The Unfathomable Depths of Leftists

[hadit]

Name the reasons to think it credible.

I just did in the very post you responded to.

Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

Liar.

Ford was very specific and clear on naming Kavanaugh and Judge. That is in no way vague.

What two men are you talking about?

Those were the only specifics she gave. Not even clear on the year, no idea where the house was so that with a date we could find out who owned it and get from them if they held parties in their home in which teenagers got smashed and got raped.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.tim...gh-christine-blasey-ford-two-men-claim-attack

 

[hadit]

[QUOTE
="hadit, post: 20867475, member: 44342"]

You're automatically assuming they have no merit at all. There seems to be quite a few now.

Kavanaugh can both be a very good and competent judge and have a very problematic history as a young man. Both can be true.

The point is, why elevate a man with such questions surrounding him when there are many others with equal qualifications without such questions surrounding them?

The point of this process is to shake out his past and see what comes out. We've seen what comes out. What else will fall out maybe later?

And it means nothing to you that, even if he had problems as a boy, by all accounts he's been an exemplary adult? You're determined that things you're accused of at 17 are to forever dog you and you can never overcome them, no matter what? If that's the standard you want, Obama should never have been president, given his life as a young man.

I would never hire someone to represent me or my business with questions like this surrounding them. Too many unknowns.

Obama never had questions like this surrounding his youth.

He abused drugs and had racist attitudes. The Kavenaugh standard would eliminate him for any high level position.

Sure, smoking weed is exactly the same as sexual assault.


Loser.

Illegal drug abuse for which he suffered no consequence, racist attitudes? Sorry, in the new world of the Kavenaugh standard, that's disqualifying. And we KNOW it's true because he admitted it. We know nothing of the sort about the allegations against Kavenaugh, especially now that two other men have said they did it.

Sorry, in the new world of the Kavenaugh standard, that's disqualifying.

LOL

Sorry, your "new standard" can't apply a decade ago.


Give it up. Smoking weed is not comparable to sexual assault. It was stupid to even try that.


W was a coke addict, fool.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, idiot. It's a NEW standard, the only kind democrats have. And yes, it would disqualify Obama because there's no question he was a drug using racist as a young man. We don't have any idea if Kavanaugh is guilty of so much as farting in anyone's general direction, especially with new players taking responsibility for the incident in question. Remember, we have to believe them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I just did in the very post you responded to.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

Liar.

Ford was very specific and clear on naming Kavanaugh and Judge. That is in no way vague.

What two men are you talking about?

Those were the only specifics she gave. Not even clear on the year, no idea where the house was so that with a date we could find out who owned it and get from them if they held parties in their home in which teenagers got smashed and got raped.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5408094/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-two-men-claim-attack

None of that is relevant to the allegation.
Maybe an investigation could have cleared some of those details up.

Oh, those two guys. Yes, I believe his name is Bart O'Kavanaugh.

 

[Papageorgio]

Name the reasons to think it credible.

I just did in the very post you responded to.

Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

I agree, she is credible, the fact her memory is so clear. What hurts her accusation is no one she said was there can remember being there or where there is or when it occurred.

The one thing for me is whether this is a recovered memory in 2012 or if she just never talked about it, that part of the story is very unclear to me. Once this is answered we can make a better decision.

Having just watched the testimony, there is no way you can claim she wasn't credible.

I never said she wasn't credible. Did she give the time, place and witnesses?

 

[bripat9643]

Lol, nope. You just run out of arguments.

Hmmmmm, nope. Watch the video of the douchebag Hirono from Hawaii.

Right, because she's lying and it never happened.

And if it did it happen it wasn't that bad.

But if it was that bad it's not a big deal because everybody does it.

You kids should step back and listen to this pathetic weaseling.

You do, though, have to take the entire picture into consideration. If the incident really did happen, it happened when Kavenaugh was a minor, and we have a strong tradition of clearing the slate when a kid becomes an adult. Are we willing to set that on its head just for this one occasion? "Sorry, Mister Brown, your exemplary life as an adult simply doesn't matter. The fact that you robbed a gas station when you were 17 disqualifies you for this job. We simply can't have violent thugs like you stocking our shelves".

To say that he is a dangerous sexual predator is fallacious because he's been a model citizen for a very long time. Let's let his accuser testify and see if her story holds up. If not, let it go.

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

Exactly. As I've already said, do we want a man in the position to decide rights for all women when we already know he can't respect the rights of even one?

You don't know any such thing, douchebag. In fact, and rational intelligent person knows that Ford is a lying shitbag.

