I think she has developed the trauma, over time with life and disappointments, and has shifted blame for bad results due to bad decisions. Instead of blaming herself for what she's chosen to do in life, she blames this event.

She has now become a victim of her own delusions. It's very very sad.

Thanks for great discussion; glad I didn't watch it. Now I think 99% Kavanaugh gets confirmed. And 95% that Dems fail to win back the House; 99% Reps keep a majority in the Senate.

All Dem Senators are more vulnerable to effective ads using this, whether they vote for him or not. Those in Trump voting states who vote against Kavanaugh will almost certainly lose votes & support from their vote against.

Maybe there will be another round of folk joining the #WalkAway movement; that would be good.

Plus, I'm sure Trump will be happy to work with any prior NeverTrumpers or NotSureAboutTrump folk, Rep or Dem, who want to get some credit for supporting any of his upcoming actions.

Graham could become more an influence by continuing to criticize Trump, but also increasing his criticism of the Dem PC-bullying, which this hearing was a prize example of.

For some reason I have a very satisfied feeling. Slightly similar when Trump won the nomination and the left went on a full-out, no questions asked, meltdown.

But then again it’s twitter. Even on its good, quiet day it’s SJW. Then, when the scenario calls for it, it’s really SJW.

I suspect you realize this but in case you don’t — Twitter is full-on SJW now, and will continue denying conservative (I.e., normal) voices fair treatment.

Ask James Woods.

Leave Twitter.

https://twitter.com/elainaplott/status/1045478279220797440

https://www.wsj.com/articles/confirm-brett-kavanaugh-1538089143?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/mEPkm8SGDq

Fox News live stream for those without cable

Refresh your memory then, as Vyshinsky speaks the mind of both the Marxist-Leninist and the Modern Democrat:

“The annihilation of classes is our basic need. Without it, the annihilation of class domination is economically inconceivable. In place of “the equal right of all ‘ I propose “the equal rights and equal obligations of all ‘. . . Equal obligations constitute an addition to bourgeois-democratic equal rights which is particularly important for us an addition which removes from the latter their specifically bourgeois meaning. …

Marx … makes it clear (as against Lassalle) that in the first phase of communism there is as yet no “equality,” no “equal rights” (no equal right of each to an equal product of labor). This law is still unequal law inasmuch as it starts by applying an equal and identical gauge to dissimilar persons, dissimilar in their needs and in their positions. Consequently, this law is still unequal and in this sense it is still “bourgeois” law.

[In the early phase of the communist ownership of the means of production] … distribution according to labor is an “injustice,” still necessarily preserved, but being ever more and more mitigated and lessened. The socialist state corrects “unequal” law by sanatoria, rest houses, dispensaries, free (general and higher) training, pensions, a system of reliefs, and so on. “Meantime, individual people are not equal; some are stronger, some weaker, some are married, others unmarried, one has more children, another fewer children, and so on,” and into this “inequality” Soviet power introduces its corrections …”