NH is not sitting on a lake of oil. Our greatest natural resource is rocks. Still doing fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Printable View
NH is not sitting on a lake of oil. Our greatest natural resource is rocks. Still doing fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The fact that they can wait for something better is indicative of the fact that unemployment isn't a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hence, creating jobs couldn't possibly be a super high priority for most companies.
Have you ever looked at who works at McDonalds? It's never been college grads (apart from the manager, maybe). It's either pimply-faced kids or old people who can't pay for their ear medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They're not trying to "create jobs" ffs. They're trying to make money. Creating jobs is a happy by-product of that. But they won't do it if they can make more money simply by riffing the stock market.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And if you think artificially inflated stock prices are a sign of a strong economy, you need to check out the stock market of 1929. That thing was hoppin'!
I wonder what you said about this kind of thing before ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh, that's right
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You havent given me anything to talk about. You just said "go do homework"
we can restart the conversation anytime you wanna stop being a dismissive condescending dickhead and actually post something of substance
I hope you remember this if we ever start debating the minimum wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That was the headline of the link that was given. What do you want from me?Quote:
They're not trying to "create jobs" ffs.
Hopefully this time the companies learn their lesson and hoard capital reserves....oh wait!Quote:
And if you think artificially inflated stock prices are a sign of a strong economy, you need to check out the stock market of 1929. That thing was hoppin'!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/polit...ire/index.html
If Rosenstein is lying, and this did actually happen, it lends credibility to Trump's 'deep-state witch hunt' claims
If McCabe is lying, and this didn't happen, it lends credibility to Trump's 'deep-state witch hunt' claims.
You mean they were gonna tape Trump, wait till he admitted to collusion, and use that against him in impeachment proceedings? That does sound like a witch hunt!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I thought the media, CNN in particular, had a massive double standard favoring the left?
I must be blind because I just can't see that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPxhBbBJJ_E
You know Jack....I want to try and respect you as an intelligent person....but you make it so FUCKING HARD!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
1) AOC is not the whole "left". Maybe CNN isnt completely fucking retarded and realizes that full blown socialism is the worst idea mankind has ever had. Maybe CNN, with their leftist bias, would like to take down someone trying to completely re-define the left in a way that is beyond stupid.
2) I'm only 2 minutes in and Cenk is already flat out lying (OF COOOOOOOOUUUUUUURRRRRSSSSSE!). Medicare for all will NOT save 34 trillion dollars. Cenk says "cost of healthcare = 32 trillion. Under medicare for all, we will save $34 Trillion, that's a net +2Trillion" <<--- That's not even close to right.
What the study said was that total healthcare spending without MFA would be 34 trillion, and with MFA it would be 32 trillion, which reduces total cost of healthcare by 2 trillion dollars (over 10 years, lol). That's a lot different than generating a 2 trillion dollar surplus.
And in order to do that, folks have to surrender total control of healthcare to the government. That might be ok if you're in an accident and break a leg. It's wholly undesirable if you have a chronic condition that needs ongoing care.
Also, the 2 trillion savings is quite dubious. We've heard that before. Obamacare was supposed to save trillions. Costs went up. WAY up!
We had this talk when you posted a video of Bernie sticking his face in the camera yelling "EVEN THE KOCH BROTHERS SAY THIS!!"
Did you forget your lesson already?
Also....if you want to actually have reasonable discussions here, no more posting 20+ minute videos of leftist retards babbling about bullshit. Post the CNN clip and let it stand on its own. If your point is not self-evident, and you need CENK UYGUR (LOL) to prop up your argument with demagoguery and lies.....then you really have no business participating in intelligent discourse whatsoever.
Here's THREE FUCKING HOURS of Cenk. Can you identify one second in this entire video where Cenk says anything reasonably sensible or intelligent.
BTW, this video proves, without a shred of doubt, that Jesus is the son of God, and the second coming has arrived. This time the Holy Spirit has embodied itself in a staunch and avowed atheist named Sam Harris, which by the way is a level of irony that can only be described as "god-like". If Sam isn't the lamb of God then please explain to me how he doesn't pile-drive Cenk through the floor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU
Here's 62 more minutes of your favorite Turkish mental case. Can you find a timestamp somewhere in this video that Cenk would be proud to play for his mother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIAyudtNicY
Here's Cenk's peers telling us how much integrity he has. Just the first minute should be enough to convince you that the guy should be shot out of a cannon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opryNdcBTiI
and while we're on the subject, I can't think of anything I'd rather see more than Ana Kasparian hanging from fishooks in her eyelids.
So I watched another minute of that TYT propaganda nonsense. Cenk argues that the increased cost isn't 40 trillion, it's 10 trillion. He still admits that AOC's tax plan only generates +2 trillion. That still leaves 8 trillion unaccounted for. She still hasn't answered that question!! Why would Jake accept an answer that leaves out trillions of dollars???
Are you really calling CNN out for being hostile to the left because he thinks the number is 40 trillion and not 10 trillion?
Or maybe AOC did answer the question and Tapper is being a cunt. I wouldn't know, because you didn't post the clip. You posted bullshit propaganda made by retarded demagogues with too much money.
