Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court

[PointOfViewGun]

Every single allegation against Kavanaugh, whether it be sex assault or lying about blackout drinking is unsupported by existing evidence. I won't go over the sex assualt stuff because that has already been discussed to death. What kind of evidence would one need to have to prove someone lied about ever being blacked out drunk? He's a list of things I can think of that would support it but not necessarily prove it - a blood alcohol test, video evidence of extraordinary erratic, drunken behavior, arrest record, an admission of blackouts, such as to a doctor or friends.

Here is what isn't proof - a guy who says he drank a lot in college and other people 30 years later agreeing with that. You can't hope to prove someone was black out drunk at some point 30+ years ago with testimonial "evidence" constructed from present day memories that at most testify that we was a heavy drinker.

You are asking for a level of evidence that anyone would normally ask for... Kavanaugh lying about being a drunk is supported by statements from his classmates, roommate, his own yearbook, and his bar fight. We know for a fact that Kavanaugh tried to present himself as a casual drinker with no problem with drinking, while a lot of people and some incidents came out pointing at a much more severe level of drinking. Other people did not agree with him. They specifically came out and disagreed with him to the level of calling him out lying under oath.

[Cookiegod]

What's more is that I don't believe you give two about Kavanaugh or his reputation, you are just swinging a political cudgel.

See? That's where your partisanship shows yet again. I don't have a greater beef with the Democrats than I do with the Republicans. 2 out of 3 American politicians that I actually do like are democrats, and each time Obama was elected I was relieved; even though I knew the aggressive and expansionist foreign policy would continue, I hoped and to a certain degree still believe that he was the lesser evil, and in many core areas such as Obamacare and gun control I'd certainly be on their side (except that I'm not a U.S. citizen and thus am staying out of it).

No, what I have a problem with is what I'm quoting below:

I think it is entirely missing the point. Whether something is "ok" or not is irrelevant to modern US politics. Was it ok when Mitch McConnell and the Republicans completely upending Senate protocol by setting the precedent that an opposition Senate can completely block ALL supreme court nominees put forth by a president they did not like? Of course not, but their constituents loved it and they picked up an extra supreme court seat for it. It wasn't ok, but that didn't matter. All that matters is if you can win in politics. And again, you aren't going to shame one side into playing two hand touch while the other side is playing full contact, that is dumb.

So I don't doubt for a second that you are right with the objective part of it: It's all a power play, and Democrats and Republicans both use all means at their disposal. I agree with you that certain things the Republicans did are likely dubious to say the least, but I have to disagree with your opinion that what the Democrats did with Kavanaugh is anywhere near what the Republicans have done in recent years with regards to reprehensibility.

It is not ok to destroy a persons life and reputation to such an extreme degree, just for some cheap political points and because his political stances are different from yours. Not ok!
Worse still is the fact that whilst politicians aren't known for their morals, a voter still does have a responsibility, and you and your likeminded colleagues are encouraging this behaviour!

To quote Eric Holder:

They have used the power they have gotten for all the wrong things…It is time for us as Democrats to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are…Michelle always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. No. When they go low, we kick ’em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is all about. [...] we’re in this to win.

I'm sorry, but I'm 100% in team Michelle Obama in this.
Republicans have already shown they are more than willing that they are willing to undermine the political institutions for cheap gains. Do I think that's ok? No, I do not!
So why should I endorse it when the Democrats do it?!
If you're disgusted by the birther-movement and Trumps role in it (as I am and everyone should be!), then how come an even worse thing is suddenly ok when it is being done by the Democrats?

I don't won't to talk about Hillary Clinton. Suffice to say that I fervently believe her to be a genuine psychopath, and that she in my opinion has done so much harm to both the domestic US policy and especially to the world as a whole. She was ready to undercut Obamas presidential bid, hadn't he given her the secretary of state position when she lost the primaries to him; and yet she's got the chutzpah to blame Bernie Sanders for her election loss?! When her and the DNC ... Let's scratch that part. You can see I'm emotional with this, and it's not the topic of the discussion. Point being there's a marked difference between accusing her of irresponsible handling of her emails, when many Republicans did the exact same thing, and accusing Kavanaugh, who as far as I'm aware had no prior political career to be "evil" and a gang rapist.

