Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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 just don't get you man.

It's worth the effort to guess. No one is going to hand-hold you through an unbiased and unabridged chronology of facts. Not even the almighty Fox News. So compiling available facts, weighing available evidence, and making your own conclusions is a completely worthwhile exercise. Thinking is always good!

At the very least it should matter to you how congress behaves, and you should try to make reasonable inferences of their motives. Some of them believe in the constitutional process. Others believe in partisan trickery. It behooves you to be able to recognize the patterns so you can identify who is who in future elections. Informed voting is always good!

Quote:

---

I was saying even if the claims are not lies, they're still inconsequential to his character vis-a-vis SCOTUS, IMO.

---

If the claims are not lies....if he and Ford were ever in a room together....then that means BK lied to congress. That is eminently consequential to his character vis-a-vis SCOTUS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Dr. Ford isn't calling it attempted rape, and she's the one making the claim.

---

What is she calling it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I just don't get you man.

---

You don't get someone not being willing to speculate on things they know nothing about, and fill in the blanks as they see fit? Yea, I can see that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's worth the effort to guess. No one is going to hand-hold you through an unbiased and unabridged chronology of facts. Not even the almighty Fox News. So compiling available facts, weighing available evidence, and making your own conclusions is a completely worthwhile exercise. Thinking is always good!

---

lol, your completely predictable conclusions were reached before you had any facts other than 'x accuses y of z', and you ponitificate about the value of thinking. Good one.

Your thought pattern here was pretty basic - y is my guy, therefore x is a lying cunt. Or, somethign something, she's not lying but she's confused and her memory is impaired, or something something y said he was a virgin in college, so y is still innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If the claims are not lies....if he and Ford were ever in a room together....then that means BK lied to congress. That is eminently consequential to his character vis-a-vis SCOTUS

---

This is a pretty good attempt at sounding objective. The problem is, nothing short of a taped confession or video evidence will ever convince you this is true. So you're gonna end up supporting K pretty much to the extent you support Trump - i.e., no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What is she calling it?

---

Remember this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It's a fair point that Dr. Ford is not accusing BK of rape. She uses the term sexual assault.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You don't get someone not being willing to speculate on things they know nothing about, and fill in the blanks as they see fit? Yea, I can see that..

---

He knows plenty.

Quote:

---

lol, your completely predictable conclusions were reached before you had any facts other than 'x accuses y of z', and you ponitificate about the value of thinking. Good one.

---

You know nothing of my thought process. And if you think I haven't cited EXTENSIVE factual evidence and circumstances that support my conclusion, then you need a reading tutor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

He knows plenty.


You know nothing of my thought process. And if you think I haven't cited EXTENSIVE factual evidence and circumstances that support my conclusion, then you need a reading tutor.

---

Actually I know your thought process well, because it's entirely predictable. It goes like: "AARARARRAGGGHH!!! FUKCING LIBRULS!!!!!"...And the rest follows from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And if you think I haven't cited EXTENSIVE factual evidence and circumstances that support my conclusion, then you need a reading tutor.

---

IOW, the facts plus everything you heard on Fox News.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Remember this?

---

She says she thought he would have raped her if he wasn't so drunk.

If 'sexual assault' means 'attempted rape foiled by alcohol' then I guess I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Actually I know your thought process well, because it's entirely predictable. It goes like: "AARARARRAGGGHH!!! FUKCING LIBRULS!!!!!"...And the rest follows from that.

IOW, the facts plus everything you heard on Fox News.

---

you're boring me lately, you know that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I just don't get you man.

---

Stop trying to shove me into some stereotype-box and it gets a lot easier.

I try my best to avoid making stipulations about what the world "should" be, but instead try to understand what the world "is," and what I "expect."
I.e. there's a huge gulf between what a human expects to happen and a moral assertion that what happens is the "right and good" thing to happen.
The former is science. The latter is religion.

I recognize that my ability to understand and affect human behavior is somewhat typical of your average nerd (stereotype accepted). I.e. people confuse me more often than not.
I am particularly ill-suited to predict what people will do, or why.
As such, I feel no compulsion to make wildly speculative statements about human behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's worth the effort to guess. No one is going to hand-hold you through an unbiased and unabridged chronology of facts. Not even the almighty Fox News. So compiling available facts, weighing available evidence, and making your own conclusions is a completely worthwhile exercise. Thinking is always good!

---

It's not worth my effort to wildly speculate on issues that I have a long established track record of being bad at understanding.
An unbiased and unabridged chronology is of no interest to me. I have repeatedly explained that my analysis is based on the number of claims, not the truth of any of the claims.
Compiling facts is impossible when the conversation is based on hearsay. There's just the feeling of which contradictory facts to weigh more heavily than others. That's purely subjective and I don't enjoy that kind of speculation.

I agree that thinking is good. Not always good, but usually. Modes of existing which make a concerted effort away from thought are quite relaxing for me in small, occasional doses. I don't think what I'm doing is technically meditation, but it's close enough that people get uppity with me if I try to distinguish it. Still, there's nothing spiritual about it for me. It's just an exercise to move away from word-based thinking and then to move away from shape-based thinking, etc. It's mostly futile for me*, but I still find a sense of reconnecting with patience when I do it... if that makes sense.
*I mean... I rarely feel like I've spent more than a couple of sporadic fractions of a second truly separated from active thought.

I'm good at thinking about physics and how to demonstrate physical concepts. I'm bad at figuring out people.
It is my competitive advantage to spend my time thinking about physics. I am better than most at this task.
It is a waste of my finite time to dwell on issues at which I know I am less equipped to understand and solve than someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

At the very least it should matter to you how congress behaves, and you should try to make reasonable inferences of their motives. Some of them believe in the constitutional process. Others believe in partisan trickery. It behooves you to be able to recognize the patterns so you can identify who is who in future elections. Informed voting is always good!