Anyone wanna set the over/under on how long Jack will watch this before realizing it's satire?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63UwascAdgg
Another opportunistic leftist cunt has accused Kavanaugh. Creepy porn lawyer is her attorney. Sounds credible, right?
Wooops, got that one a little wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There is another opportunistic leftist cunt accusing Kavanaugh. Apparently he flashed her during a drinking game in college. Again, if this is true, it shouldn't matter. But BK can't admit to this now, and still say the first chick is lying. Damn, the Dems are playing some 4d fucking chess right now.
Creepy porn lawyer now claims to have evidence that BK ran a serial gang-rape operation in college. This is separate from opportunistic leftist cunt #1 and opportunistic leftist cunt #2. This guy joining the fight, at this time, with this allegation pretty much proves that BK is an angel.
Absolutely. Why would she lie and open herself up to all the death threats and other 'blame the victim' tactics of right-wing nutjobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Who her lawyer is irrelevant to the veracity of her statement. Doesn't mean it's not fun watching you get triggered over it though.
Can you just say "Avenatti" instead. Otherwise I get him mixed up with the creepy porn president.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It is bizarre how he manages to show up with all the dirt though. In Trump's case, it's not really suprising as someone was gonna do it, but how did he get involved with Kavanaugh? Does he have a 1-800 number hotline for women who've been involved with powerful men or something?
Haha, the best part of this whole thing is the serial woman abuser Trump trying to defend Kavanaugh, "don't know how this could be true!" lol.
And, after being shadowed by his staff for a week so he didn't say anything too stupid about the whole thing, apparently someone left him alone with his phone long enough for him to ask why a 15 year old girl didn't report a sexual assault to the FBI.
lolololololol
Hypothesis:
When it comes to the kind of behavior BK is accused of, the actual facts will eventually reveal that the number of times it occurred is either zero or it's a lot.
There's no in-between.
Right now we have 2 accusations and the first seems astoundingly credible, given the decades long paper trail of professional treatment she's sought over the event which happened to her in college. The odds that she might in any way be confused about the identity of the perpetrator of that event are almost 0.
Almost.
Victims of trauma are not immune to mistakes, and (if the history of science tells us anything) a brain can rationalize literally any story as "real."
Still, I find it impossible to believe that if someone tried to rape me, that I'd ever be mistaken about that person's identity.
I don't believe the initial claim is a lie. I do believe that it's not a clincher on its own.
Still... if it's the only story of its kind, then the initial statement holds... People whom commit acts of sexual violence do not become reformed. At least... show me any single irrefutable piece of evidence of this ever happening and I'll change my hypothesis.
So far we seem to have 1 credible claim.
Conclusion: Time needs to pass and the story needs to unfold a bit more before we can draw any conclusions.
He was actually taunting the lady because SHE is the one calling for an FBI investigation. She's just doing it 36 years after the alleged incident. He was mocking her current calls for an FBI investigation. Her request is ridiculous, and Trump is merely responding to her ridiculousness by presenting something equally ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Poop, can you please tell me what makes this woman credible?
-She didn't say a word about this for 30 years. Apparently she brought it up in couples therapy 6 years ago for the first time. The therapists notes say that she claimed there were 4 people in the room. Her latest story says 2.
-She has named four people besides herself who were witness to this event and/or BK's presence at the party. All of them....did you get that ALL FOUR OF THEM completely deny her claims.
-She can't remember what year, or what month this alleged assault happened. She also can't remember who's house it was at.
-She has requested that the typical process of justice be upended as a prerequisite to her sharing her story. For example, she will only play ball if BK forfeits his right to respond to his accuser and testify first. If her story is so credible, why is she afraid of a rebuttal?
And then on the other side of the scale you have BK, who has been vetted by the FBI six different times in his life, served honorably, and never faced a shred of criticism until it became politically inconvenient for Trump. Also in his corner are three other witnesses who say this cunt is full of shit.
Why is she to be believed at all? Please explain?
I don't see anything about the story which puts it in the FBI's jurisdiction.
She's accusing BK of a non-federal crime, and it allegedly took place not on gov't property.
What about this makes it a federal case aside from the current nomination proceedings, and is that enough?
Within what period of time?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Source? It was my understanding that the first time she brought it up was in couples therapy (not individual trauma-recovery therapy) six years ago. And the therapists' notes say that her first version of the story had 4 people in it, not 2.Quote:
Right now we have 2 accusations and the first seems astoundingly credible, given the decades long paper trail of professional treatment she's sought over the event which happened to her in college.
A drunk 15 year old's memory is not the same as a drunk 35 year old's memory.Quote:
The odds that she might in any way be confused about the identity of the perpetrator of that event are almost 0.
This presumes that the attempted rape was real, or at least perceived by her as real. Never mind the possibility that she is mistaken about the perpetrators identity. There's also the possibility that her memory concocted the perception over time to suit some other purpose. We've seen plenty of women make up stories, or embellish details in order to construct a narrative of victimhood. That chick who blasted Aziz Ansari WANTED to be a victim of sexual assault.Quote:
Almost.
Victims of trauma are not immune to mistakes, and (if the history of science tells us anything) a brain can rationalize literally any story as "real."
Still, I find it impossible to believe that if someone tried to rape me, that I'd ever be mistaken about that person's identity.