I totally get that you are a realist, and in many regards so am I. But I think it's important to stay true to ones ideals. And one of my core ideals is the presumption of innocence.

But it get's worse still because I really and genuinely believe this "go low" approach does not work!
Some Trump voters are idiots, sure, but I genuinely do not believe Trump won this because of his smear tactics. He won because his protectionist campaign promises favoured the swing states (the "rust belt") more than Clintons globalism.
He won because his campaign strategy was more effective than Hillary's, he won because Hillary and the DNC had discredited themselves with the way they handled Bernie, he won because the Democrats chose the one person who was arguably more disliked than he was.
If my memory serves me right, the 2016 election was the election with the least liked candidates in American history.
And I've seen many Democrat observers argue that the republicans have skillfully used the Kavanaugh affair against the Democrats, that they made a trap and the Democrats couldn't help themselves but fall in it. Especially "porn lawyer" Avenatti due to his personal ambitions.
The Democrats had an impressive lead up to the midterms, and afaik it's all but gone. The republican voter base that has been dissatisfied with Trump is revitalised because of this.
I mean... It's truly an achievement by the democrats that I for once have to agree with that idiot Lindsay Graham!

I truly believe that the proper way is to go high. I know that's a hypocritical thing to say, given that my tone here has sometimes been aggressive and emotional (I couldn't help but feel sorry for Kavanaugh). So I don't blame you for seeing me as a Republican. Which I most certainly am not.

TL;DR: I genuinely do not understand why the "#resistance" thinks the proper way to resist Trump would be to Trumpify the Democratic party.

And the proper way to handle Kavanaugh is to let that issue go instead of devising some very shaky perjury accusations. All you people achieve with this is proving Trumps claim that Democrats are acting irresponsibly.

[Heathen Hammer]

Kavanaugh was going to be ploughed in almost any event, once McConnell got his marching orders from Trump, perjury wasn't going to stop it.

Ford may have been a Hail Mary pass; on the other hand, it could also be the Russians deciding on a scorched earth policy, trading space for time, and luring Napoleon towards Moscow, achieving two objectives.

1. Kavanaugh will be under constant scrutiny for his personal and judicial decisions for the rest of his life, and will have to justify controversial ones.

2. They've managed to alienate a significant chunk of women against the Republicans, and motivate that base.

1. No he won't. Dems didn't even bother to bring up real reasons to criticize him, like his support of Patriot Act and Prism. They had one chance of making a stance that would help them in midterms and they blew it. Now this major fiasco will cost Dems whatever chances they had in midterms, and once Ginsburg kicks the bucket Trump will appoint another conservative in SCOTUS.
2. I don't think women in US are idiots, so no. I mean incoherent mutually contradicting accusations made last minute and with no backing evidence aren't going to alienate anyone who isn't a Democrat supporter to begin with.

Have you watched the right wing press? Trump is under attack by demons, prepare yourself for the coming civil war, Democrats are about to round you up, Trump is a saviour, blah blah blah. American politics writ large are inundated with conspiracy theories, tribalism, and genuinely low iq politics. Do you know why? Well, chief amongst the reasons would be that Americans are under-educated, with a civil society more comparable to Romania than a first world nation. But besides that, its because the Democrats are not an opposition party. Neither are the republicans. Its just the oligarchy party.

If the democrats had principles-- or republicans-- they would be shocked and terrified of kavanaughs views on the constitution, especially regarding presidential authority, privacy rights and corporate law. But they arent. This isnt about politics, this is about money. Democrats want him gone so they can have more power and through that gain more power and through that gain more power. The same is true of Republicans. If you honestly for a second think the mainstream Democrat or Republican parties are ideological constructs opposing one another philosophically on how best to govern the country PLEASE sterilize yourself. We dont need you going about breeding.

