Poor Kavanaugh wants to run for SC judge

I am actually curious what poll you are referring to (you really should provide a link). I will point out...

1) Gallup has 25% of Americans self-identifying as liberal https://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

2) You can identify as liberal and yet not be in the liberal bubble. I am an example of this... I self-identify as liberal (to the chagrin of people in the bubble).

3) Again, according to Gallup, a slight plurality of Americans support Kavanaugh's nomination (46% in favor, 45% opposed). https://news.gallup.com/poll/243377/americans-closely-divided-kavanaugh-confirmation.aspx

Okay, but why is she just giving clues when almost everyone else is flat-out saying how they'll vote?

Poll: More Believe Ford Than Kavanaugh, A Cultural Shift From 1991
October 3, 20183:08 PM ET
Domenico Montanaro


Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford is sworn in before testifying Thursday at a confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court nominee.
Pool/Getty Images

After a day of wrenching testimony from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford — who has accused him of sexual assault in high school — more Americans say they believe Ford's account over Kavanaugh's denials, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll released Wednesday.

In choosing who is telling the truth, 45 percent said Ford is, up from 32 percent ahead of her Sept. 27 testimony. A third (33 percent) said Kavanaugh is the one telling the truth, up slightly from 26 percent before he testified but not as much of a rise as for Ford.

The daylong hearing appears to have been influential in helping people decide who was telling the truth. Before the hearing, 42 percent said they were unsure whom to believe. Now, just 22 percent are unsure.

The results represent a shift from 1991, when more people said they believed then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill. Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment in the workplace. A 1991 CBS/New York Times poll, also conducted days after their dramatic, televised Capitol Hill testimonies, found that 58 percent believed Thomas more, as opposed to just 24 percent who said Hill.
Source

You are asking me to speculate (which I guess I have been doing, but she has been making comments about how there is nothing to colloborate Ford's statement).

Senator Collins is in a difficult position.

If she votes yes, she will face angry liberals who will say she doesn't care about women, is causing the end of Roe v. Wade, and is giving in to her party. If she votes no, she will face angry conservatives who will say that she gave into a liberal political dirty trick, is going against the will of voters, and is betraying her party.

Either way, she will face an angry mob. There are two reasons that I am speculating are tipping her towards a yes vote.

1) She is a Republican and her core base wants her to vote yes (and the general electorate is pretty evenly split between yes and no).

2) She is a woman... which means the claims that her vote is anti-woman have a little less bite.

The reason I believe she is likely to vote yes is that her recent statements seem to be the beginning of a justification for her yes vote.

General public doesn't seem to be all that evenly split about whether Prof Ford or Kavanaugh is telling the truth. Collins has faced pressure before from her pro-life party and voted pro-choice. It is entirely possible that she is saying nice things about how the investigation was handled and that she doesn't think Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v Wade to give her cover for when she votes no for some other reason she will state. We will see.

Incidentally, there is a third possibility: That Collins and Flake-who has nothing to lose since he is retiring-might strike a deal where he agrees to vote no in exchange for Collins voting yes. Murkowski has another reason to vote against Kavanaugh, having to do with Indian lands in Alaska or whatever, which is big news in Alaska but not nationwide. If Manchin votes no-not a sure thing but highly possible-and Flake and Murkowski vote no-highly possible-Kavanaugh doesn't make it.

This thing might not be as over as some are saying.

I have always counted Murkowski as a no vote. The politics in Alaska are such, and she has been hinting all along.

My prediction is that Collins and Manchin vote yes (which is enough). Flake is pro-life , I am not sure about his vote. I think Collins might not want a way out (as you suggest)... she is counting the cost either way.

We will know tomorrow morning, the procedural vote (which will tell us who is where) is scheduled for 10:30 am.

Yes, Collins is counting the cost. Hundreds of her voters came down from Maine today to tell her to vote no. The trend is away from Kavanaugh. And a former Supreme Court Justice, a Republican, John Paul Stevens, came out today against Kavanaugh, saying he does not have the temperament for a Supreme Court judge.

I think Kavanaugh doesn't make it.

I haven't been on this blog for a long time. I just stumbled across the political discussion here. Here's my advice to everyone who is upset with the political arena in our country:
Do your homework!
Before jumping to conclusions, study some history so that you get a little foundation of how the political parties have evolved over the past 200+ years. Make sure you really understand the Declaration of Independance, and the Amendments that follow. Much of it is written in old English, which may take a little study and learning to really understand it, and WHY it was written in the first place. Then learn about the Presidents, and the actions of the parties. Some Presidents were good people. Some were outright theives and crooks. What's interesting is the psychology of all of them, and what was the social norm for thier time period.