So maybe she made up a story to get some sympathy in couples therapy, and now that story has the power to politically damage Donald Trump.
Four separate people, whom she named as witnesses, say she's lying. Why do you believe the initial claim?Quote:
I don't believe the initial claim is a lie. I do believe that it's not a clincher on its own
And it is a clincher on its own. It wouldn't be if BK admitted to it and said "nah, I wasn't gonna rape her, we were just horsing around". But now he's categorically denied it to congress. So it is a clincher. If it happened, he's fucked.
"sexual violence" is a really loaded term. You could easily call it "suggestive horseplay" with no actual motive or intent to actually commit harm. And we're talking about a person under 20. If the original claims are to be believed, then isn't the fact that the most recent accusation is more than 3 decades old kind of prove that there was reformationQuote:
Still... if it's the only story of its kind, then the initial statement holds... People whom commit acts of sexual violence do not become reformed. At least... show me any single irrefutable piece of evidence of this ever happening and I'll change my hypothesis.
What makes it credible?Quote:
So far we seem to have 1 credible claim.
What? Why? How much time? Unfold to what end?Quote:
Conclusion: Time needs to pass and the story needs to unfold a bit more before we can draw any conclusions.
This cunt is going to have her day in front of the committee on Thursday. Then the committee will hear a response from BK. Then they will decide whether or not to recommend confirmation to the senate.
Then the senate will vote.
What else would you like to have happen? And don't say "FBI Investigation". The FBI doesn't open investigations into decades-old state-level crimes that are claimed with no supporting evidence, no definitive time, no definitive location, and no corroborating witnesses
Astute observation!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Basically Bush Sr had the FBI look into Anita Hill's claims, so now folks think that the same should happen now.
Taunting? The POTUS taunts the victim of an alleged rape attempt and that seems appropriate to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
lol what is wrong with some people.
Not talking about something can happen for a lot of reasons. It being traumatic, embarrassing and painful are all good reasons for someone to keep something to themselves for a long time, if not forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Consistent with the idea that it was too painful and/or embarrassing for her to mention to anyone before.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Memory over long periods of time is fallible. Fussing over the details is being unrealistic, unless she has a photographic memory. The important thing is she claims to remember the alleged assault, not whether she remembers what colour the wallpaper in the room was or other such details such as who was standing exactly where. It was 30 years ago ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I've only heard of three witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
BK, well ldo he's going to deny it.
BK's friend, the blackout drunk, is lucky if he can remember what happened last week.
Whatsername's friend, how is she going to remember a party she went to 35 years ago, when nothing of note happened to HER there?
Where were YOU and what were YOU doing and who was there on the night of Sept. 24, 1988? Do you know? I sure as fuck don't.
It was 30 years ago and I guess she didn't keep a diary. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, the FBI has a video of his entire life they can look at? Why is it so hard to believe they never interviewed every single person he ever came in contact with. And oh, is it also hard to believe he wouldn't volunteer the alleged incident himself?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I take it you mean never faced an accusation of sexual misconduct. I'm pretty sure someone must have criticized him at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
BK's friend refuses to testify and is a self-admitted blackout drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Other witnesses who don't remember what was to them a typical Friday night 30 years ago are hardly saying 'she's full of shit'. They're saying 'it's too long ago i don't remember'.
Yeah. POTUS has decided she's lying to harm him politically. She's not a victim in his eyes. I don't blame him for thinking that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What she claims happened to her, would not be called "traumatic" by any reasonable person.Quote:
Not talking about something can happen for a lot of reasons. It being traumatic, embarrassing and painful are all good reasons for someone to keep something to themselves for a long time, if not forever.
Also consistent with the idea that it didn't matter to her until it got her attention.Quote:
Consistent with the idea that it was too painful and/or embarrassing for her to mention to anyone before.
Actually the details do matter. If you're making claims that will destroy a person's life's work, reputation, and career, then you had better have your fucking shit straight. You can't play fast and loose with the facts like that..."maybe it was just Brett and Mark, maybe the audience was double that size" Just noQuote:
Memory over long periods of time is fallible. Fussing over the details is being unrealistic, unless she has a photographic memory. The important thing is she claims to remember the alleged assault, not whether she remembers what colour the wallpaper in the room was or other such details such as who was standing exactly where. It was 30 years ago ffs.
You forgot PJ Smith. There are 4.Quote:
I've only heard of three witnesses.
I was watching Thundercats and playing with He-Man toys. If you can't account for your whereabouts, you're probably a rapist.Quote:
Where were YOU and what were YOU doing and who was there on the night of Sept. 24, 1988? Do you know? I sure as fuck don't.
my point is, if it affected her as profoundly as she claims....she wouldn't be fuzzy on the details.Quote:
It was 30 years ago and I guess she didn't keep a diary. What's your point?
She made several insane requests. A) Only committee members can question her. B) BK can't be in the room. C) BK has to go first. My source is her cunt mouth.Quote:
Source?
They talk to your kindergarten teacher ffs!!Quote:
So, the FBI has a video of his entire life they can look at? Why is it so hard to believe they never interviewed every single person he ever came in contact with. And oh, is it also hard to believe he wouldn't volunteer the alleged incident himself?