Its not the population, its just the nature of oligarchy itself. Democrats didn't criticize Kavanaugh's anti-constitutional stance in regards to Prism and Patriot Act because they are totally okay with these programs. They just wanted a Democrat there instead of a Republican, hence why they had to start the whole circus with that Ford lady. Of course GOP and Democrats are just globalist neoliberals, only difference is that former pretends to like traditional values, while latter pretends to like gay people and minorities. The nutshell is the same. However we did witness the paradigm shift in 2016, where Trump, regardless of himself being rather globalist, brought back the good old anti-establishment sentiment into the mainstream. Now the genie is out of the bottle and it will destroy the oligarchy sooner then later.

[Cyclops]

... once McConnell got his marching orders from Trump...

I think the its the other way around. Trump is on the Republican leash.

[Squiggle]

Its not the population, its just the nature of oligarchy itself.

The oligarchy wouldnt be possible if it didnt successfully make headway in divisively making the people battle one another. The people do have some blame!

Democrats didn't criticize Kavanaugh's anti-constitutional stance in regards to Prism and Patriot Act because they are totally okay with these programs. They just wanted a Democrat there instead of a Republican, hence why they had to start the whole circus with that Ford lady. Of course GOP and Democrats are just globalist neoliberals, only difference is that former pretends to like traditional values, while latter pretends to like gay people and minorities. The nutshell is the same. However we did witness the paradigm shift in 2016, where Trump, regardless of himself being rather globalist, brought back the good old anti-establishment sentiment into the mainstream. Now the genie is out of the bottle and it will destroy the oligarchy sooner then later.

Agreed. I worry about what will happen in terms of disillusionment when the people finally have to accept that both Obama and Trump were corrupt shills. But things have got to change.

[Derpy Hooves]

Do you deny these facts?

1) Republicans refused to bring in anyone other than Ford and Kavanaugh to testify in the hearings.
2) As part of the investigation Trump ordered, FBI could not talk to anyone other than those named by the White House, they could not use search warrants or subpoenas.
3) Kavanaugh lied about his time in high school years. He tried to present himself as a virgin altar boy who never blacked out from drinking while many of his classmates, including his roommate, described him as often drunk and aggressive, and his own yearbook painted a different picture.
4) Kavanaugh lied about what the people Ford pointed at said about the party, claiming that the witnesses claimed to be not there, while what they said in fact was that they could not remember.
5) Kavanaugh lied about where he grew up, stating that he grew up in a city that was plagued by gun/drug/gang violence. He grew up in Bethesda, Maryland which has about 3 times the national average income.
6) Kavanaugh tried to pass "boofing" which his own classmates say refers to anal sex as flatulence.
7) Kavanaugh tried to pass "Devil's Triangle" which is know to be a sex act as a drinking game.

3 is certainly fact free. No proof he has blacked out.
4 Ford's best friend said she never met Kavanaugh. Meaning that the event didn't happen
5 Bethesda is part of the DC metropolitan area. So unless DC didn't have bad crime, he's not lying. I say I grew up in Pittsburgh, but I never lived within the actual city limits. I grew up in its metropolitan area.
6 & 7 https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/04/k...angle-boofing/

[PointOfViewGun]

3 is certainly fact free. No proof he has blacked out.
4 Ford's best friend said she never met Kavanaugh. Meaning that the event didn't happen
5 Bethesda is part of the DC metropolitan area. So unless DC didn't have bad crime, he's not lying. I say I grew up in Pittsburgh, but I never lived within the actual city limits. I grew up in its metropolitan area.
6 & 7 https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/04/k...angle-boofing/

So, that's moving from claiming 100% fact free to claiming 72% fact free...

3) Strange that you would single out blacking out and ignore the rest. The fact is that the Kavanaugh the guy tried to paint did not hold true.
4) Ford's best friend saying that she never met Kavanaugh doesn't mean that the event never happened. She was not said to be in the room.
5) Then you would be lying as well. You can not use crime happening in city limits to talk about your life outside of it. Bethesda, Maryland have been a particularly safer place compared to Maryland as a whole.
6/7) I love how suddenly testimonies from people that Kavanaugh are valid... Some of Kavanaugh's classmates, including the football team manager of the time, also came forward to say that they have never heard Devil's Triangle refer to a drinking game. According to them it was a sexual act. Same goes for boofing.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

4) Ford's best friend saying that she never met Kavanaugh doesn't mean that the event never happened. She was not said to be in the room.

