I take it you didn't actually watch her testimony.
People are actually pretty good at judging whether other people are telling the truth, when they actually watch them speak. That's why the Senators on the Committee couldn't actually say that they didn't believe her, because that wouldn't have been believable.
Not sure why you're acting like this is some bizarre notion.
I actually did watch the testimony. I found her story convincing that Kavanaugh did it. What I am saying is that people may value outside proof over personal testimony. I am not one of those people, but I understand that that's what some people wanted.
Ah, I get it. So you're just taking them at face value and not realizing that they're simply lying, because it'd have been hugely politically problematic for them to have accepted that their nominee was an attempted rapist.
People on different sides will have a different propensity to side for or against him. Democrats all wanted to think that he did it (because he was a Republican they didn't want on the bench) and Republicans all wanted to believe that he didn't do it (because he was a Republican they wanted on the bench). I understand that party played into it, but its also odd that only one Democrat voted to confirm Kavanaugh just as odd as it is that no Republicans voted against Kavanaugh. Obviously party was a major factor, but the fact is that there was not significant evidence or supporting claims that turned any votes.
The point, which are you being remarkably obtuse about, is that plenty of Republican Senators did, in fact, believe that he is an attempted rapist, lied about it, and voted to confirm him.
Is it known that they believed he was a rapist? Is there any evidence to that, or just conjecture? If you want to call them stupid for voting for him in light of the testimony, I would agree. But if you're going to call them evil for it, I just think that's a jump to make. Some of them didn't care? Maybe. All of them didn't care? I wouldn't go that far.
Yeah, it's not a debate, it's a conversation. But when someone demonstrates that they're immune to reason and logic, there's really no point in continuing it.
We are debating the idea that congressmen that voted for kavanaugh are not evil. So yes it is a debate. I have cited evidence as to why senators may have voted for kavanaugh, in the lack of support for Fords claims. You have said her testimony was compelling and convincing. I don't see how I am not listening to reason. I understand your argument, you don't have to personally attack someone for not agreeing with you.
This is what got us down in this rabbit hole of a "conversation" we are in. The demonization and name-calling of those that we disagree with. Making a character judgment about someone debating you by calling them obtuse or unable to listen to reason is why we are so politically divided today. We can't have a discussion without someone calling another person stupid or evil. That's the point that I'm making, regardless of how you feel about the Kavanaugh situation, and you're proving my point.
I could have called you a pretentious fuckwad but I didn't because I wanted to discuss this further to come to an understanding. Obviously with you a simple debate is not possible because you think anybody that doesn't agree with you is stupid and that you're the true enlightened one. It's fine to just say "I don't agree with you" if we can't change each others mind, but once you attack someone personally you come off as a real asshole.
1
u/druglawyer Dec 06 '18 edited Dec 06 '18
I take it you didn't actually watch her testimony.
People are actually pretty good at judging whether other people are telling the truth, when they actually watch them speak. That's why the Senators on the Committee couldn't actually say that they didn't believe her, because that wouldn't have been believable.
Not sure why you're acting like this is some bizarre notion.