You don't get to where he is without being squeaky clean.Quote:
I take it you mean never faced an accusation of sexual misconduct. I'm pretty sure someone must have criticized him at some point.
SO IS FORD!!!!! And BK's friend has issued public statements denying her storyQuote:
BK's friend refuses to testify and is a self-admitted blackout drunk.
Don't you think that if Mark Judge witnessed a rape, he would remember? Unless you're saying he witnesses rapes all the time.Quote:
Other witnesses who don't remember what was to them a typical Friday night 30 years ago are hardly saying 'she's full of shit'. They're saying 'it's too long ago i don't remember'.
His entire life. My hypothesis is that there's a persistent pattern of sexual assault, or there's nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It was an NPR story I heard last weekend (9 or so days ago), but it was my gal whom put the podcast on, so I'm not sure which show it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm happy to let the decades comment go if we can both agree that years in advance of this accusation, she told the story to a therapist and her husband.
That tells me that something definitely happened in her college days and that it is unlikely that she planted that seed so that she could call out some random male as a sexual abuser at some later time.
I've tried to state my reasons. It's probably better if I say I lean toward believing her claim, due to the history of the story coming long before this opportunity to make the claim, and that I find it very hard to believe she'd be suffering from a case of mistaken identity under these circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I agree. Part of her claim is that he covered her mouth with his hand to silence her screaming, and that she was afraid that he would suffocate her because she was struggling to breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I don't know if that's what happened, but to abstract away from this exact story, that is not horseplay. Play implies that both of them were complicit in the aggression of the act.
I don't understand your attachment to the ages of the people at the time of the alleged incident, nor do I understand the weight you put on the time from then to now.
These were adults in college. I don't see why someone being under 20 means that it's OK to rape them or that they wouldn't have enough sense to recognize their raper, or that they just need to rape once or twice in order to science out the fact that they're not into raping.
In terms of reform, I'd say a lack of evidence is not proof of anything.
I feel like I've gone over this. Nothing I've heard "makes" it credible, but everything I've heard sounds plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This doesn't feel to me like an opportunistic attack to gain fame or a book deal or whatever.
Bottom line is that my entire point is that while I tend to lean toward believing her, if there are not a flood of claims against him, then I stand by my original hypothesis. Either there's a life-long pattern of him doing this kind of aggressive sexual activity, or there's not. No in-between.
Why because look at the Cosby case. First it was one claim and everyone wanted to defend Cosby. Then it was a couple more claims and people cried that they were all opportunists trying to cash in on the fame and whatnot. Then the floodgates opened and there was no longer any doubt about what Cosby was doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
These kinds of things take a few months to unravel, in my experience.
IDK what makes you think I want anything to happen or that I'm disappointed with the way things are happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I think the point of the hearing was exactly to determine his character and whether or not he's a good fit for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS. If something comes to light as has in this case, then I think the hearing is a sham if there isn't ample time to fully understand both sides and the implications thereof.
But I don't want to make policy. I'm not even saying whether or not Cosby should be on SCOTUS. Just that we don't really have all the facts in the story at this time.
Didn't Hillary do this? Only from the position of a lawyer, and the alleged rape victim she was taunting was accusing her husband? Or did I dream that?Quote:
Taunting? The POTUS taunts the victim of an alleged rape attempt and that seems appropriate to you?
Did I say it was ok if Hillary did it? Did I defend her actions? No, i didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you saying if Hillary does something despicable, then that makes it ok for Trump to do something comparable? 'cause that whole WhataboutHillary argument is really getting old.
Whataboutism in general is stupid.
Someone once committed murder and got away with it. So therefore it's OK if I murder.
WTF?
Would you say that if 100% of the accusations being fuzzy, uncorrorborated and/or actively refuted, and all contained within circumstances of underage drink that constitutes a "persistent pattern of sexual assault"?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
OkQuote:
I'm happy to let the decades comment go if we can both agree that years in advance of this accusation, she told the story to a therapist and her husband.
Maybe she planted that seed because it was advantageous at the time. Have you ever been to couples therapy? It's where women invent all kinds of cockamamie reasons for acting like cunts, and then expect you to bend all your behavior to accommodate whatever bullshit they imagined.Quote:
That tells me that something definitely happened in her college days and that it is unlikely that she planted that seed so that she could call out some random male as a sexual abuser at some later time.
Why is it hard to believe she's mistaken? She named four people who would corroborate her story. All four failed to do so. Why are those four people less believable than she is? is it more plausible that she's mistaken, or that all four of those people are lying?Quote:
I've tried to state my reasons. It's probably better if I say I lean toward believing her claim, due to the history of the story coming long before this opportunity to make the claim, and that I find it very hard to believe she'd be suffering from a case of mistaken identity under these circumstances.
Careful with the facts there. If I recall, the mouth-covering and the struggling to breath were separate occurrences. Just because her mouth was covered doesn't mean that it was to prevent her from summoning help. Maybe it was part of a prank. Or maybe the guy on top of her tought she was gonna yell "rape" when he was really just horsing around and wanted a chance to set the story straight. There's any number of reasonable reasons a hand might have been near her mouth.Quote:
I agree. Part of her claim is that he covered her mouth with his hand to silence her screaming, and that she was afraid that he would suffocate her because she was struggling to breath.