You cannot possibly believe this yourself. Ford claimed that there were 5 people in the party, including her and Kavanaugh. There is no way that she could have not encountered Kavanaugh.

[PointOfViewGun]

You cannot possibly believe this yourself. Ford claimed that there were 5 people in the party, including her and Kavanaugh. There is no way that she could have not encountered Kavanaugh.

Why? There is no logic to that. Parties are not events where you get introduced to all the people in the vicinity.

[Heathen Hammer]

The oligarchy wouldnt be possible if it didnt successfully make headway in divisively making the people battle one another. The people do have some blame!

I would agree that this is the case in regards to boomers, while younger generations were born into this mess.

Agreed. I worry about what will happen in terms of disillusionment when the people finally have to accept that both Obama and Trump were corrupt shills. But things have got to change.

It could go both ways, the biggest problem that I see is that neoliberal establishment became an echo chamber, and people who make decisions on its behalf view themselves infallible. Hence why instead of changing its tactics such as identity politics and extreme antinationalism it decided to double down on it.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Why? There is no logic to that. Parties are not events where you get introduced to all the people in the vicinity.

The odds of that are extremely low. Even lower once Ford left the part and there remained a whole of 4 people. Unless her friend spent the entire party in seclusion with the 4th person she'd have had to have seen Kavanaugh sooner or later.

[Derpy Hooves]

So, that's moving from claiming 100% fact free to claiming 72% fact free...

3) Strange that you would single out blacking out and ignore the rest. The fact is that the Kavanaugh the guy tried to paint did not hold true.
4) Ford's best friend saying that she never met Kavanaugh doesn't mean that the event never happened. She was not said to be in the room.
5) Then you would be lying as well. You can not use crime happening in city limits to talk about your life outside of it. Bethesda, Maryland have been a particularly safer place compared to Maryland as a whole.
6/7) I love how suddenly testimonies from people that Kavanaugh are valid... Some of Kavanaugh's classmates, including the football team manager of the time, also came forward to say that they have never heard Devil's Triangle refer to a drinking game. According to them it was a sexual act. Same goes for boofing.

3 he said that sometimes he drank too much but he never blacked out. So yes sometimes he got really drunk, but he never blacked out
4 it was a small house, no way they wouldn’t have seen each other.
5 Bethesda is part of the DC metropolitan area. It’s not lying
6 So you’re going to cast aside the accounts that don’t agree with your POV, and accept those that do.
Theres am easier path that is called “inside jokes”. The fact you can’t accept it shows you are desperately grasping at straws

[The spartan]

See? That's where your partisanship shows yet again. I don't have a greater beef with the Democrats than I do with the Republicans. 2 out of 3 American politicians that I actually do like are democrats, and each time Obama was elected I was relieved; even though I knew the aggressive and expansionist foreign policy would continue, I hoped and to a certain degree still believe that he was the lesser evil, and in many core areas such as Obamacare and gun control I'd certainly be on their side (except that I'm not a U.S. citizen and thus am staying out of it).

Look dude, I would love if we could handle politics here in the US in a non-partisan way. I hate partisanship, but that is the name of the game now. The party that abused it won, simple as that. It is like a state of warfare; you do what you have to do to win and parse out the ethics of it only after you win. I agree, that sucks, but those are the rules.

So I don't doubt for a second that you are right with the objective part of it: It's all a power play, and Democrats and Republicans both use all means at their disposal. I agree with you that certain things the Republicans did are likely dubious to say the least, but I have to disagree with your opinion that what the Democrats did with Kavanaugh is anywhere near what the Republicans have done in recent years with regards to reprehensibility.

