisely your problem.
That's the way it's supposed to work in America. We automatically believe people are innocent until proven guilty.
What third world tinpot dictatorship would you prefer we live in? It seems you want to live in a place where if the powers that be dictate someone is guilty, then they are guilty. So long as the powers that be agree with your political views, anyway.
Perhaps you don't understand the words - if he was indeed innocent inside the quote. What do you think those words mean?
Sorry, I missed that. If he didn't remember, which seems to me to be the most probable explanation, he doesn't really know if he was innocent or not. The honest thing to do there would be to say you don't think you did it, but you can't rule out the possibility you did it and don't remember, in which case the most honest thing to do would be to say the thing I suggested before.
The problem is assuming he was certain he did something in a situation which he was unlikely to remember. There were many people he knew telling everyone he was just the type of person who got drunk like that fairly often. So, this would have been just another instance of that. Completely denying something that you could have done in a situation you would not have remembered anyway is simply dishonest.
That's the way it's supposed to work in America. We automatically believe people are innocent until proven guilty.
This was discussed ad nauseum in the other thread(s) on the topic. He was not being tried for rape, since the statute of limitations on that was long passed. He was in the court of public opinion. His honesty was being tested, not his guilt or innocence about something many years ago. People nominated for Supreme Court should be held to a pretty high standard of honesty. This was a test of it, and he failed.
Sorry, I missed that. If he didn't remember, which seems to me to be the most probable explanation, he doesn't really know if he was innocent or not.
That's a weird way of putting it. You might not remember what you did 5 years and 243 days ago but you damn sure know you did not rape someone in that black fog. Most people can safely say that they didn't do X even when they don't remember that day because that event is so out of character, if they did it, they'd remember it.
This was discussed ad nauseum in the other thread(s) on the topic. He was not being tried for rape, since the statute of limitations on that was long passed. He was in the court of public opinion. His honesty was being tested, not his guilt or innocence about something many years ago. People nominated for Supreme Court should be held to a pretty high standard of honesty. This was a test of it, and he failed.
Wrong, he passed and the fact that he was confirmed proves it. There is nothing he could have said or done to make people like you and the hyperpartisan Senate Democrats think he "passed." The Senate Democrats and their minions are evil, despicable people with no honor or integrity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Democrats never even came close to proving that we should suspect Kavanaugh could be guilty, not even remotely close. 
