On 9/28/2018 11:27 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of
gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into
their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.Â* If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.Â* She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue.Â* Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.Â* Somethings just
don't add up.Â* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, wouldÂ* be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman.Â* My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein.Â*Â* I can't remember if
that question was asked of her.Â* I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.Â* Call it a tie.
The tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories.Â* In that case Kavanaugh won
hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and
either former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who
will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with:Â* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some
backup to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs
would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.


Now he's a "mass murderer"?Â*Â* Wow.


I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would
approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk,
and an attacker of women.




Deferring to your superior writing skills, I won't debate how one can
parse your sentence, "My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh
and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat."

On second thought, I think I will:

To me, you are including Kavanaugh as a mass murderer.

If you don't think Kavanaugh is a mass murderer, to be clear it should
have been two different sentences representing two different thoughts of
opinion. Example:

"My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh."
"Republicans would approve a mass murderer for that seat".