Then I can't really take you seriously, I am afraid. The Republican congress of the past 8 years has been unparalleled in their heavy partisanship and low blows. Remember the guy who yelled "you lie!" at Obama while he was giving the State of the Union (incredibly disrespectful and gross) became a hero within the Republican party. They ran a literal obstructionist position because they didn't like the president. Like, are you joking with me here? Republicans play the no shame partisan game, that's why they won.

It is not ok to destroy a persons life and reputation to such an extreme degree, just for some cheap political points and because his political stances are different from yours. Not ok!
Worse still is the fact that whilst politicians aren't known for their morals, a voter still does have a responsibility, and you and your likeminded colleagues are encouraging this behaviour!

Yawn, it sounds like you are trying to shame and shame died years ago in politics. It is funny you should bring up voter responsibility too, Trump supporters have no shame, that is the crux of their platform. That is dangerous because that is a solid voting block immune to any moral failing of Trump's. You have to counter that by remaining in the opposing block regardless (almost) of their actions. Republicans learned: "cheap political points" cash out just as well as ethical ones, and you should grab them wherever you can.

I'm sorry, but I'm 100% in team Michelle Obama in this.

Did you miss the part right after that where Holder makes it very clear that that he was speaking in metaphor and he was only speaking about legal, but tough actions? I'm with him.

Republicans have already shown they are more than willing that they are willing to undermine the political institutions for cheap gains. Do I think that's ok? No, I do not!

I think you are still missing the point: it doesn't matter if you or I or anyone in particular is ok with it, it only matters if it wins or not.

So why should I endorse it when the Democrats do it?!

If you're disgusted by the birther-movement and Trumps role in it (as I am and everyone should be!), then how come an even worse thing is suddenly ok when it is being done by the Democrats?

You don't have to endorse it, you just accept it as politics. Again, the opinion doesn't matter unless you win.

My feeling of disgust has little effect on politics or policy; the other side simply doesn't care. Only thing you can do then is act likewise.

[U][B]TL;DR: I genuinely do not understand why the "#resistance" thinks the proper way to resist Trump would be to Trumpify the Democratic party.

It isn't about acting like Trump, it is about remaining a solid voting block so you can enact your political will. The Right does not want to work together or compromise, they want to dominate ("win") politics. You can't negotiate with that, you have to outvote it.

[PointOfViewGun]

The odds of that are extremely low. Even lower once Ford left the part and there remained a whole of 4 people. Unless her friend spent the entire party in seclusion with the 4th person she'd have had to have seen Kavanaugh sooner or later.

Not really, not getting introduced to every single person in a party is the norm. We don't know exactly how many people were at the house. Ford simply remembers 4 of them. If her friend was downstairs its likely that she was hanging out with others down there.

3 he said that sometimes he drank too much but he never blacked out. So yes sometimes he got really drunk, but he never blacked out
4 it was a small house, no way they wouldn’t have seen each other.
5 Bethesda is part of the DC metropolitan area. It’s not lying
6 So you’re going to cast aside the accounts that don’t agree with your POV, and accept those that do.
Theres am easier path that is called “inside jokes”. The fact you can’t accept it shows you are desperately grasping at straws

3) Again, still focusing on blacking out. His friends described him as often drunk. He tried to present himself as a casual drinker, his friends presented him as a drunk. The fact that he may never have blacked out doesn't really change that he tried to misled people.
4) How do you know it was a small house? We know that it was a place with two floors. That's not a small house from the get go. Not that being in a small place means that you're introduced to everyone there.
5) That's not argument. Bethesda being part of the metropolitan area doesn't make it a part of the inner city limits where crime might be happening. That's just semantics play.
6/7) I'm not casting them aside at all. Just pointing out how such testimonies suddenly become important when its convenient. Any such testimony, just like the others, are open to scrutiny. I don't have to accept them at face value. The one you presented is scrutinized by people from the time Kavanaugh went to high school with and by the simple concept of Occam's Razor.

[Derpy Hooves]

Not really, not getting introduced to every single person in a party is the norm. We don't know exactly how many people were at the house. Ford simply remembers 4 of them. If her friend was downstairs its likely that she was hanging out with others down there.




