Sen McConnell declares '*-Nobody's Guilty until Proven Innocent!-*' American Hypocrisy, Inc?

stand back Satan, return to the GEC cubicle from which you came! You shall not divide these innocent citizens into a twenty page mud fest with feigned ignorance! They are much brighter than that... I hope.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

well, my first thought was if the accusation was true, how much weight should it have to begin with. I mean he was 17. should something that was done, even sexual assault while in a drunken stupor while a minor be held against someone 30+ years later. this would have been a discussion worth having you'd think. but, no one really seemed to be interested in that discussion, they were just interesting in pushing the belief that would lead to their desired outcome.

there's other issues that I have that makes me think that kav wasn't the best choice. Gamble vs. the US being one.
and more came to light at the last hearing when kav lost if. but as far as the initial accusation, it was more the way people chose to handle that accusation that bothered me than the actually accusation, which basically boiled down to a bunch of stupid kids did some really stupid things and some ended up getting hurt.

maybe some day, we might get to the point where we can actually handle this situation better... but it seems we aren't there yet.

a reply to: watersabove

Mitch McConnell has been around for some time now, since 1984. 34 years in the Senate, much of that time in leadership rolls.

a reply to: watersabove

Y'know, that particular attitude is why we're where we are today.

You might want to rethink that there attitude.

a reply to: dawnstar

Your mindset LMAO!

a reply to: ker2010
the sides were chosen before anyone could have known for sure if there was any evidence or not.
when everyone should have been just settled down letting investigators investigate it... (investigators who were no just members of Grassley's staff)... they were digging themselves as if they knew for sure.
this was happening ON BOTH SIDES...

a reply to: ker2010

I'll just match you little video with another video.. both about as equally factless...

a reply to: watersabove

He meant to say in the USA no one is/should be considered guilty until they prove they are innocent.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ker2010
the sides were chosen before anyone could have known for sure if there was any evidence or not.
when everyone should have been just settled down letting investigators investigate it... (investigators who were no just members of Grassley's staff)... they were digging themselves as if they knew for sure.
this was happening ON BOTH SIDES...

Yes, my side is you start off innocent, that is the default position. So anyone who was not on the side of Kavanaugh is innocent, but open to hearing evidence proving guilt, is on the wrong side.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

no, your side was....
oh, this is just another democratic attempt to obstruct...
blah, blah....

a reply to: watersabove

You have it backwards and you need to read it again. He's saying in the US you are considered innocent until proven guilty which is a fact.

He's one of the most well know politicians also.

I think you just misread it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

no, your side was....
oh, this is just another democratic attempt to obstruct...
blah, blah....

Yes, after viewing the evidence. You might like the guilty until proven innocent route, I stick with innocent, view evidence, make a decision. The evidence is conclusive about what this was, which is why Feinstein refused to mention this even though she met with Kavanaugh after having the letter. She waited until the 11th hour in order to obstruct.

Then it turns out there is no evidence, only lots of questions about apparent lies and contradictions Ford has made about this and what role Democrats played.

a reply to: dawnstar

In my understanding, criminal acts committed as a minor are usually expunged upon reaching adulthood. I don't know if that applies to all types of crimes, but it does indicate a belief that the person we are in our youth is not the same person we are as adults. How far back in someone's youth is it ok to go when seeking information about their behavior in assessing their character? Little kids can be rude and often act out violently. Is that who they are as adults? Teenagers are famous for making horrendously bad decisions. How long do we hold those decisions against them?

I don't know what really happened between Kav and Ford. But I do know that the way this revelation and investigation was handled was suspicious at the very least. To me it was blatantly political and was, in no substantive way, supportive in regard to Ford or her alleged experiences. I think Ford was used and tossed aside when leverage from her allegations failed to achieve the desired results.

I wonder what kind of damage that will do to her...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

but it wasn't till after they viewed the evidence....
they had decided that it was just a dem ploy at the start, a delay tactic,
before they heard her story, before they did any kind of background investigation whatsoever.
they were hellbent that they weren't gonna let the dems delay the process from the start!!!

a reply to: Vroomfondel

In my understanding, criminal acts committed as a minor are usually expunged upon reaching adulthood. I don't know if that applies to all types of crimes, but it does indicate a belief that the person we are in our youth is not the same person we are as adults. How far back in someone's youth is it ok to go when seeking information about their behavior in assessing their character? Little kids can be rude and often act out violently. Is that who they are as adults? Teenagers are famous for making horrendously bad decisions. How long do we hold those decisions against them?

this is my thought... stupid kids will do stupid things.. if you accept judges books as being true, well these kids were having parties in each other houses while the parents weren't home and at least one instance did some major damage...
kav has a wife and kids.. who in their right mind really thinks he is behaving this way now? oh the wife and kids are away for the day, ya all grab a couple of kids and pick up a bunch of girls to have fun with and come on over!! oh, look you put a hole in the ceiling and I can see my attic now, how neat!!!....
kav would have been divorced by now if this was the case!!!
kids grow up and become adults, or at least most do. it wouldn't of hurt one bit for them to acknowledge the accusation, do a serious investigation of it, and well, if found to be true decide just how much weight that should have, if any instead of tearing open the wound that many women felt when yous did the same exact thing when trump was accused!

Oh and just for the record I cant stand Mitch, I think he is a walking talking representation of everything wrong in DC.

That said, it appears even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and again.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

but it wasn't till after they viewed the evidence....
they had decided that it was just a dem ploy at the start, a delay tactic,
before they heard her story, before they did any kind of background investigation whatsoever.
they were hellbent that they weren't gonna let the dems delay the process from the start!!!

Whether Kavanaugh did it and whether it's an obstructionist tactic are 2 different things. It seemed to be a delay tactic from day 1, and the evidence mounted more and more that it indeed was, and now we know for a fact it it was.

Choosing that as your example when it absolutely was a stall and delay tactic is not a good idea.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
where's the proof that it was an obstruction tactic??

The FBI investigation I would think. Considering they concluded they were baseless accusations
a reply to: dawnstar

originally posted by: Edumakated

First of all I never heard of Senator McConnell before but the radio and news were constantly just referring to him as simply 'McConnell' like we're just supposed to know who he is from the get go.

If you didn't know who McConnell is then you aren't politically informed enough to be having this conversation...

This thread was answered long ago.^^^^^^^^