If the claims are not lies....if he and Ford were ever in a room together....then that means BK lied to congress. That is eminently consequential to his character vis-a-vis SCOTUS

---

I understand their motives. They're all liars and show-boaters whom take any opportunity a camera is pointed at them to pander.
They all think that what they understand about people is more important than what people understand about themselves.

*I recently saw the Joe Rogan interview with one of Hawai'i's Congressmen, and she seemed pretty legit, so meh. Grain of salt with my cynicism, perhaps. Or maybe it's just a matter of time until it's revealed that she's no different than anyone else whom seeks to have power and authority over other people.

Ugh. As I re-read that post it seems like a lot of word-vomit.

Sorry if I got too wrapped up in myself, there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It's not worth my effort to wildly speculate on issues that I have a long established track record of being bad at understanding..............I have repeatedly explained that my analysis is based on the number of claims, not the truth of any of the claims.

---

Your use of the phrase "wild speculation" is highly dubious. There is plenty that is known, without any speculation, in order to perform a deductive analysis of the circumstances and carve out a conclusion. No one says you have to be certain. No one says you can't change your conclusion if new evidence comes to light. But to shrug and say "meh, I really don't know" or "let's wait and see" is a cop out.

I know you've convinced yourself that it's a diplomatic, rational, and reasonable position. But it's a cop out.

Here is what is known....without wild speculation:
1) Dr. Ford herself didn't even know about this until a psychotherapist "recovered" this memory six years ago
2) Dr Ford never named BK until he was nominated for the supreme court
3) She wished to remain anonymous (her name was only revealed when Dem senators leaked it)
4) She named 3 other people besides BK who she claims could corroborate her story, all have denied it.
5) She requested that Kavanaugh go first, contrary to principles of western justice.
6) She is still insisting that she not be questioned by a legal expert, and only grandstanding senators
7) This second accuser didn't report her story to law enforement or congress. She told her story to the press. Specifically, the Trump-hate machine called "The New Yorker"
8) She told the New Yorker that she wasn't sure it was BK.
9) Then she spends 6 days "carefully thinking" with her lawyer and a New Yorker writer...and suddenly her memory is crystal clear
10) She also named people who could corroborate her story, and all of them also denied it.
11) BK Could have invoked the "boys will be boys" defense, but didn't.
12) Instead, BK invoked the "I didn't fucking do this, and I was a virgin through college" and testified as much, under-oath, before congress. His accusers have not, and still may not, say anything under-oath.
13) Bk has been thoroughly vetted by the FBI six different times.

You really don't think that's enough to start making some guesses as to who's telling the truth and who isn't?

You claim that your opinions are driven by the quantity of claims. Well two claims should be sufficient to undo someone nominated for this job. The fact that it hasn't, should tell you something about the quality of those claims. And you still haven't said to what end you'll keep counting claims. The hearings were closed. The guy was vetted all over the place. Then at the last minute an activist democrat has an anonymous letter?? Then a week later another woman thinks she saw a dick 30 years ago and with a week of coaching from her lawyer....she happened to name the current supreme court nominee???

How long can this go on exactly? Don't you see that by being "neutral", you're playing into one side's hands.

Does it at least seem plausible to you that this is all a stunt, staged by democrats, to delay this nomination until after the midterms? They have maybe a 30% chance of taking over both houses of congress. That's high enough for them to delay this nomination now, take over the Senate, then reject anyone Trump nominates until he's out of office. if you havent' concluded that is the most likely description of current events.....I don't know what show you're watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I understand their motives. They're all liars and show-boaters whom take any opportunity a camera is pointed at them to pander.

---

What's your opinion of someone who throws around accusations that can damage the livelihood and career of a honorable public servant......and then says "I'll only agree to be questioned by show-boating liars with cameras pointed at them"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Here is what is known....without wild speculation:
1) Dr. Ford herself didn't even know about this until a psychotherapist "recovered" this memory six years ago.

---

Where did you get that (as if I didn't know)?

Quote:

---

It is also important to note that what Dr. Blasey is describing in her report of sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh is not a so-called recovered memory — one that a person believes he has recalled after having suppressed it for many years. Quite the opposite: It is a traumatic memory that she’s been unable to forget.

In the interview with The Post she said the assault “derailed me substantially for four or five years,” and had caused anxiety for years after that. Indeed, her therapist’s notes reflect that, in a 2012 session, she described an attack by students at an “elitist boys’ school” (Judge Kavanaugh attended a Maryland prep school) who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What's your opinion of someone who throws around accusations that can damage the livelihood and career of a honorable public servant......and then says "I'll only agree to be questioned by show-boating liars with cameras pointed at them"

---

Nice demagoguery there. You're assumming the accusations are 'thrown around' indiscriminately and without consideration, and by implication must be false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Nice demagoguery there. You're assumming the accusations are 'thrown around' indiscriminately and without consideration, and by implication must be false.

---

Way to miss the point

Her requests clearly demonstrate her belief that her story cannot withstand rebuttal or scrutiny

I'm not sure why you don't find that overwhelmingly compelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Way to miss the point

Her requests clearly demonstrate her belief that her story cannot withstand rebuttal or scrutiny

I'm not sure why you don't find that overwhelmingly compelling

---

Because I'm not pre-disposed to try to discredit her story by whatever reasons I can find.

I mean really, you're just proving my point here about how hypocritical it is when you tell people to think. What you really want them to do is think the way you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Because I'm not pre-disposed to try to discredit her story by whatever reasons I can find.

---

Pre-disposed???

I just got through explaining 15 facts that I carefully considered on my way to a non-pre-disposed conclusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Pre-disposed???

I just got through explaining 15 facts that I carefully considered on my way to a non-pre-disposed conclusion

---

And i couldn't even get through number 1 on your list of "facts" without noticing it was fos.

Here's what an actual memory expert has to say about it

https://townhall.com/columnists/scot...naugh-n2521636

Quote:

---

Of the possibility that the name could have been added later as a part of “memory recovery” psychological techniques, Loftus responded: “Possibly. It’s just one possibility since we have incomplete information about this.”

