I have said this from the beginning, this is not a "Who do I believe" debate.
The media has turned it into that because they love to divide us. And it is so easy to pick sides. Women will pick her because they see themselves in that shy 15-year old trying to make the popular 17-year old boys like them and the trauma that comes with that. Men will pick him because getting wasted with your friends and laughing at girls doesn't make you a rapist.
But that's really not what this is about as much as the "experts" tell you.
This is about due process and fairness. It's about the power of accusation vs. the power of evidence and how, as a culture, we want to balance the two. If you personalize this whole issue, you will degrade into "groups" that defend our views and trench themselves into their opinions like modern day Verdun.
We should strive to be better than that. We should be debating not the SPECIFICS of this case, but the bigger meaning behind it. What precedence does this set? What lessons does this teach us? What is fair the NEXT time this happens?
In my entire analysis of this confirmation, I have tried (sometimes failed) to stay away from the specifics and selaciousness of the accusations. I have tried to leave my emotions out of it. I try to imagine what if the case was turned? What if a man accused a liberal female judge of this? How would it play out? What is fair? What is the best course of action that would set the correct precedent for the NEXT time, not just this time.
We talk about #metoo, but what is really important is how do we establish a way women CAN be heard and document their accusations that is immidiate, fair and thourough without judgement and without persecution. That's the goal. Not punishment or retribution of past failures.
This Kavanaugh hearing epitomized everything about the modern left movement. Their goal isn't how do we really make is better. Their goal is how do we make people pay for the sins of the past. I refuse to go down that path. I refuse to feel guilty about how men acted in 1982 (which at its core is what this case is about).
I have said this before and Tibs (or whatever liberal is still left around here) has refused to debate me. Fundementally, there is NOT enough collaborating evidence to her story to tear down this nomination. Her words, no matter how sincere or believable, are not enough. Period. They can't be or else we set wrong precedent forever moving forward. There has to be more or we can't let this type of accusation only decide the fate of this position and confirmation in a fair, modern society. We can't.