The struggling to breath was the result of two men being on top of her. She claims this occurred when the witness tried to wrestle the alleged rapist. because nothing deters a man from raping someone like the opportunity to wrestle another guy. LOL. Still jsut sounds like horseplay to me.
Cmon man. Maybe at your nerd parties everybody coddles each other. But at real life parties, sometimes someone gets thrown in the pool and is pissed about it. Sometimes someone passes out and gets a dick drawn on their face. Sometimes guys get aggressively flirtatious. Sometimes someone takes their pants off. Live a little.Quote:
I don't know if that's what happened, but to abstract away from this exact story, that is not horseplay. Play implies that both of them were complicit in the aggression of the act.
The ages are relevant because it explains why the parties involved (whoever they actually were) may have exhibited less than adult judgement, or blurred the lines of self-control. That's what kids do. And if this "raper" was really the kind of guy that would just ambush a 15 year old girl, pin her to the bed, rip off her clothes, and plow her to smithereens while his buddy cheered him on.....then it seems wildly likely that he would have exhibited other lapses of self-control throughout his juvenile years.....the kind of lapses that would preclude you from going to Yale.Quote:
I don't understand your attachment to the ages of the people at the time of the alleged incident, nor do I understand the weight you put on the time from then to now.
These were adults in college. I don't see why someone being under 20 means that it's OK to rape them or that they wouldn't have enough sense to recognize their raper, or that they just need to rape once or twice in order to science out the fact that they're not into raping.
Really? It doesn't matter that this guy has worked honorably at the highest levels of public service? That means nothing to you?Quote:
In terms of reform, I'd say a lack of evidence is not proof of anything.
It's also plausible that you're a russian bot put here to spread anti-kavanaugh propaganda.Quote:
I feel like I've gone over this. Nothing I've heard "makes" it credible, but everything I've heard sounds plausible.
It's an opportunity to be the hero who landed a brutal blow against the Trump presidency. I believe this thing happened to her. I believe she is probably mistaken about A) Who actually did it, and B) what they were actually doing. I believe she added her own harrowing perception to the ordeal in order to gain sympathy. Being a victim is VERY satisfying. And the more she told her story, the more sympathy she got, the more she believed it was true. Not an unusual psychological phenomenon at all.Quote:
This doesn't feel to me like an opportunistic attack to gain fame or a book deal or whatever.
Well, the allegations stop at 20. the guy was nominated almost 3 months ago. Accusers have had plenty of time to come out. Do you at least acknowledge the suspicious timing of all this?? Also, the guy had been vetted 6 times before this. They talk to EVERYONE, even your fucking kindergarten teacher. How could there be "a flood of claims" just waiting to be made....but not one of them surfaced before now?Quote:
Bottom line is that my entire point is that while I tend to lean toward believing her, if there are not a flood of claims against him, then I stand by my original hypothesis. Either there's a life-long pattern of him doing this kind of aggressive sexual activity, or there's not. No in-between.
OKQuote:
Why because look at the Cosby case.
Source?Quote:
First it was one claim and everyone wanted to defend Cosby.
Source?Quote:
Then it was a couple more claims and people cried that they were all opportunists trying to cash in on the fame and whatnot
He was nominated in the beginning of JulyQuote:
These kinds of things take a few months to unravel, in my experience.
You should be disappointed with the way things are happening.Quote:
IDK what makes you think I want anything to happen or that I'm disappointed with the way things are happening.
He went through his 6th FBI background check, answered 1200+ written questions, provided over 30 hours of testimony and the hearing was CLOSED. When would you say that the hearing has served its purpose?Quote:
I think the point of the hearing was exactly to determine his character and whether or not he's a good fit for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS.
Why can't the thing that comes to light be a sham? What is sham-like about the hearing?Quote:
If something comes to light as has in this case, then I think the hearing is a sham if there isn't ample time to fully understand both sides and the implications thereof.
Why do you deny that we have all the facts. It's entirely plausible that we do have all the facts.Quote:
But I don't want to make policy. I'm not even saying whether or not Cosby should be on SCOTUS. Just that we don't really have all the facts in the story at this time
Oh ok, so long as you'd be making incessant noise whoever won the election, no problem.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
WhatAboutHillary is precisely the reason I'm satisfied with the current President.
Not going to read all this, but there's some real gems in there, likeQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
1) How you can perfectly innocently cover someone's mouth so they don't falsely accuse you of rape while you're engaged in horseplay.
2) How women in therapy routinely make up lies about sexual assault to manipulate their husband into doing the dishes.
3) How it's ok to attempt rape if you're still a minor.
Brilliant. Banana you should be representing Kavanaugh at the hearings.
Good thing he didn't run against Charles Manson.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
YeahQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Only slightly hyperbolicQuote:
2) How women in therapy routinely make up lies about sexual assault to manipulate their husband into doing the dishes.
you read bad.Quote:
3) How it's ok to attempt rape if you're still a minor.
No, I should be representing the guy that actually did that shit to Dr. FordQuote:
Brilliant. Banana you should be representing Kavanaugh at the hearings.
Attachment 1053Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No you should be representing Kavanaugh.