---

That's how objectivity works, and why you find Mojo so frustrating, because it's not about filling in the blanks with whatever beliefs suit your predispositions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

That's how objectivity works, and why you find Mojo so frustrating, because it's not about filling in the blanks with whatever beliefs suit your predispositions.

---

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You're demagogue-ing again.

First of all, the idea of repressed memories is kinda....lol. That's something super-duper rare and you know it. It's not something that happens as a result of misunderstanding horseplay where nothing actually happened. The act of recovering those memories is even more sketchy.

So the genesis of this "memory" casts ALOT of doubt on it's authenticity.

But if you wanna say "we have incomplete information", then fine. Senate Republicans have BENT OVER BACKWARDS to allow this woman to give complete information. She was offered the opportunity to give her story to the committee in public, in private, or even by phone.

She keeps creating roadblocks for herself.

She says she can't fly because airplanes remind her of the assault??? Meanwhile she's known to have been in all different corners of the country over the last few years. She says she wants kavanaugh to go first, which suggests that her story can't withstand rebuttal. And she refuses to be questioned by anyone other than Senators on TV. In other words, only folks who will be super-extra careful to coddle her lest they be seen as victim-shaming by voters. Why can't she be questioned by someone who actually knows a thing or two about this stuff?

This is the complete opposite of pre-disposition.

A claim was made and I met it with a neutral disposition.

Vetting of the claim suggests it's dubious. My disposition is only slightly less neutral now. I'm willing to hear her story.

She refuses to tell her story without extraordinary safeguards against scrutiny. Now my disposition is decidedly less neutral.

It's called thinking.

You on the other hand just want to point at all the FACTS and say "nyah, sounds like something Hannity would say so it's obviously a blatant vicious LIE". I mean just go fuck yourself with that shit man. Seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here's what an actual memory expert has to say about it

---

Quote:

---

She is also a self-described “pro-choice Democrat” who is “scared” at the prospect of a Supreme Court with Kavanaugh on it,

---

yeah.....ok.

If you're wondering what pre-disposition looks like....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/opini...vic/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

yeah.....ok.

---

And even yet, she's open to the possibility but rightly claims we don't have all the facts.

That's the personification of being objective, despite your political beliefs.

IDK why me taking a stand on something that I'm well-known for being wrong about is important to you.
It's not a cop-out, it's an adult recognizing where his own strengths lie.
People confuse the hell out of me and I have a nearly 100% record of misinterpreting people's motives.

I get the cop-out accusation. It's typical alpha behavior to criticize betas as wishy-washy. It's typical beta behavior to view alphas as all too eager to say something that they will later walk back. Neither is better. It's just different styles and preferences. The alpha style is generally better for a leader, but the beta style is better for science.
A good leader needs to make quick decisions, good or bad, and correct them as events unfold.
A good scientist needs to avoid jumping to conclusions and tediously weed out confirmation biases.


All 13 of your points are circumstantial, IMO. Your criticisms of Dr. Ford, specifically, sound like you've never read or heard of typical psychological responses to traumatic events.
I don't personally care if she's telling the truth or not because her accusation is banal. Even if she's telling the truth, and what happened is as she remembers it, it's not a reason to point any fingers at BK today.

For the record, that means that I haven't heard anything about BK that makes me think he shouldn't get the job. Is that enough of a stand to take for you?

LOL. What side's hands am I playing into? Is my congressman posting on FTR? Is my opinion changing yours?
What possible affect could me not caring have on this?

Of course, it's a stunt by Democrats. LDO, man.
Wait... are you suggesting that anything that happens in the news about national politics is NOT a stunt?
Doesn't that strike you as completely naive?
Politicians don't take to the cameras over everything. They take to the cameras when they want to grandstand and virtue signal. Reps and Dems alike.
Your implicit assertion that anyone acting on the national stage can be taken at face value is beyond me. They're all pushing an agenda, and will say whatever they need to say so that we, the people, allow them to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Attachment 1058

---

What's your fucking point?

You don't have the facts. You try to pretend you do so you can reach your preferred conclusion, but you don't. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

All 13 of your points are circumstantial, IMO.

---

I could have told you that if I hadn't stopped after reading the first one but glanced down to see how long the list was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I could have told you that if I hadn't stopped after reading the first one but glanced down to see how long the list was.

---

I mean this with respect: You make squishy points and talk from the gut more often than not when dealing with him.

I get it if you're just pushing his buttons to do it, but if that's your game, then you can't really play the "I'm better than him 'cause I'm a nice person" card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I mean this with respect: You make squishy points and talk from the gut more often than not when dealing with him.

I get it if you're just pushing his buttons to do it, but if that's your game, then you can't really play the "I'm better than him 'cause I'm a nice person" card.

---

What's a squishy point, in your expert opinion?

If he says 'here's a list of 13 facts, and the very first one isn't a fact, do you really expect me to go through the entire list and rebut them one at a time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

IDK why me taking a stand on something that I'm well-known for being wrong about is important to you.

---

This is a double-cop out. you're not being asked to comment on the nuances of of the commodities market, or what's the best tool for field dressing a deer. It's a he-said she-said with no evidence.

Quote:

---

I get the cop-out accusation. It's typical alpha behavior to criticize betas as wishy-washy. It's typical beta behavior to view alphas as all too eager to say something that they will later walk back. Neither is better. It's just different styles and preferences.

---

Who cares if I have to walk it back? I'm not betting my house on Kavanaugh's innocence. And it's perfectly reasonable to change one's mind when new evidence is presented. That's science-y or something right? Having a conclusion....even if it's not permanently binding....allows you take take action. And action needs to be taken in this case.

Quote:

---

A good scientist needs to avoid jumping to conclusions and tediously weed out confirmation biases.

---

You and poop keep playing this same game. You say "jumping to conclusions" even after I've laid out extensive reasoning that I've carefully considered before reaching my still-open-to-change conclusion. Describing it as "jumped to" shows that you're being led by a confirmation bias seeking to discredit the conclusion I've reached.