 

[bripat9643]

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

Liar.

Ford was very specific and clear on naming Kavanaugh and Judge. That is in no way vague.

What two men are you talking about?

Those were the only specifics she gave. Not even clear on the year, no idea where the house was so that with a date we could find out who owned it and get from them if they held parties in their home in which teenagers got smashed and got raped.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5408094/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-two-men-claim-attack

None of that is relevant to the allegation.
Maybe an investigation could have cleared some of those details up.

Oh, those two guys. Yes, I believe his name is Bart O'Kavanaugh.

Whether her claim is factual is not relevant? Only a brain damaged snowflake could utter such an idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

I just did in the very post you responded to.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

I agree, she is credible, the fact her memory is so clear. What hurts her accusation is no one she said was there can remember being there or where there is or when it occurred.

The one thing for me is whether this is a recovered memory in 2012 or if she just never talked about it, that part of the story is very unclear to me. Once this is answered we can make a better decision.

Having just watched the testimony, there is no way you can claim she wasn't credible.

I never said she wasn't credible. Did she give the time, place and witnesses?

She isn't credible

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

Liar.

Ford was very specific and clear on naming Kavanaugh and Judge. That is in no way vague.

What two men are you talking about?

Those were the only specifics she gave. Not even clear on the year, no idea where the house was so that with a date we could find out who owned it and get from them if they held parties in their home in which teenagers got smashed and got raped.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5408094/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-two-men-claim-attack

None of that is relevant to the allegation.
Maybe an investigation could have cleared some of those details up.

Oh, those two guys. Yes, I believe his name is Bart O'Kavanaugh.

Whether her claim is factual is not relevant? Only a brain damaged snowflake could utter such an idiocy.

Only a brain damaged loser with no argument would misrepresent what I said

 

[bripat9643]

^That would be a, "no".

The accusations against Kavanaugh were brought up by a Democratic Senator.

So, that's not just a "no", that's "Hell NO!!!"

That's barely hidden behind fake equitable judgment (I don't say anyone is lying), as it was done for centuries, the fierce determination to give him the job to lord over women for the rest of his life, that is, in effect giving his account, for no reason whatsoever, the benefit of the doubt, while dismissing her account without even the spine to say so outright. That, in turn, exposes the lie behind the whole charade.

Her account is an obvious lie. Every witness she named said it never happened. She can't list a single detail that would help identify when and where it happened.

Anyone who believes she's credible had the word "gullible" tattooed on his forehead when he was born.

 

[bripat9643]

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

Liar.

Ford was very specific and clear on naming Kavanaugh and Judge. That is in no way vague.

What two men are you talking about?

Those were the only specifics she gave. Not even clear on the year, no idea where the house was so that with a date we could find out who owned it and get from them if they held parties in their home in which teenagers got smashed and got raped.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5408094/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-two-men-claim-attack

None of that is relevant to the allegation.
Maybe an investigation could have cleared some of those details up.

Oh, those two guys. Yes, I believe his name is Bart O'Kavanaugh.

Whether her claim is factual is not relevant? Only a brain damaged snowflake could utter such an idiocy.

Only a brain damaged loser with no argument would misrepresent what I said

You said the known facts weren't relevant to the allegation. What part did I misread?

 

[Tehon]

The problem isn't rooted in politics. Politics is just the form that the problem manifests itself in this particular case.

We have a society where what has been alleged isn't uncommon. And it is not uncommon for women to repress what has happened to them. And so here we are. The problem has manifested itself once again in the political arena. And since what has been alleged is not entirely unbelievable it cannot be dismissed as callously as partisans would wish for it to be. And so the resentment grows.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to address the real problem outside of the politics?

In my circle, sexual assault had been and is extremely uncommon. If your world looks different, you need to hang out with a better class of people.

That is what that individualism does. It alienates people from society.

Just ignore it then.

Individualism does not alienate people from society.

And I am not calling to ignore sexual harassment. I just don't support false accusations.

Yes it does alienate people. You just proved it by saying that sexual assault does not exist in your world. Yet, clearly it exists in our society.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

Exactly. Not a minute of testimony has been heard by anyone. There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible. Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

On that note, I think it is telling that Kavanaugh is hiding behind the Senate Republicans on the committee.

 

[bripat9643]

You're too stupid to understand why it's relevant.

Lol, nope. You just run out of arguments.

Hmmmmm, nope. Watch the video of the douchebag Hirono from Hawaii.

Right, because she's lying and it never happened.

And if it did it happen it wasn't that bad.

But if it was that bad it's not a big deal because everybody does it.