"Your honor, this second accuser is also full of shit, the fucking cunt. There's a perfectly innocent explanation for why my client stuck his dick in her face at a party. He was trying to use it to cover her mouth so she wouldn't falsely accuse him of sexual misconduct."
Sorry, I forgot the part about how, years later, they use that same lie to accuse a former classmate of theirs who just happens to be a nominee for SCJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
God, it's so obvious now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sure sounds like 'boys will be boys (and commit sexual assault)' to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
God I can't wait for Thursday. Let's see how credible this bitch actually is.
Why do you even care about Thursday? You made up your mind already.
I'm more interested in how many others get emboldened to come forward, and how the creepy porn president will handle the whole situation.
I wonder why she insisted that BK go first. or why she doesn't want to be questioned by lawyers
Could it be that her story can't hold up to rebuttal, and only makes sense when projected through the mouths of partisan demagogues?
Why can't her story be scrutinized by someone who actually practices law?
because I like watching demagogue cunts get shamed and embarrassed for dirty politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The accusations keep getting flimsier. I hope there are lots more!Quote:
I'm more interested in how many others get emboldened to come forward
You already know the answer to that.Quote:
and how the creepy porn president will handle the whole situation.
lol, the Rs trying to shame and embarrass this woman will be the biggest gift they can give to the Ds.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
me tooQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not really. It all depends on whether and how often his staff lets him out of his playpen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Before you get into this whole post, I have a request.
It's daunting to try to answer the 20 questions you asked, let alone try to reply to all the other points.
I'll do my best to answer the questions, but it'd help the flow of the conversation if you could maybe pick the one biggest thing to unravel from the litany of things I said that bother you. I get that we don't agree on much, and that's fine. It'd just help if we took on one issue at a time to try to come to understand each other, rather than mashing everything into every conversation.
No. Either the number of claims is small and it's not a pattern and I don't care, or the number of claims is large and it'd be foolish to claim that all of them are lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
For the reasons I've stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
None of them is any more believable than the others, and what I see is 5 believable stories. I'm not picking sides because 4 of them are similar. Not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Humans lie for all sorts of reasons, and often say untrue things which they believe, despite the white-washing of memory that compels that belief.
Humans lying doesn't bother me. I don't care whom lied about what. I care if there's a rapist on SCOTUS.
I assert that we don't need to evaluate the veracity of any individual claims when it comes to crimes of sexual nature. What turns someone on is not something that changes throughout their life. If it's women, it's women. If it's men, it's men. If it's violence, it's violence. Etc.
That's my hypothesis.
I don't even know how to answer this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It means that he's earned the respect of an independent body to verify the claims, nothing more. People whom are otherwise good do bad things all the time. It is perfectly common for someone to live a double-life to cover up their guilt. Dahmer's neighbor's called him a "quiet man who kept to himself."
The timing is the opposite of suspicious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Imagine you were raped, and you reacted in all the common ways people react. Shame, self-blame, depression, etc.
Then you just want to separate yourself from that person, that place, and get on with your life in denial of the thing that happened to you... by them.
Until you see them about to be appointed to a positon of great power and authority, with impact on millions of people's lives...
Then you realize that you have to face your fear, your shame, your depression, and man-up to face whatever comes in order to prevent this person from enacting their beliefs on a scale which makes what happened to you a detail.
How? See above.
If you've never been a victim of violence, then don't even pretend you understand what they've dealt with. If you have, then try to understand that other people are seriously traumatized by that kind of thing and if you weren't, then you are the exception to the rule, not them.
lol. It's the Cosby thing. If you can't find your own sources on that, then don't expect me to waste my own time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
As I said, when it has determined his character and whether or not he's a good fit for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The exact details of that are up to the committee and/or the laws which address this process, since the committee is Congress.
I've repeatedly said that it can.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh. Everything about the hearing is a sham. I don't think 1 letter of the intent of the constitution is playing out in this hearing or in the SCOTUS appt. hearings I've seen in my lifetime.
This one is no different.
'Cause there is no other possible explanation of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why do you assert that you know everything?
No, you don't see 5 believable stories. You see TWO believable stories and a binary distribution that favors one of those stories by a ratio of 4 to 1. How you don't find that compelling makes me wonder how you can be a man of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If every single word this cunt says turns out to be 100% true....and BK gets confirmed anyway.....there still wouldn't be a rapist on the SCOTUS.Quote:
I care if there's a rapist on SCOTUS
You might wanna turn down the ol' demagogue-sensitivity dial
Well, you see there's her story, K's story, his friend the blind drunk's story (fwiw), her friend saying she doesn't remember (which isn't a story, it's a blank page), and I don't know who the other one is you keep referring to, but I assume they don't remember either. So there's actually two stories, one blackout, and two don't remembers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
"attempted rapist" just sounds so awkward.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Mojo would you want a guy who sticks his dick in a girl's face at a college party on the SC?
Not sure what the word is for that. "Dickinfacer?"
That's ALOT of guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What % of men do you think have stuck their dick in a girl's face at a party (where she wasn't complicit obv., so no strippers or w/e) at least once in their life? I'm not talking just about your college buddies here, I mean all men.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
More than 1 in 4Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I said it's a red herring whether or not her story is true. If it's false, then it doesn't matter. If it's true, then a pattern of repeated behavior will become known and no single story being true or false with change the greater picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My personal belief is that there is never an in-between when it comes to sex.