3) Again, still focusing on blacking out. His friends described him as often drunk. He tried to present himself as a casual drinker, his friends presented him as a drunk. The fact that he may never have blacked out doesn't really change that he tried to misled people.
4) How do you know it was a small house? We know that it was a place with two floors. That's not a small house from the get go. Not that being in a small place means that you're introduced to everyone there.
5) That's not argument. Bethesda being part of the metropolitan area doesn't make it a part of the inner city limits where crime might be happening. That's just semantics play.
6/7) I'm not casting them aside at all. Just pointing out how such testimonies suddenly become important when its convenient. Any such testimony, just like the others, are open to scrutiny. I don't have to accept them at face value. The one you presented is scrutinized by people from the time Kavanaugh went to high school with and by the simple concept of Occam's Razor.

3 Again he specifically said sometimes he drank too much but never blacked out. Sometimes is a relative term. So once again not a lie
4 Because it was described as having a small family room with a narrow stairwell. And TIL if a house has two floors it’s not small. Damn man, we’re you imagining it as the model building from Zoolander? You do know that a small house is different from person to person right? But this argument is meaningless because Ford said they were all in the same room before she went upstairs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.1dafe063d808
“She said she recalls a small family room where she and a handful of others drank beer together that night. She said that each person had one beer but that Kavanaugh and Judge had started drinking earlier and were heavily intoxicated.”
5 And? Still doesn’t mean he was lying.
6. The concept of Occams Razor would suggest these terms are just inside jokes. But that doesn’t fit your narrative now does it?

[PointOfViewGun]

3 Again he specifically said sometimes he drank too much but never blacked out. Sometimes is a relative term. So once again not a lie
4 Because it was described as having a small family room with a narrow stairwell. And TIL if a house has two floors it’s not small. Damn man, we’re you imagining it as the model building from Zoolander? You do know that a small house is different from person to person right? But this argument is meaningless because Ford said they were all in the same room before she went upstairs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.1dafe063d808
“She said she recalls a small family room where she and a handful of others drank beer together that night. She said that each person had one beer but that Kavanaugh and Judge had started drinking earlier and were heavily intoxicated.”
5 And? Still doesn’t mean he was lying.
6. The concept of Occams Razor would suggest these terms are just inside jokes. But that doesn’t fit your narrative now does it?

3) Kavanaugh got quite obnoxious when it came to questions about drinking. His response to heavy drinking was "Have you?" which is no good sign of him telling the truth. He tried to present himself as a casual drinker. His comments that sometimes he had too many beers doesn't change that. His classmates and his own yearbook showed something more than a casual drinker. He also lied about the drinking age of Maryland. Before he became a senior the drinking age was increased to 21. Kavanaugh claimed that it was 18 for seniors.
4) All you know is her saying that they were in "a small living room family room type area" and that she went up to "a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor" which doesn't really tell you about the overall size of the house. It's highly possible that Ford's friend never got introduced to Kavanaugh. It happens all the time. By the way, why are you singling out just one account? Kavanaugh lied about all.
5) It kinda does. He did not grow up in a place that was driven with crime.
6/7) Occam's Razor would suggest that the terms he was using would refer to sex acts as they are commonly used for.

[Cookiegod]

Then I can't really take you seriously, I am afraid. The Republican congress of the past 8 years has been unparalleled in their heavy partisanship and low blows. Remember the guy who yelled "you lie!" at Obama while he was giving the State of the Union (incredibly disrespectful and gross) became a hero within the Republican party. They ran a literal obstructionist position because they didn't like the president. Like, are you joking with me here? Republicans play the no shame partisan game, that's why they won.

Well, I can't take you serious either I'm afraid. As I've already explained to you repeatedly, there's a marked difference between accusing a career politician of something trivial, since they knew from the get go they needed to have a thick skin, and accusing someone who afaik did not have any (prior) political career of what in todays age is arguably considered the worst crime. I personally would rather be accused of murder than of rape.
The fact that you didn't answer that and even keep comparing rudeness to the accusation of rape as if that point has never been brought up, tells me you don't have an answer to that.

