Part 1
Um...no.
Definition of multiple (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiple
adjective
- having or involving more than one part, individual, etche had multiple injuries
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/multiple
I believe you are thinking of "a few". You need to work on your Google-fu.
And I'll believe Avenatti when he reveals the person and makes their case.
Fair enough. But Avenatti has almost always delivered on his word before. So...
Until such time as they prove their claims why should we believe them?
As I said in the other thread, you don't have to believe them...but you are DISBELIEVING them. That's different. You have zero evidence to disbelieve them so tell me how it is simple decency to disbelieve potential victims of sexual assault because you like the accused's politics?
That he wants the job is immaterial.
No, it's not. It's everything in this case because it is the context in this case. If Kavanaugh wasn't vying for a SC Justice seat, the Senate wouldn't give a rat's ass either way.
This is his job interview. The fact he wants the job is 100% the point.
This is about allegations.
It's about whether he should be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. That's ALL this is about.
If someone gets accused of the same thing while not being nominated for SCOTUS would you be saying the same thing?
It depends on the context. If the accuser went to the police, then absolutely not. Then it becomes a legal matter where a crime is being investigated and the accused should be afforded all the rights our legal process provides them.
But if someone is wanting to become the Northeast Regional Manager of Sales, then yes, I'd say the same thing.
If Kavanaugh already had the job would you be saying the same thing?
It would depend entirely on the context in which the issue was raised. If Kavanaugh was already seated and the accusations came, but no legal charges were imminent, then it would simply be his word vs. hers and people could think whatever they want. It wouldn't matter at that point.
But it matters now because Kavanaugh ISN'T seated and is currently being evaluated by his "bosses" for a promotion. So that is why it is Kavanaugh's responsibility to credibly deny the allegations to the satisfaction of his "bosses".
This isn't hard to understand.
Him being nominated is nothing more than an excuse to demand that he prove his innocence and until he does he's guilty as charged.
No...his nomination is the reason why he is undergoing intense scrutiny, which is why things like this have arisen, despite the Republicans best efforts to hide so much of Kavanaugh's life from the public.
You keep using the word "guilty". You need to stop that. Guilt is a legal term, applied in a legal setting. This is not a legal setting. Furthermore, Kavanaugh isn't "guilty as charged", even if you're using the phrase colloquially. It's not that Kavanaugh is "guilty as charged" but rather that it is the responsibility of Kavanaugh to satisfy those who hold the power of his promotion.
This is not a legal setting. You have to stop thinking of it as that. This is a job interview, a totally political process. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply. The "rights of the accused" doesn't exist. For the purpose of this nomination, these allegations bear little real difference between a company man seeking a promotion from a big boss, while the company man's manager said he has some incidences of not getting along with others. It is essentially the same thing, in this context.
No. I will never accept such a standard.
What you "accept" doesn't matter. If I don't accept the sun is the center of our solar system, it doesn't make me any less wrong.