Quote:

---

All 13 of your points are circumstantial, IMO

---

So......fucking.......what? Be realistic for two seconds please. This woman has already stated that she doesn't know where it happened, when it happened, who's house it was, why there was a party, or any relevant detail that could be used as a lead in any investigative questioning. You're not going to get conclusive, beyond reasonable doubt, smoking gun evidence either way. All you have are the circumstances. and in this case there is a massive pile of circumstances.....can you explain why the circumstances are not compelling to you?

Quote:

---

Your criticisms of Dr. Ford, specifically, sound like you've never read or heard of typical psychological responses to traumatic events

---

Repressed memories are probably one of the least typical things in the entire field of psychology.

Quote:

---

I don't personally care if she's telling the truth or not because her accusation is banal. Even if she's telling the truth, and what happened is as she remembers it, it's not a reason to point any fingers at BK today.

---

You keep missing this point. Maybe you could have said this two weeks ago. But now BK has testified under oath before congress that this flat-out didn't happen. Now the veracity of her accusation carries 100x the weight.

Quote:

---

LOL. What side's hands am I playing into? Is my congressman posting on FTR? Is my opinion changing yours?
what possible affect could me not caring have on this?

---

Ummmm......you have an obligation to contact your senator and compel him/her to either support or block BK's nomination. Have you not done this? Jesus man...be a goddamn American.

You've clearly advocated a "let's wait and see" approach to the issues at hand. That plays directly into the plans of the side seeking to delay. So if that's your position, then I'm challenging you to explain why exactly the process should be delayed, and for how long.

Quote:

---

Of course, it's a stunt by Democrats. LDO, man.
Wait... are you suggesting that anything that happens in the news about national politics is NOT a stunt?
Doesn't that strike you as completely naive?

---

Demagoguery. What's naive is believing that that politicians don't ever actually do the business of governing. They actually do that quite a bit, no stunts.

Quote:

---

Politicians don't take to the cameras over everything. They take to the cameras when they want to grandstand and virtue signal. Reps and Dems alike.

---

Committee hearings for a supreme court nominee are matters of public record. The cameras are there because WE want them there. Not because they've been invited so politicians can "take to them".

Quote:

---

Your implicit assertion that anyone acting on the national stage can be taken at face value is beyond me. They're all pushing an agenda, and will say whatever they need to say so that we, the people, allow them to do it

---

This is some kind of weird word salad that has nothing to do with me. Reads like something out of a political fortune cookie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You don't have the facts. You try to pretend you do so you can reach your preferred conclusion, but you don't. End of story.

---

What exactly is my preferred conclusion?

and I've cited plenty of facts. Or factual circumstances if you wanna be a dick about it.

Do you have other facts that support a different conclusion?

What is your analysis of the facts? What conclusions have you reached thus far?

Care to share any of that, or are you just gonna keep playing that dick-head meme game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What exactly is my preferred conclusion?

---

It's perfectly clear what your preferred conclusion is. Don't try to be coy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

and I've cited plenty of facts. Or factual circumstances if you wanna be a dick about it.

---

I just explained quite simply (twice in fact) how the first of these circumstantial 'facts' was entirely speculative, since no-one knows if it was a repressed memory or not. So, no, explaining that you're fos is not being a dick, it's calling you out for being fos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Do you have other facts that support a different conclusion?

What is your analysis of the facts? What conclusions have you reached thus far?

---

I have the same 'facts' as you do - i.e., none. There's no 'facts' to therefore analyze, as much as you'd like to draw your own conclusions based on what you think you 'know'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Care to share any of that,

---

Like I said, there's nothing to analyze by any standard of the word 'fact'. So my conclusion is I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

or are you just gonna keep playing that dick-head meme game

---

I'm going to continue to point out and at times mock your thought process whereby you come to preconceived conclusions about something you don't have enough information about to make a reasoned judgment, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It's perfectly clear what your preferred conclusion is. Don't try to be coy.

---

My preferred conclusion is the effective and expedient process of government conducted in the best interest of the people. Nothing more. That's not happening.

Quote:

---

no-one knows if it was a repressed memory or not.

---

You don't "recover" non-repressed memories.

Quote:

---

I have the same 'facts' as you do - i.e., none. There's no 'facts' to therefore analyze, as much as you'd like to draw your own conclusions based on what you think you 'know'.

---

You're splitting hairs on #1. But #2 through #13 are rock solid indisputable facts. If you disagree, then I look forward to your careful, reasoned, factual rebuttal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

https://pics.me.me/amnot-smart-man-m...m-15982504.png

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

It's a he-said she-said with no evidence.

---

I completely agree on this point.
Where I disagree is that no evidence = take a side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Who cares if I have to walk it back? I'm not betting my house on Kavanaugh's innocence. And it's perfectly reasonable to change one's mind when new evidence is presented. That's science-y or something right? Having a conclusion....even if it's not permanently binding....allows you take take action. And action needs to be taken in this case.

---

I don't care if you have to walk it back. I just think the fact that you put yourself in a position to have to walk things back means that nothing you say today should be taken too seriously, because you may be walking it back tomorrow. That doesn't mean I care.

Forming a conclusion despite a dearth of evidence is the opposite of science.

I need take no action in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You and poop keep playing this same game. You say "jumping to conclusions" even after I've laid out extensive reasoning that I've carefully considered before reaching my still-open-to-change conclusion. Describing it as "jumped to" shows that you're being led by a confirmation bias seeking to discredit the conclusion I've reached.

---

I was talking about myself when I said that and not about you or anyone else. If you don't think you're jumping to a conclusion, then fine.
If I made a call on this, I'd be jumping to a conclusion. We're different. No surprise, there.

Perhaps a further misunderstanding is that when I tell you how and why I think something, it's not to convince you to agree with me or to be like me. I'm secure enough in who I am to hear someone tell me that they disagree without having a meltdown. Inb4, "OMG, you're calling me insecure!" No, I'm not. I'm telling you I'm secure, and not saying anything at all about you. Just because I would feel insecure if I had an emotional response to being disagreed with, I am not saying that other people whom have emotional responses to such are insecure.

Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

can you explain why the circumstances are not compelling to you?

---

Because "circumstancial" means that different interpretations will lead to different conclusions. I.e. there's no workable data there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Repressed memories are probably one of the least typical things in the entire field of psychology.

---

So what? Flopping a royal flush in NLHE is the least typical thing in NLHE. I've seen one.
Losing with quads is one of the least typical things in poker. I've lost with quads.

BUT, really, really... you missed the entire point of my statement.
She didn't tell anyone right away -> typical
She was afraid to tell anyone at all -> typical
She wanted to remain anonymous -> typical
She doesn't want to be called a liar over something she lived through -> typical
She doesn't want to face the person whom hurt her -> tyipcal

You seem to take all these points as though they're evidence she's lying, when I see them all as perfectly consistent with how she might act if she wasn't lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You keep missing this point. Maybe you could have said this two weeks ago. But now BK has testified under oath before congress that this flat-out didn't happen. Now the veracity of her accusation carries 100x the weight.

---

I can say what I like whenever I like, FFS.

besides... so what?
Her accusation is stupid. If anything about it costs him the appointment, then that's stupid, too.
What part of that is bothering you? It seems we're really in agreement over the meat of this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Ummmm......you have an obligation to contact your senator and compel him/her to either support or block BK's nomination. Have you not done this? Jesus man...be a goddamn American.

---

lol
You're doing the clown thing, again.
That arrow points the other direction.

I was born in StL. I've lived my whole life in the USA. "Being American" isn't something that I strive to be, it's something I define by being. Just like the rest of us. Even the Puerto Ricans. Even the fucking Floridians.
What we collectively do defines "being American," whether or not that reflects the ideal you've embraced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You've clearly advocated a "let's wait and see" approach to the issues at hand. That plays directly into the plans of the side seeking to delay. So if that's your position, then I'm challenging you to explain why exactly the process should be delayed, and for how long.

---

I've clearly said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I haven't heard anything about BK that makes me think he shouldn't get the job.

---

you clown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Demagoguery. What's naive is believing that that politicians don't ever actually do the business of governing. They actually do that quite a bit, no stunts.

---

Yeah... you definitely don't use that word correctly. Just because I said something about what I think doesn't mean I'm trying to convince anyone to agree with me. If I'm just describing my own thoughts, then demagoguery doesn't apply.

What's naive is asserting that they are governing for our benefit and not their own.
They seek their own agenda, their own goals. To the extent that those overlap with ours, that's great, but hardly the expected norm from my POV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Committee hearings for a supreme court nominee are matters of public record. The cameras are there because WE want them there. Not because they've been invited so politicians can "take to them".

---

Yes, and grandstanding by asking a question like, "I know what you did, but I'm not saying what I know. I want you to tell us what you did." is showboating while also acting like a 10 year-old who is extorting their younger sibling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

This is some kind of weird word salad that has nothing to do with me. Reads like something out of a political fortune cookie.

---

Let me clean it up:
Politicians are liars by trade. Tens of thousands of people can't agree on what toppings belong on a pizza, much less complex national policies with ramifications that years to manifest. You HAVE TO lie to them to get them to all agree that you're the least liary of the liars. That's politics.
You asserting that any of them can be trusted, because FBI background checks or whatever other nonsense you give weight to is blind to the reality of their position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

My preferred conclusion is the effective and expedient process of government conducted in the best interest of the people. Nothing more. That's not happening.

---

Right, you want Kavanaugh appointed, and anything that impedes or threatens that upsets you. I get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You don't "recover" non-repressed memories.

---

There's conflicting information about whether her memories were repressed in the sense that she forgot the incident until therapy, or whether she simply never mentioned it to anyone before therapy, despite remembering it and being affected by it daily. It's that uncertainty that you seem to struggle with.

Someone (you, but I assume you got it from somewhere else), says it was a 'recovered' memory. The statement Ford herself gave to the press indicates it was not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You're splitting hairs on #1.

---

Pointing out you have no evidence to support your claim is hardly 'splitting hairs,' this is just demagoguery you're using on me here. And I know how much you hate demagoguery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

But #2 through #13 are rock solid indisputable facts.

---

Maybe they are, but why should I read them when you can't even acknowledge your first point was leaping to a conclusion based on no direct evidence, and contrary to Ford's own words. Based on that alone, I'm strongly inclined to think your other points are fos as well. And I'm not interested in discussing what I assume are another 12 fos arguments, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you disagree, then I look forward to your careful, reasoned, factual rebuttal.

---

I might read your other 12 'facts', if you first admit no. 1 was not a fact at all as far as you know but just something you heard somewhere, and are using to support your argument in favour of 'efficient government'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Yes, and grandstanding by asking a question like, "I know what you did, but I'm not saying what I know. I want you to tell us what you did." is showboating while also acting like a 10 year-old who is extorting their younger sibling.

---

I actually think that's forgivable. Many people don't know this but there is actually a bit of a tradition of presidential hopefuls being harshly critical of supreme court nominees. I think someone being the heel, or devil's advocate helps the process. The problem here is that BK's record is so on the straight-and-narrow that Harris and Booker had no ammunition with which to play that role.

It also helps sort out the chaff so to speak. I mean, it's probably good that "spartacus" opened his mouth and showed us all now that he's too retarded to be president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/elwdbjTiP3k/hqdefault.jpg

---

Quote:

---

I might read your other 12 'facts', if you first admit no. 1 was not a fact at all as far as you know but just something you heard somewhere, and are using to support your argument in favour of 'efficient government'.

---

Fine, it's complete bullshit I made up. I'll admit that even though I don't believe it. I'm not interested in being 13-0 if I'm going to be 12-1 if we just move this shit along.

#1 is a boldface partisan lie being spread by racist lizard people who want use eminent domain to conquer women's wombs.

What's your take on #2?

For #2, I'll add the caveat, she never named him 'publicly'. Apparently she did tell her husband. I still think I get #2 because marital privilege applies and statements between a husband and wife are inadmissible.