Slavery, for example is an interesting topic. All of slavery is unjust. However, it did not start in the United States in 1776. It had been going on for thousands of years throughout the world. Europeans had "endentured servants" who were suppose to be students of a craftsman and learn a trade. Really, it was often parents who sold thier son off to another for money. The boy was obligated to the servitude, meaning labor, for years. Egypt enslaved its own people. African tribes enslaved each other. American Indian tribes enslaved each other. Then came the settlers of the new America and paricipated in slave trade from African people.
Saying it was just the custom of the time doesn't make it right. But the reality is, is that it was the custom at that time. People viewed life differently then than the way we do now. Perhpaps better to say, they were a product of their enviroment, a product of social influences, a product of growing up in a world that influenced just about everything.
This is true today as well. Are you not a product of your upbringing? Your parents influence, the social influence of your enviroment, the TV programs you watch, the church you attend? Today we would not promote slavery, anymore than they would have thought to live without it.
This thought provides an understanding that yields acceptance and appreciation for how much our country has grown, abolishing anger and racial rivalry between each other, and/or comparing recent Presidents. If George Washington were to come back to visit his country and see the changes, I'm sure he would be astounded. Anyway, this is history for you to research, learn, and understand.
For todays political arena, also requires a little historical study. It takes time. Historically, the Republican party was against slavery. It placed several motions to the Senate, and House of Representatives for decades, and decades, all shot down by the Democratic party. The Democratic party doesn't talk about this. But it is on the records and it is true. The Democratic party created laws to oppress the black community after slavery, and worked hard to brain wash low income, uneducated whites into thinking they were superior because they were white. It was a way of gaining their support to uphold the anti-black laws of the south. The Democratic party supported and promoted many of their Klu Klux Klan members into political positions, and leadership, including justices of the Supreme Court. That's not cool. Later, President Johnson passed the Civil Rghts Act not because he wanted to, he was a racist. But the Democratic party stongly pushed him to do it so they could win the black vote. His comment was, "If we can't control them, we can give them a little something to shut them up and turn them into Democrats." This is not cool either. And so, the Democratic party went from anti black, created lynching laws, and segregtion laws, to turning to the black with a pseudo support demeanor to then control them in a different way. To win their vote. Then comes welfare, the socially challenged neighborhoods, and poor socio-economic opportunities for the black community. This is inteded to control the black poplulation again. It delivers social oppression financially, and psychologically because the individual becomes dependent on the government. That's what the Democratic party wants. They want to control the black population (and everyone else too).
So before you go and vote blue out of anger, or misunderstanding between the two recent Presidents, make sure you know what you are voting for, and why is it important. Make intelligent educated decisions instead of emotional outbursts that lacks knowledge. People have a problem with Trump because he has an abrasive personality. There's no shortage of examples in that. However, if you study the 'policies' of his presidency you will see that it is benefiting the masses, which includes blacks, white, and everyone. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in decades. Businesses are doing much, much better which increases jobs and opportunites for people to work and make a living. There is a lot to list. We never had any of these successes in the previous administration. Not because Obama was bi-racial. But because his policies did not support the infrastructure of our country. I hope you have an opportunity to re-examin your thoughts and feelings, and explore new knowledge.

Have you even seen Old English in written form?

Here's some old English . . . see if you can read this:

Nope.

It's the prologue to Beowulf. Fifty years ago, I could have read it, but that was a long time ago.

Maybe widow was describing Colonial style English......the Declaration of Indepence isn’t in Old English.....widow may have just forgotten to proofread.

She writes: ". . . make sure you understand the Declaration of Independence and the Amendments which follow." The Declaration of Independence has no bearing whatever on our government, and it was not, and could not be amended. I would say that this member is confused about the documents which created and define our government, and not simply the type of English in which they are written. The Declaration is easy enough to read:

Maybe. I have trouble with Shakespeare, and I think that is supposed to be Modern English.

It is modern English, some of the phrasing and vocabulary may be a bit archaic, but it's modern English alright. Compare it to the Anglo Saxon provided by Setanta or Chaucer's Middle English.

Whilom ther was dwellynge at Oxenford
A riche gnof, that gestes heeld to bord,
And of his craft he was a carpenter.
With hym ther was dwellynge a poure scoler,
Hadde lerned art, but al his fantasye
Was turned for to lerne astrologye,


The Miller's tale.

Note your continued inability to point out a single fact that I am wrong about.

I would hope that the Republicans would be willing to stand up to these feminist thugs.

There is no evidence to back up the accusation.

There is evidence that the accusation is just being made for political reasons.

Even if the accusation is true, youthful indiscretions do not warrant keeping someone off the Supreme Court.

If the Republicans don't stand up to these thugs, Trump should keep the nomination open and take Kavanaugh on the campaign trail to rally enough votes to get some of these Democrats out of office, then confirm him when the Republicans have a larger majority in the Senate.

The standard that the Democrats used for Bill Clinton was "let's ignore the facts and place him above the law".

As president, Clinton was responsible for ensuring the functioning of the government. However, he was committing felonies to undermine the functioning of the government. That clearly justified removing him from office.

It is pretty clear that there is no justification for opposing Kavanaugh. There is no evidence to support the accusation against him. There is evidence that the accusation is politically motivated. And a youthful indiscretion would not justify opposing him even if the accusation had been proven.

But if there had been an actual legitimate reason to oppose Kavanaugh, since "let's ignore the facts and place him above the law" was good enough for Bill Clinton, it should be good enough for Kavanaugh as well.

I recommend filtering out liberal phony outrage.

Trump merely questioned her credibility. That was hardly mocking her.