If you read at any time what I put on here, I'm leaving the possibility that Moore could have done something, so that way I'm assuming anything. I really don't see how it's unreasonable to say that in an any case that it's ok to believe option A to be more true than option B, but you're open to the possibility of option B could actually be the more viable option. What IS unreasonable in these cases is just assuming that the accused is guilty without any evidence to back it up. That's like skipping the trial and going straight to the execution. But to say anyone that's giving someone like Moore the benefit of the doubt until something comes out to prove whether or not if he did the deed (and you're still open to him being guilty) is somehow supporting a pervert (without anything concrete evidence), that's ridiculous and untrue. If he did turns out to be the pervert he was accused of being, my belief that he didn't do anything would change entirely. Believe it or not, people can change their minds and opinions on subjects and people. Pretty mind blowing stuff, huh?
Who do you think you are fooling when you type the words "I'm leaving the possibility that Moore could have done something" but nonetheless relentlessly defend him, demanding that the very strictest burden of proof we have - a burden ONLY applicable to criminal trials where the government seeks to take away a citizen's freedom - must apply to voters judging a conservative in an election?
I mean really? Yeah, you can type words and neither of us can read each others' minds, but really.....
who do you really think you're fooling?
You don't even recognize the fundamental contradictions in what you post, do you? You try to dismiss it as a "he said/she said" - well, very many shes vs. one he, but nevermind - then manage to type this
"If he did turns out to be the pervert he was accused of being, my belief that he didn't do anything would change entirely. "
LOL! If it turns out....IF....
So if all the existing evidence didn't convince you, what possibly could? You know nobody was hiding in a closet video-taping Moore molesting the underage women. You're just trying to cloak your biased conclusion in objective-sounding language, but anyone who thinks for half a second can see through it; you're just framing the issue in a way that excuses you from
ever concluding that Moore "turn[ed] out to be a pervert". You're framing it so that you never have to say that.
Nevermind that people protected by proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence ARE convicted in criminal courts regularly, on no more than a he said - she said.
Drop the act. It's transparent.
Franken and Conyers stepped down. Accused "Hollywood Liberals" either stepped away or were taken down. All because of pressure from the left.
It's only right wing politicians who are acting like everyone who accused them are liars and it's only right wing posters acting like its only the right wing politicians who are innocent.
Meanwhile, decent folk on the right recognize the reality of the situation: men in power tend to misbehave, and it is incredibly unlikely that cross-corroborating accusations are all lies, especially when there is more evidence. It's only a fraction of them that insist that we need to apply due process standards for elections when a right winger is accused, and suddenly don't mention it when a left winger is.
Drop the act.
