Oh, you are one of "those people" who swear they don't have a TV. :lol: OK.
If you will go back and read, you will see that I stated that I
do have a TV. It is currently unplugged and under a blanked. It's the TV we had before we PCS'd to Okinawa, and we left it with my mother in law. We liked not having a TV in Oki, and so stayed that way when we got back, but recently went and picked it back up because we are thinking about getting the kids a Wii for Christmas.
And what charge have I failed to address?
The point that if exhibiting powerful emotion in the seat when discussing an emotionally powerful event or series of events in your life is disqualifying, then it is disqualifying
for all who do so, not just the people on the other political side of the aisle from you.
The fact that your nominee perjured himself on the stand?
I have not seen that fact. I have seen people make that
assessment, but I have not seen anyone able to actually
demonstrate it.
That your nominee might possibly not only be disbarred, but have charges brought against him? You might have missed it earlier - not sure if it was in this thread, or another - the Democrats are not finished here. There are even more people now coming forward who went to high school and college with Kavanaugh, who said that he blatantly lied on the stand about his behavior, among other things.
Ah. Is this going to be more of the breathless "He said on the stand that sometimes he drank to excess,
but did you know he sometimes drank to excess!?!?!?!" style "debunking" we've seen lately?
Here are the factual data points that Kavanaugh stuck to on the stand, that would need to be disproven to show that he was incorrect, and then disproven to the point that he knew he was incorrect when he said it for it to be shown to be perjury (this, incidentally, is the same standard as that applied to Dr Ford, and that is why the likelihood that she is wrong does not make her a liar):
1. I never sexually assaulted anyone.
2. I never drank to the point where I blacked out and had no memory of what I had done the night before.
3. I kept contemporaneous records of my activities while in high school.
Might want to either uncover that TV, or get a better balanced news source.
I actually bother to get news sources from both ideological sides. I get a dead-tree newsweekly from what I like to think of as the sane-right side of the aisle, and one from the sane-left side of the aisle. I have two basic online sources on my phone that I check first thing in the morning - one a left wing media source, one a right-wing media source. I am willing (and have proven myself willing) to stand against my own side when I think they are wrong - including on emotional topics. I spent a year and a half arguing against the GOP nominee for President, weeks arguing that Judge Moore was very likely guilty of what he was being accused of, and called for an FBI investigation into this whole mess before the hearings took place.
What can you point to that is comparable? When have you ever stood athwart your political tribe, regardless of whether you lost friends, and told the people you agree with that they were not only wrong on a highly charged issue, but incredibly so? You come across as a genuinely good person, and generally I like you, but I cannot off the top of my head think of such a time.
I expect no answer to that question. Tribalism is a helluva drug, and most folks don't want to look too closely at it, unless it's the dishonest, half-hearted use of it solely to bash the other side.
How many have come forward to say that Christine Blasey Ford was lying?
Well, let's see. Thus far, every single person she claimed was a witness has contradicted her account, including Kavanaugh's friends and her own. So.... 100%?
I mean, with the exception of the right
Interesting. So does this mean you are willing to accept as a standard of evidence that charges laid against someone by an individual who opposes them politically are less credible?