#3 She wished to remain anonymous

I'm quite sure you do not dispute that. Her desire for anonymity is nice and all, but it's not a realistic expectation for her. You don't get to cry 'rape' and then disappear into the shadows. I get that its' hard to talk about and all that, but if you want justice, then you gotta nut-up and speak out.

It doesn't exactly convey credibility when you say "Hey, here's something you should know, but you didn't hear it from me, and I'm not going on record, bye"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Maybe they are, but why should I read them when you can't even acknowledge your first point was leaping to a conclusion based on no direct evidence, and contrary to Ford's own words. Based on that alone, I'm strongly inclined to think your other points are fos as well. And I'm not interested in discussing what I assume are another 12 fos arguments, sorry.

---

As a working psychologist (you are, right?), you are the best suited on FTR to explain how the other 12 points about her timing and demands are or are not typical behavior of someone whom has been traumatized.

Those seem to be a pretty big deal to Nanners. That she didn't report immediately, that she wanted to remain anonymous, that she is afraid to face BK, ... all seem to be major reasons he is compelled to distrust her claims. He sees this as evidence that she's not telling the truth.

Do you have anything to add from your professional training which might shed any light on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

As a working psychologist (you are, right?), you are the best suited on FTR to explain how the other 12 points about her timing and demands are or are not typical behavior of someone whom has been traumatized.

---

Every victim in a crime is traumatized. A barely-attempted rape doesn't qualify you for special treatment. in western justice, the accused has rights. I don't care if her demands are typical or not, she has no right making them. her insistence on bending the rules suggests to me that her story cannot stand on it's own without violating the rights of an otherwise honorable man.

Quote:

---

Those seem to be a pretty big deal to Nanners. That she didn't report immediately, that she wanted to remain anonymous, that she is afraid to face BK, ... all seem to be major reasons he is compelled to distrust her claims. He sees this as evidence that she's not telling the truth.

---

neither of the bolded is on the list. Honestly guys....you accuse me of misrepresenting your words all the time. I made you a fucking list here. Keep it straight.

Quote:

---

Do you have anything to add from your professional training which might shed any light on that?

---

The psychology really isn't at issue here. How she feels about what she thinks happened to her isn't exactly cogent to the question of "what should now happen with the confirmation of BK?"

Think critically for a minute guys....

Let's pretend like this cunt had just one tiny little eency weeency bit of evidence that could make her story even remotely credible. For example, maybe she does remember the exact time and place, and other people in attendance confirm that BK was there. Or go bigger than that, let's say the friend testifies and says "Yeah, BK was going all rape-y so I tackled him and told her to run!". Whatever it takes, let's pretend there is something at all credible about this story.......

It's a walk-off homerun for the democrats. They have ammo to hammer away at BK until he withdraws in disgrace. Even if the accusations are flimsy, or boys will be boys, or whatever nonsense. If there was even a single detail about Ford's story that had any evidenciary utility, then BK would be toast.

he'd withdraw in disgrace and Trump would look like a complete boob. Then dems can run ads all next month saying "Can you believe a republican senate almost put a predator on the supreme court!!". They clean up in the midterms.

Why didn't they play their hand like that, I wonder????

It's because Ford's story is flat out garbage. It's only useful as a prop in a filthy rotten partisan obstructionist stunt.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...legations.html

Not a peep for 30 years, then a therapist conjures up some old memory, and suddenly she wants to tell the whole neighborhood?

Sounds credible....lol

This must be how OJ got off. He told Al Cowlings that he didn't do it, then AC told the jury. That's corroborating evidence of innocence, right?

Still someone waiting to tell their story here.

Attachment 1061

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Think critically for a minute guys....

---

C'mon. For the past few days, you've given me no reason to think the conflict between us was anything but my own stubbornness.
Then you drop this post full of bile, not directed at anything anyone here has said, just tooting your own hate-horn.

I'm trying to let you prove to us that you're here for good reasons.
Posting insular, hateful stuff like you did in this post is not an expression of intelligence.

You said you're here for intelligent conversation.
Prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

A barely-attempted rape

---

demagogue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

C'mon. For the past few days, you've given me no reason to think the conflict between us was anything but my own stubbornness.
Then you drop this post full of bile, not directed at anything anyone here has said, just tooting your own hate-horn.

I'm trying to let you prove to us that you're here for good reasons.
Posting insular, hateful stuff like you did in this post is not an expression of intelligence.

You said you're here for intelligent conversation.
Prove it.

---

I think the intelligence in that post is self-evident.

If this woman was credible, BK would already be toast, and the Democrats would already be picking out curtains for the Senate Majority Leader's office.

The manner in which these allegations were presented proves how un-credible they actually are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

demagogue

---

lol, nice try. Here's a real example of demagoguery. You'll learn eventually

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ys-silent.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Still someone waiting to tell their story here.

Attachment 1061

---

Right, they just haven't thought of a lie to tell yet.

But they're working on it

Nevermind,

Here it is...

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/...60428730843136

Funny.....doesn't seem to say anything like "I was at X event and saw BK do Y act"

Really what it says is that "I was a filthy slut in high school and went to a lot of parties even after I saw how badly the boys behaved. I kept coming back and they kept acting grabby. I saw BK at some of these parties a few times. End of affidavit"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I think the intelligence in that post is self-evident.

---

Your intelligence is not evident in that post, only your self-righteousness.
Saying mean-spirited things and using emotion-word insults which lack any intelligent definition is demagoguery, not intelligent discourse.
There is no definition of cunt which lends any factual detail to your comments.
That is the most egregious example of you crossing the line, there, but the entire post is littered with ego-stroking abusive language devoid of intellectual content.


You can't have it both ways.
You're here for intelligent conversation and others are wrong to accuse you of confirmation biases directing your every argument.
OR
You're here to express how good at words you are, and that you can use them to make stupid points based on emotional arguments, not facts, and others are perfectly justified in calling you out as the demagogue you rage against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If this woman was credible, BK would already be toast, and the Democrats would already be picking out curtains for the Senate Majority Leader's office.