Yawn, it sounds like you are trying to shame and shame died years ago in politics. It is funny you should bring up voter responsibility too, Trump supporters have no shame, that is the crux of their platform. That is dangerous because that is a solid voting block immune to any moral failing of Trump's. You have to counter that by remaining in the opposing block regardless (almost) of their actions. Republicans learned: "cheap political points" cash out just as well as ethical ones, and you should grab them wherever you can.

The fact that Trump voters seem to be all the same to you is worrisome. You extremists on both sides of the spectrum forget there's a huge pool of moderate voters.

I think you are still missing the point: it doesn't matter if you or I or anyone in particular is ok with it, it only matters if it wins or not.

You don't have to endorse it, you just accept it as politics. Again, the opinion doesn't matter unless you win.

And I answered that point already. All the evidence suggests it mostly does not.
The thing that does work for the Democrats and has given them a lead is grassroots campaigning and hard work. The witch hunt against Kavanaugh has done nothing but riled up the Republican voter base who otherwise, because of their disappointment with regards to the Republican performance so far, otherwise would probably not have gone to vote.

And amongst those who actually do believe this works, well, I don't know if you've noticed it, but Steve Bannon is at their fore, lauding the Democrats for their campaign strategy.
Which proves my point that the Democrats have turned into a bunch of Trump copycats and to a certain degree are competing amongst each other as to who can be the most aggressive, harming the joint efforts even further. E.g. Avenatti.

My feeling of disgust has little effect on politics or policy; the other side simply doesn't care. Only thing you can do then is act likewise.

It isn't about acting like Trump, it is about remaining a solid voting block so you can enact your political will. The Right does not want to work together or compromise, they want to dominate ("win") politics. You can't negotiate with that, you have to outvote it.

Or how about trying to win the huge pool of moderates with actual sound policies? Problem is though that the Democrats do little to nothing on issues that the majority of the population can actually benefit from. Those Democrats who do so are still the outliers. Again: Hillary Clinton was pretty much the only person hated enough to lose against Trump. Pretty much anyone could do better. Michelle Obama could probably run for office in 2020 and win without saying a single word, and simply by smiling and calming the Republican voter base that the Democrats are currently spooking into voting against them.

[Derpy Hooves]

3) Kavanaugh got quite obnoxious when it came to questions about drinking. His response to heavy drinking was "Have you?" which is no good sign of him telling the truth. He tried to present himself as a casual drinker. His comments that sometimes he had too many beers doesn't change that. His classmates and his own yearbook showed something more than a casual drinker. He also lied about the drinking age of Maryland. Before he became a senior the drinking age was increased to 21. Kavanaugh claimed that it was 18 for seniors.
4) All you know is her saying that they were in "a small living room family room type area" and that she went up to "a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor" which doesn't really tell you about the overall size of the house. It's highly possible that Ford's friend never got introduced to Kavanaugh. It happens all the time. By the way, why are you singling out just one account? Kavanaugh lied about all.
5) It kinda does. He did not grow up in a place that was driven with crime.
6/7) Occam's Razor would suggest that the terms he was using would refer to sex acts as they are commonly used for.

3 Please show me where he stated he was a casual drinker. All he said was sometimes he drank too much but never blacked out. We don't know what he intended sometimes to mean, because the term is relative. As for drinking age, while he was a freshman and sophomore in high school, the drinking age was 18. So he didn't lie.
4 She said they were all in the small family room, and this was a gathering of 5 people. So yes if she never met Kavanaugh before, then it was impossible for him to be there
5 Bethesda is part of the DC metropolitan area. So again, not lying
6 Nope, would suggest they are inside jokes.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Not really, not getting introduced to every single person in a party is the norm. We don't know exactly how many people were at the house. Ford simply remembers 4 of them. If her friend was downstairs its likely that she was hanging out with others down there.

