Dems are officially a national disgrace.

Actually, it does presume innocence.

See, this is why you guys are a joke. I think you realize this, which is why you're a joke. If not, then.... still a joke.

 

To

You should start a thread. This one is about Kavanaugh.

 

"Ram?" Kavanaugh has been the nominee for months. These clowns had plenty of time to raise this issue.

 

35 yrs later? Damn right.

 

The question now is where will the left riot when Kavanaugh is confirmed?

 

Are you referring to those young men who beat the central park jogger almost to death (but turned out not to be the ones who raped her)? Why do liberals always hold that case up as the ultimate justice that they were released??

 

What I find most amusing about all of this is that the democrats on legacy media are talking about how this isn't a court of law, so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply.

That entire tact relies on people believing that the fundamental aspect of our legal system is somehow neglecting an important aspect of justice - which can only be a presumption of guilt.

Sorry dems, but I have more respect for a cockroach than I do you. Sorry, but there it is.

 

All Humans are Created Equal -- all citizens have a right to vote.

Discrimination against a minority is possible even under Democracy. White Majority supported oppression of African Americans from 1776 to 1960s. In many nations there is discrimination against minorities -- Jews were discriminated in USSR 1968-1986.

I am very grateful to women who are working to save the Male Minority from Presumption of Guilt.

 

Make no mistake about it, we will win.

 

It's a minority of women. If not for men, we'd be suffering under another President Clinton.

Sorry ladies, but you failed to police your own, so my respect for you is less than optimal.

 

ahh good ol' dem predictions....

If I had a dollar for every democratic prediction in the last ten years that failed to materialize, I'd be able to buy that ridiculous party. They couldn't predict a sunrise!

 

And you're the reason why.

 

They can vote against him for ANY reason. Those are the Rules.

Glad to see that you understand that.

Carry on.

 

Most rapes don't get reported, like ever. So 35 years is damn right.

 

No, someone isn't innocent just because there is no evidence of guilt. We only presume innocence not because we actually 100% believe it but because there needs to be strong evidence to lock someone up. My point is that it is possible she is not lying. Can you agree with that?

 

Of course I understand that. Glad to see you're at least cognizant of the basics.

 

LOL...I doubt they care what you think. Men failed to police their own as well all the time, yet you pretend it doesn't happen.

 

Whether she is lying or not has nothing to do with it. What's her evidence?

sigh... you obviously don't understand the basics of our legal system, so I'll lay it out for you. We start off being presumed innocant. Then the prosecution tries to convince the judge or a jury that there is something in the evidence that might be a reason to reevaluate the presumption of innocence. Maybe you can get all the way to maybe beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doubt has to start with a fundamental presumption of innocent.

In other words, a prosecution starts with innocence and then lays the groundwork for that presumption to be fallacious. That's what a prosecutor has to deal with. The reason why this is how our system of law works is because the opposite gives far much power to idiots like that Ford broad who only has accusations and a very faulty memory.

See, we really don't want to send innocent people to prison or destroy their lives. We just want to put people who really have done something bad behind bars. If you wish to say that Kavanaugh works from a presumption of guilt, then all I can say is that you really need to think things through a bit better.

 

I'm sure that women don't. That's just one reason I don't think they should be allowed to vote. Maybe in 100 years after they've been the ones sacrificing their lives to protect the homeland, but that ain't now.

 

This isn't a court room where he might go to jail. The burden of proof is so high in court because we are talking about throwing someone in prison and ruining his life. In a Supreme Court nomination, the nominee has the burden of proof to show he is up for the job. Therefore even the possibility that we might nominate a rapist for the Supreme Court requires an FBI investigation.

 

Bullcrap! He was accused of serious crimes so the accuser must prove their claims.

 

Not in court.

 

Yeah, see, this is that "this isn't a court room" rebuttal which means you don't care about the law.

Thanks for admitting that. There's a reason why we start with a presumption of innocence. I think you probably realize this, but... well... a dem...

lol!!!!!!

 

Many rapes are nothing more than regrettable sexual encounters. Many women are manipulative and lure men in only to yell rape when it suits their needs.

 

Your Republican heroes were quick to condemn Al Franken and he never got so much as one hearing.