The manner in which these allegations were presented proves how un-credible they actually are.

---

Please lead with this next time, and use the delete button when you feel tempted to spew your rage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

lol, nice try. Here's a real example of demagoguery. You'll learn eventually

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ys-silent.html

---

Sure. Go full hypocrite.

You called me a demagogue for using the phrase, "I care if there's a rapist on SCOTUS" in an abstract conversation about he-said/she-said situations.

I wasn't even using the word rapist in direct description of BK.
You are.

https://i.imgur.com/SdyIExw.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I wasn't even using the word rapist in direct description of BK.
You are.

---

What? Where?

You mean when I said "barely attempted rape"

That was me paraphrasing Dr Ford's description.

try to keep up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Fine, it's complete bullshit I made up. I'll admit that even though I don't believe it. I'm not interested in being 13-0 if I'm going to be 12-1 if we just move this shit along.

#1 is a boldface partisan lie being spread by racist lizard people who want use eminent domain to conquer women's wombs.

What's your take on #2?

---

Great. And I'll admit #2 is wholly pertinent or something, even though I didn't read it and am about 99% sure it's uninterpretable as well.

Wanna hear what I think of 3-13 now?

Ruh Roh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbzsgrmntHo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Wanna hear what I think of 3-13 now?

---

Desperately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ruh Roh!

---

LOL, she sure has a lot of shit-talk about BK, but when it comes to specific incidents of impropriety, BK was just "around"....maybe

Even if she's being 100% truthful, there's nothing action-able in her story at all. It's just another sketchy delay tactic

They're not done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

They're not done.

---

Who's not done?

Stop filtering your news through CNN. Go and READ her sworn affidavit. Exactly which passage do you believe credibly spells trouble for BK.

Notice no democrats are saying "ZOMG, this guy could be a gang-rapist!"

no, they're just saying "We need to delay, we need more time, let's get the FBI involved......"

It's so blatantly transparent that I seriously worry about the mental well-being of anyone who thinks the democrats are doing anything sensible.

https://i.imgur.com/LJ69nJm.jpg

The point I think @boost is trying to make is that there are ways to de-rail a court nomination without destroying someone's life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Who's not done?

Stop filtering your news through CNN. Go and READ her sworn affidavit. Exactly which passage do you believe credibly spells trouble for BK.

Notice no democrats are saying "ZOMG, this guy could be a gang-rapist!"

no, they're just saying "We need to delay, we need more time, let's get the FBI involved......"

It's so blatantly transparent that I seriously worry about the mental well-being of anyone who thinks the democrats are doing anything sensible.

---

I guess you missed the news that Avenatti has basically accused Kavanaugh and his blackout drunk friend Judge of running a rapey knockout drug sex ring in college. It's not explicit in that video I linked and obviously it's not getting airtime on Fox, so it's understandable it's gone by you.

That's what 'they're not done' means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The point I think @boost is trying to make is that there are ways to de-rail a court nomination without destroying someone's life

---

I think the point is more like what goes around comes around.

Interesting that Kavanaugh presented himself as an altar boy in his Fox interview. He's really given an implausible denial there. Pretty sure everyone knows by now he was a prep school and frat boy pisstank.

Hope it doesn't bite him in the ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I guess you missed the news...... it's not getting airtime on Fox, so it's understandable it's gone by you.

---

See post #1348....nothing got by me.

And again, I'm challenging you to not get your news filtered through CNN, and go directly to the source. Her lawyer has posted her sworn affidavit. HER OWN WORDS. Not CNN's, not Fox's.

I'm asking you exactly which passage in that document implicates Kavanaugh in any specific act? What accusation has she leveled that would rise to the point of delaying confirmation pending FBI inquiry?

Also, don't you think it's kinda weird that her lawyer is posting huge glossy photos of her with tweets that say "please don't send death threats". Is someone begging for attention or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I think the point is more like what goes around comes around.

---

The repubs only squashed Garland because the Dems gave them the idea in 1992. So if anything, the score was even, and now it's the Dems who are the aggressors.

But yeah, there's no doubt that some Dem senators are still miffed about that. The repubs should have just voted Garland down. I wont argue that they weren't obstructionist ass holes back then. But at least they had some decency about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Attachment 1062

---

What part of 'they're not done' and 'there's other allegations forthcoming and I'm explaining what they are here' do you think relates to what is in that sworn affidavit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What part of 'they're not done' and 'there's other allegations forthcoming and I'm explaining what they are here' do you think relates to what is in that sworn affidavit?

---

They are done. The allegations promised are no longer forthcoming...they're here. I know what they are. I linked to them in post #1348, hours before you heard a peep about gang rape. The "allegations" (if you can call them that) are IN THE AFFIDAVIT. I don't need them explained to me. Definitely not by you.

I'll repeat the question:

Quote:

---

I'm asking you exactly which passage in [her affidavit] implicates Kavanaugh in any specific act? What accusation has she leveled that would rise to the point of delaying confirmation pending FBI inquiry?

---

Apparently Kavanaugh kept his calendars from 1982.

He has one week blocked off for something called "Beach Week". Then the following sunday he wrote "Come back from beach".....just in case he forgets to go home or something (??)

A guy that conscientious almost certainly would have scheduled "rape party", had such a thing ever been planned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The point I think @boost is trying to make is that there are ways to de-rail a court nomination without destroying someone's life

---

https://i.imgur.com/xbPYRfT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VJ3ejQp.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GEwa7aQ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/EIxEEeP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BgwHX9w.jpg

Do you have a picture of Garland being falsely accused of sexual assault and organized gang rape?

I must have missed that one....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Do you have a picture of Garland being falsely accused of sexual assault and organized gang rape?

I must have missed that one....

---

Not gonna dive in with you, but your interchangeable use of "falsely accussed" and "accused with, in my opinion, inadequate supporting evidence" is a neat trick.