Ford's letter to Feinstein clearly states that the part was attended by: "me and four others."
Yeah, happens all the time dude. You go to a party, there are literally three other people there besides you, and you only see one of them for the whole duration of the party. Makes complete and total sense.

[The spartan]

Well, I can't take you serious either I'm afraid.

Cool, then you are just another political opponent except better, because I don't think you can vote in US elections.

As I've already explained to you repeatedly, there's a marked difference between accusing a career politician of something trivial, since they knew from the get go they needed to have a thick skin, and accusing someone who afaik did not have any (prior) political career of what in todays age is arguably considered the worst crime. I personally would rather be accused of murder than of rape.
The fact that you didn't answer that and even keep comparing rudeness to the accusation of rape as if that point has never been brought up, tells me you don't have an answer to that.

First, you are supposing that the accusation was completely fabricated and false, which is not something I agree with. Second, you seem to be rather forgiving of the many disgusting partisan maneuvers the Republicans have been pulling recently (I wonder why?). Also, being accused of rape being better than being accused of murder is completely BS, I don't know why you would think that is a more severe accusation. I already gave you my answer, I don't care about Kavanaugh and I don't think you really do either. I care about policy. You know, just like the Republicans function.

The fact that Trump voters seem to be all the same to you is worrisome. You extremists on both sides of the spectrum forget there's a huge pool of moderate voters.

I never said that Trump Voters are all the same. I said people who actively support Trump don't have shame of Trump's many failings. I am also not an extremist really at all on policy, I think you mean to call me a partisan which, for the moment, I am out of necessity. You really do seem not all that familiar with how politics works in the US with our two party system. For the past 8 years, partisanship and not appealing to moderates has been the winning strategy. Moderates don't work the same way they do in Parliamentary governments, what you are calling "moderates" are apathetic voters, not middle position people to be swayed with nice words. Holding back on dirty tricks doesn't get you the moderates to win elections, it just loses you the cheap points you could have won from your forgiving base.

And I answered that point already. All the evidence suggests it mostly does not.

The past eight (or twelve) years of US politics is pretty convincing evidence to me.

The thing that does work for the Democrats and has given them a lead is grassroots campaigning and hard work. The witch hunt against Kavanaugh has done nothing but riled up the Republican voter base who otherwise, because of their disappointment with regards to the Republican performance so far, otherwise would probably not have gone to vote.

You're deaf if you think the Democrats base wasn't riled up by the whole Kavanaugh thing. I haven't heard the Left talk about Roe V Wade this much in many years.

And amongst those who actually do believe this works, well, I don't know if you've noticed it, but Steve Bannon is at their fore, lauding the Democrats for their campaign strategy.
Which proves my point that the Democrats have turned into a bunch of Trump copycats and to a certain degree are competing amongst each other as to who can be the most aggressive, harming the joint efforts even further. E.g. Avenatti.

Avenatti isn't going anywhere big, don't worry about that. But yes, Democrats want more aggressive candidates, and I don't blame them.

Or how about trying to win the huge pool of moderates with actual sound policies?

That isn't how voting works in the US, it is two party. Free market, moderate Republicans fell in line and voted for Trump to enact tariffs they hated because most people are single issue voters and the leading issue decides the vote (usually abortion in this day an age) or just the pragmatism of taking the Supreme Court. Trump could enact a complete isolationist policy and moderate republicans would still vote for him for those reasons.

Problem is though that the Democrats do little to nothing on issues that the majority of the population can actually benefit from.

I don't know where you are getting this from and why you would assume the Republicans are doing more for the majority of the population. The tax bill certainly wasn't for the majority of the population.

Those Democrats who do so are still the outliers. Again: Hillary Clinton was pretty much the only person hated enough to lose against Trump. Pretty much anyone could do better. Michelle Obama could probably run for office in 2020 and win without saying a single word, and simply by smiling and calming the Republican voter base that the Democrats are currently spooking into voting against them.

I think Clinton was a convenient target for the Republicans to aim at, but it could have been anyone. Any political vote is going to boil down in the majority of people's minds to "us vs them".