"Believe all women" - means that the police should believe and investigate; or you should believe a family member and not ask questions that imply it was her fault.
Police should investigate all allegations, but they may attune their efforts to credibility reasonably. No one in law enforcement should default to believing allegations, that's literally not their job.
Implying fault is an interesting one. In fairness, we routinely and appropriately imply fault in innumerable other criminal contexts. We frequently tell those that get beat up that they deserved it, sometimes accurately. We routinely tell those who have been robbed that they were foolish to be were they were, or not to take reasonable precautions (like a bike lock).
In the context of sexual assault though we're playing against a history where the old rule was to attribute unreasonable blame. "You must have led him on by letting him see your ankles" "You must have wanted it" So much so that we're over correcting by even ruling out reasonable claims of acting stupid. It's true no one deserves to be the victim of a crime, but that doesn't mean that acting stupidly is not still stupid. Putting oneself into a place to be vulnerable means living with consequences that could have sometimes been avoided.
As a pyschological matter, you're probably right, we shouldn't be heaping the blame on any victim of a crime, no matter whether they made themselves vulnerable or not. They know they made themselves vulnerable and their going to have that self doubt as part of that forever.
But what absolutely shouldn't be doing is treating making yourself vulnerable as an excuse for the person who took advantage, and I think that's were sexual assault really differed historically.
For Kavanaugh - it was requested that a vote be delayed until a proper investigation could be conducted. So no double standard involved, merely your own lack of knowledge.
I think there's a completely reasonable basis to believe that the request for delay on Kavanaugh had nothing to do with a need for a proper investigation. In fact I think it's really hard to claim that the request for delay was even marginally connected to a need to investigate.
I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges, nor have the other women, and it doesn't appear as if any actual investigations have been continued by any police or investigative body (that won't stop the Democratic House from doing so in the new year, but the idea that there is any legitimate investigation to be done is pretty much a fail).
But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.
Well I think he isn't fit and should be impeached. Perjury should be an absolute disqualifier for any judge, let alone the Supreme Court.
Last time you made this claim you linked to a pretty unconvincing web site, can you give some insight into what perjury you think has been demonstrated?
Perjury is being completely abused with people not understanding that it was intended to apply to knowing falsehoods. Most everything I've seen cited to on this topic isn't even clearly untrue.
His frequent deception and lies to the committees suggest there was more there than Ford's word.
Again frequent? In what world do you have evidence of frequent deception and lies?