Renzatic on 30/9/2018 at 19:54

---

That's a part of point two. Remember, I'm trimming down the fat here.

Renzatic on 30/9/2018 at 20:03

---

They're questions indirectly answered. That's pretty objective, especially when contrasted with Ford's testimony.

As for the percentage, they're there in red and blue. At a casual glance, there are more reds than blue in his statement. You could say he dodged more than half his questions.

Though if you really wanted to dismiss the Vox article without doing your due diligence while still maintaining your self alleged cred as the one free thinker on TTLG, you should've said "what constitutes a 'dodged question'? It's entirely up to the transcriber to describe what was answered, and what was avoided. It is therefore determined by the subjective tastes of what the author believes to be a 'dodged' question, and can, ergo vis-a-vis, be considered more emotional bleating."

Renzatic on 30/9/2018 at 20:24

---

"Objective" facts that were derived from the authors entirely subjective opinion of the evidence presented. It means nothing!

I gotta give Vae credit. His sole style of arguing does make it incredibly easy to dismiss anything you don't agree with, while still being incredibly difficult to counter. It makes you look like you're arguing from an informed position without having to put up any real effort to defend your stance.

It's basically an ad hominem by the strictest definition of the phrase. He never counters what's stated with an opinion of his own, only continually attacks you and/or the sources you cite by spreading doubt about the very objectivity of the point you're trying to make.

Renzatic on 30/9/2018 at 20:39

---

How so?

Vae on 30/9/2018 at 21:28

---

No, her testimony is not credible, because there isn't any substantiated evidence or witnesses to corroborate her allegation. So objectively speaking, it's not credible. That's a fact...so your statement is false.

As previously stated, the Democrat operational strategy doesn't require proof in order to achieve victory. Their objective is to generate enough blind emotional belief for the "victim", and enough doubt about Kavanaugh's character. As a result, they were able to manipulate Senator Flake (who is a critical swing vote) into going along with the idea of a one week FBI investigation.

Therefore, the reason why Trump ordered the one week investigation, is purely political, and two-fold in nature. First, it is an acknowledgement of the political leverage that Flake has in this scenario. But more importantly, it can be used to counter the psychological strategy presented by the Dems, in order to prevent a "blue wave" in November. The reason why Trump ordered the FBI investigation is because it has the defined limitation of being only "one week". You see, because the Dems were desperate at the end of hearing, due to the committee recommending Kavanaugh's nomination, they had to put the one week limitation on the investigation in order to give it any chance of succeeding.

This is a double-edged sword for the Dems.

On the one hand, this gives them another window of opportunity, in order to launch more unsubstantiated claims and expand on the previous allegations, with the objective of delaying or eliminating the Senate vote by demanding an extension to the FBI investigation. However, because they themselves were leveraged into defining this time limitation, the Republicans can use that against them by saying they have fulfilled their request, with the matter being closed and resolved.

This of course won't satisfy the Dems, because their political objective will remain unfulfilled, and so they will continue to ratchet up emotion and doubt about Kavanaugh.

So this gives the Dems another chance to take down Kavanaugh before the election...but if they don't succeed, then the Republicans will come out of this looking better, which will likely result in a mid-term victory.