Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:No, I was completely oblivious to the fact a Democrat Senator would require Democrats to vote for her.
Yeah, Democrats might be less likely to want to get their butts to the polls to do that if she knifed them in the back on the issue du jour. So it's really hard to conclude with the certainty that you did that she'd win if she voted for Kavanaugh and lose if not. She's down a healthy amount in the polls and it's not even a little bit clear that she'd win enough Republican-leaning voters back from that vote to offset and depression of Democratic turnout that might occur because of that vote. Both sides of that equation are unknowable to us.
She needs Republican votes in a very purple state. I mean. It's not like Trump won the state with something like 63% of the vote.
Democrats don't want a Repub in office so she's basically their Hillary Clinton. But hey. I don't live in ND. Maybe her strategy will work! I found calling Republicans rapists, stupid, and Nazis really pumps the numbers up in purple states, though! It can't hurt siding with the nutjobs who do that, right?
Jesus Christ...
Lemme guess. You're now going to create an argument that ND is totes a Blue state and something something you're right.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
EAllusion wrote:Yeah, Democrats might be less likely to want to get their butts to the polls to do that if she knifed them in the back on the issue du jour. So it's really hard to conclude with the certainty that you did that she'd win if she voted for Kavanaugh and lose if not. She's down a healthy amount in the polls and it's not even a little bit clear that she'd win enough Republican-leaning voters back from that vote to more than offset depression of Democratic turnout that might occur because of that vote. Both sides of that equation are unknowable to us. If she's really down 6-10 points as polls suggest, it's really hard to imagine a vote for Kavanaguh moving votes that much even if Democrats shrugged it off entirely.
I know this may come as a surprise, but people who are registered with the Democratic party don't all think and act in unison. Moreso than Republicans, mind you, but there is some dissent among the liberal ranks too. Even more shocking, there are even pro-life Democrats. Crazy, I know. As well as Democrats who think it's a good idea to defend core American values like the presumption of innocence.
Res Ipsa wrote:Still waiting Water Dog. Or are you just going to dash off and fetch new turds? Your "squirrel" routine ain't fooling anyone.
Now, where did Ford say anything about brain damage?
Still waiting for what? It's not my fault if you lack the linguistic sophistication to read subtlety, nuance, and inference in standard everyday human interpersonal communications.
She's sitting in front of the whole ____ country after making rape allegations against a supreme court nominee. A prosecutor just asked her why the ____ does your friend, the single most important witness she cited in her testimony, wholly refute her allegations. Doesn't remember it. No such party ever happened. Never even met Brett Kavanaugh, no idea who the man is.
Huh, Doctor, why doesn't she remember this stuff? What's your explanation for that?
"She has health problems, I'm so glad she's focusing on herself. She needs a lawyer to help her, you know."
If you can't read between the lines and register the plain meaning of what she just said, I'm not sure what to say. She very strongly implied Keyser has some sort of health issue that's behind her memory loss or whatever, suggesting she'd totally remember all this if not for these health issues. She even needs the help of a lawyer, apparently. She makes a point of saying this. Why? There is no other reason to bring up her health issues. She could have simply said, "I don't know." Instead she gave a reason for why she doesn't remember. "Health problems." So bad that she needs an attorney to act on her behalf. That either implies a brain damage problem, or that her friend is lying simply because she's in distress and doesn't need this. It's a silly routine. She implies brain damage, but is vague about it, because it's her friend and inappropriate to discuss such things publicly like this. She'd say more, but would prefer let's not get into all that please. Be sensitive, she's sick.
Oh, brother.
Clearly, as I linked, that's precisely how Keyser interpreted what she said. That's how her family interpreted what she said.
No, you and an anonymous relative made up the brain damage insinuation. Give me a quote from Keyser that says she took it that way. You keep ignoring the part where she explains that she didn’t expect Keyser or PJ to recall the party because it wasn’t a big deal to them. Or are you claiming that Ford insinuated that PJ was brain damaged, too?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
For the first time since Donald Trump entered the political fray, I find myself grateful that he’s in it. I’m reluctant to admit it and astonished to say it, especially since the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford in his ugly and gratuitous way at a rally on Tuesday. Perhaps it’s worth unpacking this admission for those who might be equally astonished to read it.
There is still some small hope that Flake could change his mind at the last minute. Since he is retiring, he really has nothing to lose by voting no. Besides, we know he doesn't like Trump very much.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Water Dog wrote:I know this may come as a surprise, but people who are registered with the Democratic party don't all think and act in unison. Moreso than Republicans, mind you, but there is some dissent among the liberal ranks too. Even more shocking, there are even pro-life Democrats. Crazy, I know. As well as Democrats who think it's a good idea to defend core American values like the presumption of innocence.
The majority of Democrats oppose the Kavanaugh nomination by a large margin. A subset of them appear quite passionate about it. That probably holds true even among ND Democrats. We're certainly not in a position to discount that effect on the voters anymore than we can assume that Republican-leaning voters would flock to Heitkamp for a pro-Kavanaugh vote.
Gunnar wrote:There is still some small hope that Flake could change his mind at the last minute. Since he is retiring, he really has nothing to lose by voting no. Besides, we know he doesn't like Trump very much.
He likes the kind of Republican Kavanaugh is very much, though. He probably doesn't see his vote as a referendum on Trump. He wants someone like Kavanaugh on the court, but may have been a little torn about the whole sexual assault allegation thing. Kavanaugh's repeated lies about his partisan career prior to that allegation didn't seem to be bothering him any.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:= She needs Republican votes in a very purple state. I mean. It's not like Trump won the state with something like 63% of the vote.
She also needs Democratic votes. You can't drop those in an uncertain effort to chase Republican votes and call it good. It's about weighing the effect of losing Democratic turnout vs. gaining Republican support. We have no way of knowing how much she would lose the latter or gain in the former, so it's really hard to say that a vote for Kavanaugh would assure her victory, especially given that she appears down by a healthy margin. Gaining that many votes out of that single act is on the surface quite implausible as it is, and you're just assuming a negligible effect on the needed Democratic voters. None of this is in evidence. For someone who trys to play the know it all card a lot, you aren't approaching this with any humility.
Lemme guess. You're now going to create an argument that ND is totes a Blue state and something something you're right.
Res Ipsa wrote:No, you and an anonymous relative made up the brain damage insinuation. Give me a quote from Keyser that says she took it that way.
Them and most people in America. What does Doc think, did he read it that way too? Take a stroll through Twitter, you can see people on all sides of the political spectrum who interpreted her words to mean that. You are in the weird minority. And I don't care how Keyser interpreted it, she has brain damage, remember? Who cares. She's in hiding because her "friend" sent a mob to her house. Whatever she does or doesn't say is subject to influences we do and don't know about. I'm done with this line of discussion. You're deranged and unpleasant to talk to. You act as though I'm a total moron to interpret her words the way I do, yet millions upon millions of other people agree with me. A reasonable person would concede there must be something to it. "Oh, I could see how maybe you're interpret it that way." But instead you go on and on and on, "Waterdog is just a turd munching puppy who's brain hasn't formed." You accuse me of relying on a narrow set of fringe sources, and yet are seemingly unaware that most people out there are in fact interpreting her words as I do. Which suggests you are the one in a bubble, not me.
That's a broad brush. It feels like you're trying really hard to resist the obvious point rather than concede it and move on. Individual democrats and their cultures vary... by things like location. Maybe these democratic senators in purple areas know a few things that you don't.
