Yup. That sounds about right.

I was thinking the same.

Manufactured support for horrible candidate. That sounds familiar.

Tell me about it.

Arguably the most asinine reach I’ve seen. On here of all subs. HOWEVER, the situation undoubtably stinks. So, realize all the facts remain unclear and see that you sound like you’re crusading toward a conclusion that just ain’t so, and you don’t seem like the type of person who would be proud of that impression. I assume too much. In any case, eyes can open. Outcomes remain more contested than you think, but this is simply a suggestion to pause. I cannot open your eyes. Pressure applied to your opinions by a community, or coercing others in your community toward an idea, is how eyes close & stay shut. Each of us alone, can open our eyes, and taken together, speak our ideas. And when a community of voices originate from within, we vanquish the type of dark forces you fear. In whatever shade it operates.

There is one key problem with your post. Before the attempted rape allegation came out, Brett Kavanaugh had already been questioned and he was going to be confirmed.

Therefore, any claim that he would need to be made to "look good" was entirely unnecessary, a huge political risk, and something that will stick with him and the Supreme Court for a very long time.

What about his historic record makes him unpalatable to you?

His contempt for the fourth amendment, for starters. His habit of regularly lying under oath is another.

The theory doesn't fly since he would have already been confirmed 2 weeks or so ago if not for the 11th hour allegations. That allegation certainly nearly derailed it and in no way it was done to reenforce his chances. The circus might still be a conspiracy to try to drive blue turnout or to further create chaos and destroy the country but not what you are saying.

since when has the public had any say in these proceedings? it's all a fait accompli anyway.

Did I say that? Oh maybe you are referring to the turnout which is for the Nov election.

Nah. The Democrats tried to stop the confirmation with the false allegations but it didn't work, then they tried questioning his "temperament" which also didn't work, so now it's on to the "he worked for Bush, he's swamp creature, Patriot Act, etc." Not that the Democrats actually give a fuck about any of that. They had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, control of the House and the Presidency in 2008. They could have repealed the Patriot Act and the Republicans would not have been able to stop them. They didn't. But the Democrats think they can damage Republican support by taking this avenue of attack now.

It wasn't reverse psychology. They didn't falsely accuse Kavanaugh of gang rape because they secretly wanted him to win. They did it because they legitimately thought that it might stop him from being confirmed. Here's leaked audio of a conference call with an adviser to Dr. Ford, talking about a "strategy that is going to happen soon and potentially defeat the nominee": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRttpJxj59A

that's the normie version yes.

lol

what i wonder is why it was done so badly, and by people who were "connected" to the deep state intel services?

The deep state isn't some omnipotent organization. It is, in my opinion, a bunch of very wealthy people, who's interests are generally aligned, that work from the shadows to manipulate the government through the use of politicians and bureaucrats they own, media outlets and corporations they own, and NGO's they own. Point being, they don't act overtly. They work in secrecy because there are still good people in these agencies that will stop them if given the chance.

and if they really wanted to stop him, as you contend, they had the numbers, so what's the deal?

Who is "they"? I'm not talking about the deep state wanting to stop him. I'm talking about the Democrats, and they don't have the numbers. Which is why they came in with these sloppy last minute allegations.

it's a setup, is the conclusion that seems most likely.

So you think the more likely conclusion is that the Democrats are just pretending to be against Kavanaugh? Really?

This is so well said. Truly, don’t mean to sound like a prick, but OP please reread above...

Dr. Ford's allegations were credible, but even if they weren't, it boggles the mind that someone could think Kavanaugh looks good. They perjuries alone should have been enough for that, which suggests Occam's Razor: if he, and his elite backers, have as much contempt for liberty as you believe, shouldn't it be more likely that they just lie up front? You clearly believe they're willing to lie about something and there is plenty of evidence his testimony, before and after the allegations, was dishonest.

Also, if you think they want to reduce civil liberties and enable torture, why do you think they'd balk at sexual assault? Rape is, among other things, a form of torture and an immediate reduction in the woman's liberty.

What is lipstick on a pig? Why would Kavanaugh getting on the court make people doubt the court has a bunch of fascists on it?

I was asking what you identified as the lipstick in that idiom, not what the idiom meant. Sorry I wasn't clear.