I.e. if someone has a problem with this, then it is never a 1-off event.
I never said otherwise. I said if what she said is true, then there will be loads of other people with similar claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If it becomes a Cosby level of accusations, then it becomes far more likely that he's guilty than not, IMO.
I don't personally think having a known rapist on SCOTUS is good for American legal precedent, but maybe Congress disagrees. If so, then fine. I'll deal with the consequences as they come.
I said if what she said is true, then we'll soon see more people coming forward making similar claims. If that is 1 or 2 people, then it's easy to see them as opportunists. If it's dozens of people, then it becomes harder and harder to believe that all of them are making it up.
That's my hypothesis, not a fact, not based on any data other than my lack of any experience with a person whom was a 1-time sexual predator, but never again thereafter.
How am I expressing demagoguery?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not appealing for anyone to support my ideas, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just sharing my opinions.
I'm not sure what you mean when you use the word. Can you clarify?
Your use of the word rapist = demagogueryQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's an appeal to an emotional argument. You have no basis in fact, or in legal definitions, for using the word "rapist"
So statistically speaking, there's already 1 of them on the SC, in your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's more likely than not that there's 2,Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
statistically speaking
You aren't. He's just using his favourite big word he learned from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
He doesn't know either. He just thinks it's a good name to call someone who expresses a thought that results in him experiencing cognitive dissonance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Demagoguery. You're counting the three female SCJs in that math.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
so 6 of 9 are men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
1 in 4 men are junk flashers.....
I'll let you do the math. Obviously it's more likely than not that htere is one flasher on the court...
did I misspeak in regards to 2? I guess I wont' be shocked if the chances are only 40%. I guess you got me
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Here, let me hold your hand through this. Got it? Ok, now pay attention.
He said "I don't want a rapist on the SC". He did not say "K is a rapist."
See the difference? That's issue number one. You have to read what people say and take that for what it means, not give it a different meaning by changing a word or two, and then responding to that different meaning as if THAT was what they said.
Issue number two: Even if he did say "K is a rapist" (and I remind you again he didn't), that's not demagoguery. It's an opinion, unproven. Everyone here who might have read that (if he'd actually said it, which he didn't) is aware of its (currently at least) unproven status. So it's not a means he would theoretically (if he had actually said that - which he didn't - see issue one above) be using to persuade you or anyone else here of anything. It would simply be him making an unsubstantiated claim.
Again, not to keep harping on it, but it's important you learn this, this second point is only a hypothetical, because of the first issue, which is really an important element of your continuing difficulty in communicating effectively with people here: it's not actually what he said.
More demagoguery. There's currently eight SCJ, including five men. The other seat is vacant; hence these hearings that you keep talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, I keep hearing that Rosenstein either quit or got fired. Anyone know the facts here?
Here let me hold your hand through this. Now look both ways. Wait for the light..... Ok let's goQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I was asked to use fewer words. If you want me to start unpacking all of my responses again...i will. But in this case, MMM's use of the word rapist, is within the following context that summarizes his overall point:
"We should let this Kavanaugh thing play out because if we don't we might have a rapist on the SC"
^If I'm misrepresenting MMM's point, I welcome the correction.
I have two responses to this...
1) Define "play out". 6 FBI background checks, 1200+ written questions, 30 hours of testimony.....what's "enough"? How many accusers of dubious credibility should we entertain?
2) Where did the word "rapist" come from?
No one has accused BK of rape. It's not even reasonable at this time to even speculate that he's possibly committed rape on anyone ever. Why is it a concern that there would be a rapist on the supreme court? Why is that an issue. At worst, if everything Ford says is true, you would have an over-zealous groper on the SC. If we're jumping from that to "rapist", without any credible piece of factual evidence to support such an incendiary charge, then there has to be a reason.
If that reason is a credible suspicion of rape...I'd like to hear what that is.
If the reason for using that word is to emphasize a point and garner support for your argument by leveraging most human beings' distaste for rape....then that is demagoguery
stop pretending like that last seat is up for grabs. Trump isn't going to appoint a broadQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Well if you don't get the short version, I'll elaborate. If that bothers you, be smarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I did get the short version. It was hilarious too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No you fucking didn't. Because somehow you read that I claimed MMM said "BK is a rapist"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've already restated my understanding of MMM's point. "Let the BK shit 'play out' or there might be a rapist on the SC"
I know that's not the same as saying "BK is a rapist"
That's you taking something I said, and reading something completely different. I thought objected to that kind of behavior on this forum
go ahead, post your meme. It's funny. Just not in the way you think it is
My quote was, "I care if there's a rapist on SCOTUS." in an abstract conversation about whom to believe in this kind of he-said/she-said.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I've made it clear that I'm not accusing BK of anything, nor taking a side in this, yet.
It's a fair point that Dr. Ford is not accusing BK of rape. She uses the term sexual assault.
I'll refrain from using that word in this conversation.
But Kavanaugh went on Fox News. He can't be guilty of anything if he's willing to face that journalistic firing squad.
TIL
Dr. Ford's claim is from when she was 15 and BK was 17. It was a high school party, not a college party.
