I can own the libs either way. Either they are dumb enough to believe he's a rapist because he supposedly lied about drinking when there is no actual evidence of a crime, or they know there is no proof and have switched to technicalities to throw off his nomination. which would you prefer?McParadigm wrote:I know we’re moving on to the “ok, he flagrantly lied about drinking and yearbook stuff, but he should still be believed about everything else because otherwise we can’t own the libs,” portion of the tribal meltdown, but why do you feel the need to also completely misrepresent non-conservatives as “moving on,” doubting the allegations of sexual assault that are currently under investigation?BurtReynolds wrote:I know we're moving on to the "ok, he didn't rape anybody, but he lied about drinking and he has a bad attitude" portion of the inquisition
How is that the case against him has actually gotten worse in less than a week? We started from a place of no witnesses, proof, or even dates, yet somehow they look even more clueless.
He shouldn't be believed. She shouldn't be believed. The evidence should be believed. There is none.
