Quote:
|
No. She's the villager whose house got shelled by the Republicans and now has Democratic cavalry riding demanding her food.
|
How? She sent the letter to Feinstein. Feinstein discussed/leaked the letter. The Rs did not even know about the letter until the Ds raised it. How is that the Rs firing the first shot here?
Quote:
|
For someone who stakes out the moral high ground between the parties, you are awfully willing to assign other people to one side or another.
|
"Assign" is the right word. Because I don't think she did this to aid Democrats. I think the Ds have capitalized on it, however, so that is the "side" in this two party war on which she has been placed.
Quote:
Try to remember back to long ago, earlier this week, when I said I was one (close) degree of separation from her. Just think about that for a moment, and wonder to yourself whether my description of her motives might possibly be based on something other than what was on CNN last night.
Imagine that you were abused by a priest, and you did your best to get over it. The priest eventually gets named a cardinal, and you think, what's the point of saying something. But then the cardinal gets named Pope, and you think, don't I have some kind of duty to the rest of the world to say what I know, even though it's going to be terrible. Can you imagine wrestling with that? Can you imagine that the decision might have nothing to do with political parties and affiliations? Try.
|
Here is my preceding post that the above two paragraphs responded to:
What other reason would she have to send in that letter and now come forward? because she just likes having half the country hate her? Because she digs death threats? Because she wants to recall the details of a traumatic experience in public where people will call her a liar?
What other reason than desiring to keep a man she alleges assaulted her off the court would she have for doing any of this? Give me one. And then tell me, how is stating this - stating the sole credible, rational, logical reason she'd have for doing this - a GOP talking point?
Tell me where in there I accuse her of doing this for political reasons, or to aid the Democratic party. Tell me where my description of her motives (to keep a man -
not a Republican, but a man - who assaulted her off the court) differs from your understanding of her motives?
What other motive would she have here but to keep a man who assaulted her off the court?
Before you post something as stupid as the response I just flagged, you might consider reading it a little more carefully and grasping that you are not critiquing my point, but supporting it. You're all but making the same point, only with different words.