They weren't 20. They were teens.
It's the second one who is claiming the rubbing the ole' dick in her face gag occurred at college.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Right, and drunk 15 year old girls have steel-trap memories.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
She doesn't need one if she's making the whole thing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Same with the second woman.
Also, the creepy porn lawyer's stuff.
But who'r ya gonna believe? A SCJ nominee begging for a job or a whole bunch of people with nothing to gain?
Attachment 1054
*sigh*. Something happened to her. It probably wasn't what she thought it was, or who she thought it was. That seed of a fuzzy memory morphed into something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
She can't even identify kavanaugh. She says she was drunk, playing a drinking game, saw a penis, and then thinks she heard someone say it was BK. Because at drunk parties everyone takes turns talking one at a time.Quote:
Same with the second woman.
you really can't think that guy has any credibility at all, can you?Quote:
Also, the creepy porn lawyer's stuff.
You think they have nothing to gain?Quote:
But who'r ya gonna believe? A SCJ nominee begging for a job or a whole bunch of people with nothing to gain?
By the time the Dems and creepy porn lawyer get done with him, Kavanaugh's image is gonna be totally shot:
Attachment 1056
I still say his chances of getting confirmed are >75%Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Wow....Tucker Carlson is KILLING it right now. Check the clips in the morning
I hope you've got your hand lotion nearby.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I feel like I need a cigarrette right nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5839511235001/
I'll watch 60 minutes of anything you want if you watch this 14 minutes video
He goes a little demagogue around 5:30, but it doesn't last too long.
(lol....airplanes remind her of pool party rape...sorry can't testify)
also, 9:30.....we are in bizzarro world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxEGNt5EwGo
Dude claims he was a virgin through college. He didn't have to say that.
All it takes is one chick to come out and say she had consensual sex, and the guy loses all credibility on a national stage.
Confirmed rapist.
(cmon....the guy's defense is that he was a virgin. Can you think of a more precarious claim? He's either irredeemably retarded or he's telling the truth)
For all we know, the whole point of the event is to get some dude to tackle him.
Confirmed teh gay.
So he's not an attempted rapist, he's a loser.
Attachment 1057
Either that, or he paid off the girl he slept with in college not to talk.
Occam is just shaking his head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Occam is dead but still moving, Kavanaugh is Milhouse. It's a topsy-turvy world.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh, and Tucker Carlson is smart. Can't forget that one.
Did you go to college parties? I saw lots of tits at college parties. Not once was I consulted over whether or not exposure of said tits was something I had consented to be a part of.
I saw a few dicks as well. Sometimes being held suggestively next to someone's face whom had passed out. This was sure to divide the room. Some people see it as a bit of innocent fun. Other people see it as inappropriate. It didn't really matter unless someone on the fun side started taking selfies of their dick in someone's face. That's when that guy would get absolutely harassed into deleting the pic.
Common. Not laudable, but all-too-common.
I don't believe there's malicious intent in many of these cases. Just a sense of humor that lacks a sense of empathy for the object of the joke. I.e. typical frat-boy humor.
God this bitch does not stop!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-concerns.html
"my story is only credible if I get to tell it under the most advantageous conditions possible"
What the fuck??
I wish the issue were this simple. BK has not invoked the "boys will be boys" defense. And he should have, if there was even a shred of truth to any of this, that is exactly what he should have done. He could still probably would have got through.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
He waived that defense. He flat out denies it. Not only does he deny it, he denies it under oath before congress.
This is not a misunderstanding. This is not a case of mixed perceptions. One of these people is flat out lying, period.
oh btw, follow up on what we talked about yesterday....
This is not a memory that's tormented Dr. Ford for decades. It was a memory that was "recovered" 30 years after the alleged incident in couples therapy. In other words, she had no recollection of this until a therapist started asking her "can you think of anything bad that might have happened", and this is what crapped out of her imagination. She didn't name BK at that time, she only named him years later when his name was in the news.
And the second accuser......says "I really don't know what happened, I was drunk, but maybe I saw his dick". Then she spends six days talking to her lawyer, and then her statement changes to "yeah, it was definitely BK's dick"
These aren't credible accusations
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
... and?
People lie all the time. People say false things which they believe all the time.
Maybe it's she. Maybe it's he. Maybe it's both. Maybe it's intentional. Maybe it's not.
Not worth the mental effort to guess, as it's an irrelevant point to me.
I was saying even if the claims are not lies, they're still inconsequential to his character vis-a-vis SCOTUS, IMO.
irrelevant, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's not about the veracity of any single accusation, but the quantity of accusations.
As far as I'm concerned, neither of these accusations is even a relevant accusation, regardless of truth.
Neither involves the breaking of any laws, whether or not they're true; they're not relevant.
I personally think the dick-waving allegation is pretty tame. It's fun to watch banana get all triggered over it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But, uh, what, attempted rape is not against the law now?
What if you shoot at someone but are too drunk to hit them? Is that not a crime either?
What about the creepy porn lawyer's accusation K was involved in a rapey sex ring?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Dr. Ford isn't calling it attempted rape, and she's the one making the claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Wuf might try and tell you that Avenatti is secretly working for Trump raising allegations so ridiculous, that it can only weaken the oppositionQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop