How does the Kavanaugh saga end?

It depends on whether the FBI is still Deep State or not. I'm hoping not. But there isn't any evidence of Kavanaugh being guilty of sexual assault, and I expect that to continue.

1) Kavanaugh is going to the Supreme Court as a Supreme Court Justice.

2) The Democrats try to plant more dirt, but it doesn't work.

3) Whoever leaked the Ford letter is found out.

I am trying to interpret this... unless you have some magic powers to tell the future there is no way for you to know this. I think what you are saying is that you won't accept any evidence that contradicts political side.

I think we're all getting a little confused between 'evidence' and ' proof'.

For my first case... I would put the standard at "preponderance of the evidence". If Mark Judge flips, or other people remember the party, or they find someone she told; there are several things that would be enough to reach that level.

I suspect we are going to find out that he drinks a lot.

I'm saying that I'm not afraid to say that there isn't any evidence because I believe Kavanaugh, and I don't think he was like that. I think Ford was put up to the whole thing, merely because she remembered Kavanaugh and thought it would be good to stop someone she thinks is evil from succeeding to the Supreme Court. I think that is why she spent time erasing her footprint on the internet.

I think Kavanaugh is innocent. I'm not like the typical FoxNews commentator who thinks she actually went through anything resembling her claims. I could be wrong about that last part, but I met liberals like her, she is full of hate. I also think that she was marginally interested in going through with all this because she didn't think she could pull it off.



You were asking for predictions, so . . . I'm not the only one prognosticating. Come on, man. This whole thread is prognostication because it's asking for it. Be fair.

Making an absolute judgement before you have all of the evidence is foolish.

I disagree with that as being valid philosophy. Maybe you would like to restate that quote. How would you know if you got ALL the evidence? Basically you are saying there is no other evidence that can be found, so no one should judge before ALL the evidence is in. Think about before reacting. You are talking sophistry.

For this saga of brutal political warfare to end, somehow liberal-socialism and republicanism would have to reach a state of peaceful coexistence where they can cooperate within a democratic paradigm and stop competing for absolute dominance over government, culture, etc.

For this to happen, there would have to be honesty regarding intention and motivation, and there would have to be self-control against subverting the rights of dissenters to participate in democracy. That is difficult when there are stakes that either side can't accept as a possibility.

It may be that this state of adversarial government never ends until global society reaches a state of liberty (responsible self-governance) that allows for all parties to accept the spectrum of diversity in what is considered legitimate from different perspectives. E.g. if drug- and human- trafficking as well as exploitation of trade would naturally subside globally, the desperate war to control borders would give way to a more democratic/cooperative discussion about how to regulate migration and trade in way that is fair to all and honors the universal right to liberty.

Idk if this will ever be possible, however, because moral/cultural diversity seems to have progressed to a point where what were once considered untenably immoral stances are now regarded by many as completely legitimate. As a result, traditional morality must either give in to secular relativism OR accept some kind of territorial separation which would allow morality they consider radically evil to achieve dominance within its own sovereign territory. This would be a situation akin to what the anti-abolitionists sought to achieve during the Civil War period with the protection of slavery as an institution within sovereign states unified under a separate flag (CSA).

Assuming there is not sufficient support/acceptance of confederation as a solution to moral/cultural diversity, that leaves us with the problem of who will give in to whom and how/why. Will either side accept some kind of compromise that sacrifices critical tenets of what they consider to be morally absolute, such as the protection of unborn fetuses or the protection of women's right to control their own bodies and pregnancy via abortion procedures if necessary?

With corruption, all bets are off. Republicanism, liberalism, socialism, Democracy can all be corrupted. And I think that is what is going on. We are in a time where one of the two major political parties in the USA is excluding itself from ever being guilty of anything. I'm not talking about Kavanaugh, I'm talking about the current Democrats. They exclude themselves from self-scrutiny. So arrogant that they are, they can promote the outrageous actions of people to go out, draw a crowd, and harass people eating dinner at a restaurant. They think this is okay, and actually a good thing to do.

So what they are doing with Kavanaugh is more of the same. what they have been doing to Trump is more of the same. They don't accept elections any more. Since they didn't win an election, they are totally for delaying the process, with no evidence, only a testimony, because it serves their purpose. Truth is only valuable to them if it serves them. Ruining an innocent man is possible on television, in front of the whole world, in the daytime, as long as they can convince enough voters he is guilty until proven innocent. Due process is dead if that is true.

Well, the question then becomes where does corruption lead? Presumably to further destruction, but even destruction has its limits. Things tend to get worse before they get better, but they always eventually get better. Whether they will get better in the foreseeable future, within the lifetime of anyone currently living, etc. is an open question.