And wow, you have an astonishing view of women. Believe women doesn't, and never has, meant believing all women blindly. Sexual assault is a massive problem, has been since the dawn of civilization, and society's systemic inability to address it stems in significant part due to a disinclination to believe, and care about, women with credible stories. That is the rational, logical position.

If, as you claim to say, you care about civil liberties and torture, then those women of whom you seem contemptous agree with you! If you were willing to empathize with their lives for even a minute, they'd be your strongest allies. The right to bodily autonomy is the most fundamental civil liberty. That you refuse to see your own self interest is tragic.

Feel free to engage with the substance of what I said at any time, rather than just spew ad hominems.. It never ceases to amaze me how many "civil liberties" people don't care about the liberty of anyone but themselves.

I asked you to explain how you were using an idiom, thats not taking umbrage with your form of communication. I laid out my thesis and you just babbled about self-righteousness, ie taking umbrage with the way I was presenting my ideas rather than with the ideas themselves, ie the very same thing you're accusing me of doing.

I don't give two shits about the form of your ideas, so long as they are intelligible. Don't hide behind that. I'd still love to hear how you square a supposed support for civil liberties with a contemptuous attitude towards the idea that bodily autonomy counts as a fundamental civil liberty.

My first comment in this chain asked what you meant. My second laid out my position. You've responded to neither, instead slinging insults my way with each of you subsequent comments.

If you want to discuss something substantive, fee free. Respond to what I posted, or make a coherent case for your argument, rather than just saying "strawman" or the like and walking away.

I would love to hear what you have to say, truly. Just say it, instead of whining. Please.

So you're running away because I asked you to explain your position. Typical.

Yes, and I'm asking how your square the support for civil liberties in #1 of your model with your contempt of womens' civil liberties expressed in #2 and #3. I'm having a hard time understand why a guy a) lying under oath about b) violating women's bodily autonomy (among other things, btw) would make that guy more, and not less sympathetic to the public. I'm also having a hard time understanding how to square your expressed support for civil liberties in #1 of your model with your alliance with evangelicals and neocons who have a history of opposing civil liberties, and against the feminists and lefties who have a history of supporting them.

this is irrelevant to the thesis. it's like you have a cognitive issue about staying on the subject.

This was #2 of your thesis!!! How dense can you be? You said the accusation was about creating a "strawman against which the candidate can look good." Kavanaugh lied under oath repeatedly and revealed a thoroughly cretinous behavior in response to the allegations, regardless of what you believe about them. To say that makes him look good is just delusional.

Thinking perjury in support of sexual assault makes someone look good counts pretty clearly as contempt of women's civil liberties. You obviously don't agree, but the perjury at least is so overwhelmingly obvious that contempt really is the most likely explanation.

Trying to pretend that Kavanaugh's perjurous, disingenuous, and vitriolic behavior in the hearings makes him look good is effectively support of the neocons and evangelicals running the Trump administration and the Senate. If you're parroting their narrative, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you're on the same side as the people, like Kavanaugh, who wrote the Patriot Act, and opposing 64/67ths the people who voted against.

Yeah, there's authoritarian neolib feminists, but it demonstrates tremendous bias to parrot the narrative of the authoritarian anti-feminists, and refuse to acknowledge the majority of feminists who are in it for the expansion of human liberty, and have demonstrated that time and again over the years.

The kicker is that your own

i wouldn't profess to paint such a diverse cohort with any consistent label other than they like to call themselves feminists.

the morons who advocate for blindly believing women just cos they're women are people who are immune to logic.

Saying you won't use a consistent label, just after calling those same people morons immune to logic, especially when those people are entirely in agreement with you on whether or not Kavanaugh should get on the court, and mostly in agreement with you (it seemed) on the issue you claimed to care about (civil liberties), is just baffling. Attacking the people most passionate about the issue you claim to care about really seems hard to explain by anything other than spite or contempt, there's no rational basis for your position.

I just can't buy this.

Nobody was serious about opposing him publicly until these allegations were brought up.

The interview and background process was already complete along with his public testimony. If there were serious problems they would have occurred at that time.

I completely had the exact same thought.

Ah ... the /r/politics /r/conspiracy spin recipe.

But it didn't make Kavanaugh look good. Poll after poll shows more Americans believing Ford than believing Kavanaugh. Polling also shows him averaging a -5 on confirm/don't confirm, whereas all previous confirmed judges for which poling exists has them averaging a +10.

Kavanaugh is historically unpopular, and this process hurt him severely.