Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn’t pass.

Feinstein could have handed it to the FBI confidentially and it would have remained confidential, or she could have simply redacted Ford’s name and sent them after GeoTown Prep parties in the 1980s referencing Kavanaugh. But she didn’t want ot do that because it would have shown nothing.

Better to wait until the hearings were over in order to delay the appointment and smear Judge Kavanaugh over some “repressed memory” nonsense from the abortion-promoter, Ford. After all, Kavanaugh WAS shown to be a practicing Catholic and the Dems couldn’t have that because of the danger that any Catholic might vote to overturn Roe someday. Feinstein and Ford might not literally be wearing white hoods with peepholes for eyes, but conceptually they sure are.
 
humbleseeker said:
I could be wrong, but didn’t Sen. Grassely make the comment that if Sen Feinstein had produced the letter to the subcommittee when she first received it, that they could have had two months to investigate the allegation, while keeping Dr Ford’s testimony confidential?
Click to expand...
In an ideal world one might expect such confidentiality from the committee. But I can see how Dr. Ford might not trust having 21 Senators keep her name out of it. Perhaps Dr. Ford should have trusted in that confidentiality, but it seems she did not. That is not Senator Feinstein’s fault.
 
I guess you’re right because she gave it to one, Sen. Feinstein, and it was still leaked. But that’s no ones fault.😏
 
Last edited:
No bogeyman. Kavanaugh has never said how he would vote on Roe. But this is about abortion, clearly. So the only reasonable conclusion is that Kavanaugh is opposed by the Dems because, being an observant Catholic he is ASSUMED (STEREOTYPED) to be prolife.

That’s not bogeyman stuff. That’s reality. If Kavanaugh did not pose a potential hazard to the dem religion of abortion, he would already be confirmed.

Why not face the reality that when a political party supports organizations to subvert a religion, that party is “anti” that religion?
 
Ridgerunner said:
No bogeyman. Kavanaugh has never said how he would vote on Roe. But this is about abortion, clearly. So the only reasonable conclusion is that Kavanaugh is opposed by the Dems because, being an observant Catholic he is ASSUMED (STEREOTYPED) to be prolife…
Click to expand...
There plenty of other reasonable conclusions. The Dems could be expected to oppose him because of this position on environmental protection, on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, on privacy vs. national security (database of phone calls), gun control, net neutrality, and many more. Now you may see all of these positions as pluses, and that is fine for you. But you have to admit that the Democrats’ position on these issues is very different from Kavanaugh’s and these issues have nothing to do with abortion or religious rights or anything that could be called anti-Catholic. There is no omni-present boogeyman. (Try sleeping with a night light. It might help.)
 
And there is always the possibility that martians whispered a bunch of trash into Ford’s ear, making her think she remembered something she didn’t remember.

No, the obvious answer is the right answer. Democrat opposition to Kavanaugh (and Ford’s, who is an abortion activist) is abortion. Kavanaugh is suspected of potentially hindering the Dems’ abortion policy solely because he’s an observant Catholic.

That’s anti-Catholic bigotry. No way around it. And as anti-Catholic as the Dem party is, I don’t expect a single Dem to admit to it.

They could have smeared Gorsuch on the very things you’re saying the Dems could be smearing Kavanaugh for. But they didn’t. And that’s because Gorsuch isn’t Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
And there is always the possibility that martians whispered a bunch of trash into Ford’s ear, making her think she remembered something she didn’t remember.
Click to expand...
There is difference between a possibility and a probability.
No, the obvious answer is the right answer. Democrat opposition to Kavanaugh (and Ford’s, who is an abortion activist) is abortion. Kavanaugh is suspected of potentially hindering the Dems’ abortion policy solely because he’s an observant Catholic.
Click to expand...
What about all the other issues I mentioned? Were they not reasons for Dems to oppose Kavanaugh?
They could have smeared Gorsuch on the very things you’re saying the Dems could be smearing Kavanaugh for. But they didn’t. And that’s because Gorsuch isn’t Catholic.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it is because Gorsuch did not get drunk and attempt to rape a girl in high school (at least that we know of). You can be sure that if such a witness came forth at the time of the Gorsuch nomination, the Democrats would have tried just as hard to get him derailed.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Or maybe it is because Gorsuch did not get drunk and attempt to rape a girl in high school
Click to expand...
See, you found him guilty just because he was accused of it. They’ve convinced you without your having ever seen any evidence at all, not even Ford’s testimony. But then, a lot of blacks though “Ol’ Massa” cared about them just because they were told that.

They’re not smearing Kavanaugh because of Ford. They brought Ford out to smear Kavanaugh because of Kavanaugh’s possibly being prolife. Lots of those Catholics are, you know, and can’t be trusted to be on the Supreme Court.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There plenty of other reasonable conclusions. The Dems could be expected to oppose him because of this position on environmental protection, on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, on privacy vs. national security (database of phone calls), gun control, net neutrality, and many more. Now you may see all of these positions as pluses, and that is fine for you. But you have to admit that the Democrats’ position on these issues is very different from Kavanaugh’s and these issues have nothing to do with abortion or religious rights or anything that could be called anti-Catholic. There is no omni-present boogeyman. (Try sleeping with a night light. It might help.)
Click to expand...
Seems like weak tea as a justification for shredding a man’s reputation via paper-thin allegations and hearsay.
 
Last edited:
tomarin said:
Seems like weak tea as a justification for shredding a man’s reputation via paper-thin allegations and hearsay.
Click to expand...
Then why not let the FBI sort if out for us if they can, which should only take a few days? What’s the rush-- ain’t the Truth, whatever it might be, important?
 
Simply to investigate the new allegations.

Which ones? There are serveral now. And when Avenatti or someone comes up with more, then what?
 
Metis1 said:
You’re stating the above as a fact and yet common sense suggests that it ain’t-- just your opinion.
Click to expand...
At some point, one must give credence to the obvious. Even some of the TV pundits admit this is really about abortion. Now, if that’s true, and it seems pretty inescapable, why target Kavanaugh this way and not Gorsuch? Because Kavanaugh is a faithful Catholic and everybody knows that. He has never expressed himself on Roe, so the BIGOTED ASSUMPTION is that he would vote to overturn it.

Bigotry is exactly making a judgment of an individual based on his being a member of a group rather than on his individual characteristics.

And you all are buying into it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Which ones? There are serveral now. And when Avenatti or someone comes up with more, then what?
Click to expand...
Any of them.

Why do you want to sweep this under the rug? Are you so calloused as to be so willing to ignore the women who’ve came out? Do you know how difficult it is for a possible victim of sexual assault to come out or don’t you really care?

Let the FBI do its work and then let’s see. If they find nothing, then I certainly have no objections to Kavanaugh being confirmed as I’m not a partisan hack.
 
I don’t know, pn. The 10th Amendment clearly limits the scope of S.C. decisions, yet the S.C. interprets the Constitution and its Amendments. The theory is that any entity will do what it needs to to survive and in this case it exposes a major flaw in the whole process. Your suggestion though may be a good start to fix it.
 
Last edited:
If she doesn’t know the date or location of the party where this allegedly happened, how will they investigate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top