It sort of parallels the problem of climate change. Nature will necessarily correct any unsustainable state of life on Earth by changing climate and effectuating extinctions, etc. until some natural sustainable state is re-established by evolution, but who knows how much will be lost before that happens. Earth may end up as a dead rock waiting for the next supernova or solar explosion to vaporize it and re-initiate the process of planetary formation from a hot cloud of magma-vapor. If so it could be many eons until Earth is sustainable and no currently living species will have survived to be part of that new 'Earth,' if you can even call it by that name after such a radical process of death and re-incarnation.

I like to maintain hope that reforms will fix things before such radical destruction/rebirth events occur, but that may just be wishful thinking based on personal bias toward foreseeable positive outcomes. Ultimately, it is more objective to also consider the possibility that things will just continue getting worse into the foreseeable horizon . . . but what lies beyond that horizon?

That isn't the question for me. I will let someone else delve into that. I don't think corruption is beneficial.

I think he gets confirmed unless the FBI finds something or fabricates something.

I didn't mean to imply that it was. I just asked where it leads. In other words, do things just keep getting worse indefinitely, or do they ever start getting better?

Yes, probably when the socialists realize that they can get more votes if the GOP seems to be controlling more of the government, they will back off on opposing Trump nominees and focus on rallying voters by talking about how important it is to elect democrats after several Trump supreme court appointments.

The more I see how their strategic approach to maximizing representation in government works, the more I realize they really do hate democratic civil discourse. They only engage in it to the extent they think it will improve their ability to take over and dominate/rule with minimum resistance. Sad that democracy gets abused in this way.

I think the Democrat agenda is to break the system.

I think the Republicans are more of the older order, live as well as you can, get the influx of federal money and projects into your state and constituents, always be ready to defeat your political opponent in the upcoming election.

Trump has been discovering the Democrat end game. I actually should be calling them The Swamp, because of course this isn't purely a Democrat goal. If the Democrats can break the system they feel sure they can take over. They will have a one party system. They will have control over the country, power, authority, people, the States being the only hold out, I think the last hold out.

Let me say that there is no way I think the Democrats can break the system without breaking the way of life. We would cease to be a nation, militarily defensible, economically viable, I think we would turn into more or less a Third World country.

I won't go into the ways I think The Swamp could do this. Maybe on some other topic.

I don't think so, because they would prefer to utilize the system to achieve their goals. I think their goals involve things like protecting drug- and human- trafficking so global organized crime can extract more money by means of growing and importing recreational drugs and sex workers.

I don't know much about the opium wars history of the British empire selling opium in China, but it strikes me as a similar thing. Drugs are very small and easy to ship products with a high price-to-volume ratio so they are very attractive as a commodity for distributing globally. Also, users develop tolerance so the more they use/buy, the more they need to use/buy to get the same effect.

I think the democrats basically get kickbacks from global organized crime by effectuating policies that facilitate their activities. Maybe there are republicans in on it too, idk. I just know that if republicans were facilitating things like gangs, drugs, prostitution, and other lucrative crime, they would be a lot more popular with the poorer classes who have more to gain from lucrative criminal activities that don't have high barriers to job-entry, such as educational diplomas and class preference.
Of course I don't mean that everyone who gets excluded/discriminated goes into crime; but crime preys more on the poor because of their relative desperation due to their financial/economic position.


I think many Republicans are not sufficiently fiscally conservative or anti-socialist. When Obamacare was on the table, for example, few Republicans would admit that private insurance is basically a form of socialism that drives up health care costs and thus basically subsidizes income and business revenues in the industries it funds. Insurance obstructs free markets and many Republicans simply weren't willing to do anything about it because they are afraid to lose their health care privileges. If that's not an entitlement attitude, what is it?


The surest route to achieving greater structural (authoritarian) control and top-down power is to seduce people into abusing their liberty. Democracy can be used as a tool to subjugate free people if you can provoke them into supporting more authoritarian government by stimulating abuse of freedom. That is what liberalism is really about, I think; i.e. getting people to go too far with their freedom in order to provoke stronger top-down authoritarian structuralism.

When people take the liberty of self-governing effectively on their own without laws, rules, and structure, they don't even need a government. That is a terrifying prospect for people who make government their cash cow.


I think you underestimate the possibility of using authoritarian structuralism to effectuate wealth and privilege. What's scarier than becoming a 'third-world country' (which is something that would be easily solvable), is becoming a socialist/structuralist authoritarian society motivated by desire for wealth and privilege, where people really achieve that wealth and privilege by submitting to complex cultural and administrative subjugation.

I think the Democrats currently own the system. They’re protecting it. Check out how the MSM carries their water.

I started this thread to get away from the nonsense, the nastiness and narrowness of the left on the other Kavanaugh thread, only to get the same from the right on this thread.

Sigh.

Sorry if I got off topic.

So let me just say that I think this is going to end good for Kavanaugh. The right people are going to do the right thing. Though if the FBI investigates the letter that was leaked, Feinstein might have to go to prison for a while if she lies to them.