You kids should step back and listen to this pathetic weaseling.

You do, though, have to take the entire picture into consideration. If the incident really did happen, it happened when Kavenaugh was a minor, and we have a strong tradition of clearing the slate when a kid becomes an adult. Are we willing to set that on its head just for this one occasion? "Sorry, Mister Brown, your exemplary life as an adult simply doesn't matter. The fact that you robbed a gas station when you were 17 disqualifies you for this job. We simply can't have violent thugs like you stocking our shelves".

To say that he is a dangerous sexual predator is fallacious because he's been a model citizen for a very long time. Let's let his accuser testify and see if her story holds up. If not, let it go.

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

The Dims will invent some accusers to destroy whomever Trump nominates.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmmmm, nope. Watch the video of the douchebag Hirono from Hawaii.

Right, because she's lying and it never happened.

And if it did it happen it wasn't that bad.

But if it was that bad it's not a big deal because everybody does it.

You kids should step back and listen to this pathetic weaseling.

You do, though, have to take the entire picture into consideration. If the incident really did happen, it happened when Kavenaugh was a minor, and we have a strong tradition of clearing the slate when a kid becomes an adult. Are we willing to set that on its head just for this one occasion? "Sorry, Mister Brown, your exemplary life as an adult simply doesn't matter. The fact that you robbed a gas station when you were 17 disqualifies you for this job. We simply can't have violent thugs like you stocking our shelves".

To say that he is a dangerous sexual predator is fallacious because he's been a model citizen for a very long time. Let's let his accuser testify and see if her story holds up. If not, let it go.

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent - the battle cry of the leftwing douchebag.

Point out where I said he's guilty, dope.

Politically problematic for Republicans and getting worse by the day.

Here ya go, asshole:

"Not a dangerous sexual predator but a man with disqualifying flaws."

 

[bripat9643]

You do, though, have to take the entire picture into consideration. If the incident really did happen, it happened when Kavenaugh was a minor, and we have a strong tradition of clearing the slate when a kid becomes an adult. Are we willing to set that on its head just for this one occasion? "Sorry, Mister Brown, your exemplary life as an adult simply doesn't matter. The fact that you robbed a gas station when you were 17 disqualifies you for this job. We simply can't have violent thugs like you stocking our shelves".

To say that he is a dangerous sexual predator is fallacious because he's been a model citizen for a very long time. Let's let his accuser testify and see if her story holds up. If not, let it go.

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

You're automatically assuming the accusations have merit. By all accounts, Kav is a very good judge.

You're automatically assuming the accusations have merit. By all accounts, Kav is a very good judge.

You're automatically assuming they have no merit at all. There seems to be quite a few now.

Kavanaugh can both be a very good and competent judge and have a very problematic history as a young man. Both can be true.

The point is, why elevate a man with such questions surrounding him when there are many others with equal qualifications without such questions surrounding them?

The point of this process is to shake out his past and see what comes out. We've seen what comes out. What else will fall out maybe later?

And it means nothing to you that, even if he had problems as a boy, by all accounts he's been an exemplary adult? You're determined that things you're accused of at 17 are to forever dog you and you can never overcome them, no matter what? If that's the standard you want, Obama should never have been president, given his life as a young man.

I would never hire someone to represent me or my business with questions like this surrounding them. Too many unknowns.

Obama never had questions like this surrounding his youth.

Horseshit. Anyone with a brain can see that Ford is a lying shitbag.

 

[hadit]

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

Liar.

Ford was very specific and clear on naming Kavanaugh and Judge. That is in no way vague.

What two men are you talking about?

Those were the only specifics she gave. Not even clear on the year, no idea where the house was so that with a date we could find out who owned it and get from them if they held parties in their home in which teenagers got smashed and got raped.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5408094/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-two-men-claim-attack

None of that is relevant to the allegation.
Maybe an investigation could have cleared some of those details up.

Oh, those two guys. Yes, I believe his name is Bart O'Kavanaugh.

The lack of specifics are extremely relevant when it comes to verifying the allegation. I would explain why, but the level of moron is so high that I fear you would be completely unable to grasp it. And yes, those two guys. Remember, we have to believe anything anyone says in this case, and the less support they have the more we are to believe them.

 

[Correll]

Yes it does alienate people. You just proved it by saying that sexual assault does not exist in your world. Yet, clearly it exists in our society.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

Exactly. Not a minute of testimony has been heard by anyone. There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible. Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

Name the reasons to think it credible.

I just did in the very post you responded to.

Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

1. The timing.

2. The utter lack of evidence.

3. The utter lack of witnesses.

4. The oddly precise wording from a supposedly drunken frat boy.

5. The lack of additional assaults though out his life.

 

[Correll]

You do, though, have to take the entire picture into consideration. If the incident really did happen, it happened when Kavenaugh was a minor, and we have a strong tradition of clearing the slate when a kid becomes an adult. Are we willing to set that on its head just for this one occasion? "Sorry, Mister Brown, your exemplary life as an adult simply doesn't matter. The fact that you robbed a gas station when you were 17 disqualifies you for this job. We simply can't have violent thugs like you stocking our shelves".

To say that he is a dangerous sexual predator is fallacious because he's been a model citizen for a very long time. Let's let his accuser testify and see if her story holds up. If not, let it go.

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

List the flaws.

The allegations, his history with drinking is all a dark cloud of uncertainty.
The very argument raging at this moment, fool.

I doubt there are even 50 votes to be had for this guy at this time and that is before testimony. Surely a day of sordid details doesn't help.

They should have bailed on Kavanaugh last week.

1. The allegations are unsupported shit.

2. A history of drinking? LOL!!!!

3. The "argument" is nothing but partisan bullshit.

The argument is reality and soon to be testimony in the record.

Do you think there are 50 votes at this point?

1. The "argument" is a person's word about what they claim to remember from a drunken party over 35 years ago.


2. If national policy is derailed over such utterly unsupported bullshit, it is a complete miscarriage of justice and the democratic process and will be another major step in our decline.

 

[Correll]

Right, because she's lying and it never happened.

And if it did it happen it wasn't that bad.

But if it was that bad it's not a big deal because everybody does it.

You kids should step back and listen to this pathetic weaseling.

You do, though, have to take the entire picture into consideration. If the incident really did happen, it happened when Kavenaugh was a minor, and we have a strong tradition of clearing the slate when a kid becomes an adult. Are we willing to set that on its head just for this one occasion? "Sorry, Mister Brown, your exemplary life as an adult simply doesn't matter. The fact that you robbed a gas station when you were 17 disqualifies you for this job. We simply can't have violent thugs like you stocking our shelves".

To say that he is a dangerous sexual predator is fallacious because he's been a model citizen for a very long time. Let's let his accuser testify and see if her story holds up. If not, let it go.

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

Exactly. As I've already said, do we want a man in the position to decide rights for all women when we already know he can't respect the rights of even one?

The accusations are completely unproven. You have no justification for acting as though they are "facts".

Seems like an investigation may shed some light on the "facts".

Investigate what? No one remembers shit. If they say they remember shit, they are not credible, not after so long.


What do you remember about specific parties from over 35 years ago, when you were drunk as hell?

 

[Correll]

It's not just having his career ruined, but being branded as a rapist in the Public Eye, and made into a target to the vile dregs of society, ie liberals.

You mean like the right did to Bill Clinton?

Wow. Everything in that statement was wrong.


Bill Clinton was not innocent, and his career was not ruined, and he is still a hero to the dregs of society, ie liberals.

Clinton was not innocent? Who did he rape? Who did he sexually assault?

He sexually harassed Paula Jones, as you well know, among others.

As to rape, the accusation against him by Juanita Brodrick was far more credible than any of the shit you libs have today.



STOP PLAYING STUPID.

Liar.

Paula Jones brought her evidence of sexual harassment to a court of law — and her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

Juanita Broaddrick swore he didn’t rape her.

It is nice to be king.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Right, because she's lying and it never happened.

And if it did it happen it wasn't that bad.

But if it was that bad it's not a big deal because everybody does it.

You kids should step back and listen to this pathetic weaseling.

You do, though, have to take the entire picture into consideration. If the incident really did happen, it happened when Kavenaugh was a minor, and we have a strong tradition of clearing the slate when a kid becomes an adult. Are we willing to set that on its head just for this one occasion? "Sorry, Mister Brown, your exemplary life as an adult simply doesn't matter. The fact that you robbed a gas station when you were 17 disqualifies you for this job. We simply can't have violent thugs like you stocking our shelves".

To say that he is a dangerous sexual predator is fallacious because he's been a model citizen for a very long time. Let's let his accuser testify and see if her story holds up. If not, let it go.

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent - the battle cry of the leftwing douchebag.

Point out where I said he's guilty, dope.

Politically problematic for Republicans and getting worse by the day.

Here ya go, asshole:

"Not a dangerous sexual predator but a man with disqualifying flaws."

That doesn't say he's guilty, liar.