Oh, and notice how there were no rape and rape adjacent accusations tossed at Gorsuch? What gives, Nancy and Chuck hadn't got around to writing that part of the play book yet?

edit: damnit, I kinda dived in, didn't I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Not gonna dive in with you, but your interchangeable use of "falsely accussed" and "accused with, in my opinion, inadequate supporting evidence" is a neat trick.

---

I think at this point "false" is an apt term. You certainly can't use "true"

if you don't want to use "false" then you have to believe that it's possible there was a woman who was at a party where she saw people being drugged and raped.....and then voluntarily went to at least nine more parties with the same people.

does that make a lick of sense to anyone here?

Quote:

---

Oh, and notice how there were no rape and rape adjacent accusations tossed at Gorsuch? What gives, Nancy and Chuck hadn't got around to writing that part of the play book yet?

---

LOL, you're obviously not familiar with the play book. Here's how it works....

Dems say "Believe all women", then mumble under their breath "as long as their story supports our agenda"

Attachment 1063

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

http://e.lvme.me/7ecb4qp.jpg

---

.

Life is like a box of speculation and jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Life is like a box of speculation and jumping to conclusions.

---

Yeah, speculation, like maybe there is such a thing as a guy who coordinated gang rape from ages 17-20, and then lived the next 35 years beyond reproach as an honorable public servant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbjJ9iZ8PE0

You can't cuck the Tuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Yeah, speculation, like maybe there is such a thing as a guy who coordinated gang rape from ages 17-20, and then lived the next 35 years beyond reproach as an honorable public servant.

---

Ya, like because only 3 have come forward so far, they're all lying and there's not more out there. Pretty sure that was Bill Cosby's defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You can't cuck the Tuck

---

ORLY?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjTajJZEjqA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

ORLY?

---

Short memory huh? Do you even remember 2004?

Tuck's point is "Hey Jon, you spend 30 minutes a show giving sincere impassioned monologues about how dumb and evil Bush is, then you have an actual presidential candidate on your show and you spend the whole interview licking his balls"

And Stewart, predictably, as he's done every other time he's challenged, claims "naaah, I'm just jokin' around". Then at 12:39 he says "and shows like this are too easy on politicians"

What exactly did you see in that clip?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

3 have come forward so far, they're all lying and there's not more out there.

---

I don't think the first one is lying, I just think she's stupendously mistaken.

The second one is lying

And the third woman didn't make any actual allegations. but she is also most definitely lying.

I mean...cmon now. Avenatti truly thought that he and Stormy were gonna take down Trump. They thought that telling people things about Trump that they could have guessed anyway....makes them heroes or something. This latest stunt just sour grapes from the creepy porn lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And Stewart, predictably, as he's done every other time he's challenged, claims "naaah, I'm just jokin' around". Then at 12:39 he says "and shows like this are too easy on politicians"

---

He had a comedy show that made fun of news media's shitty partisan rhetoric, and Tucker's response is "hey your comedy show didn't ask the tough questions of John Kerry!". What is funny is that TC already back then felt it's appropriate to compare his show to a parody show on Comedy Central.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

He had a comedy show that made fun of news media's shitty partisan rhetoric, and Tucker's response is "hey your comedy show didn't ask the tough questions of John Kerry!". What is funny is that TC already back then felt it's appropriate to compare his show to a parody show on Comedy Central.

---

Precisely.

Also, when your own audience laughs at a guest coming on and calling your show shit, that's the epitome of getting your ass handed to you.

Tucker lost that debate by inviting a satirist on his show and trying to argue about whose show should be taken more seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Also, when your own audience laughs at a guest coming on and calling your show shit, that's the epitome of getting your ass handed to you.

---

But I guess it's not as bad as having the entire world laugh at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy-VTGhi8T0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

He had a comedy show that made fun of news media's shitty partisan rhetoric,.

---

Sometimes. But the Bush-bashing was authentic enough, often enough, that it was clear that Stewart expected to be taken seriously sometimes, and expected his audience to know the difference.

There's be a 7 minute serious tirade about Cheney and then he would segue to "Let's joke and riff with some democrats"

Tucker's point was that Stewart can't have it both ways.

You can shit on Bush, that's fine. It's your show, free speech and all that. Most reasonable people can tell the difference between satire and commentary, and Stewart is welcome to do both. But if you're going to do commentary sometimes, then you have a responsibility to be fair.

Stewart had an opportunity show some balance and openness, and he didn't take it. It's a fair question to ask him why

Here's another example of Tucker not getting pwned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJWOOMPF0NM

Tucker: You idiot law professor! Stop pointing out that I'm wrong! Aararararggghhghg!!

Guest: Whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here's another example of Tucker not getting pwned..

---

We talked about this.....if you're going to post a clip, then post it. I don't need some drooling libtard to hold my hand through his hyper-spun interpretation of what he thinks TC is "really" saying.

I've never tried to make you watch Ben Shapiro slow-walk you through his analysis of MSNBC. MSNBC's ridiculousness is self-evident.

Tucker's on TV every goddamn night and has been for a jillion years. So far your lowlight reel has a clip from 2004 and another clip that apparently needs 11 minutes of nuanced explanation from Sam friggen Seder.

Maybe he's just not as bad as you wish he was.

So news broke last night that a couple of dudes have come forward and said "I was at parties in that area at that time and I remember one time me and my buddy tackled a chick"

Ford tells her therapist there were four boys in the room.

Ford tells her senator that there were two boys in the room, and the entire party consisted of Ford and four others.

Ford tells the polygraph examiner that the entire party consisted of 7-8 people.

Confirmed credible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

We talked about this.....if you're going to post a clip, then post it. I don't need some drooling libtard to hold my hand through his hyper-spun interpretation of what he thinks TC is "really" saying.

---

lol, deal with it. You think my purpose here is to please you by finding clips that are edited to your tastes? lol, get over yourself.

The irony here is that you, banana, behave pretty much like an online version of TC. And like those clips, you don't need some so-and-so-such-and-such pointing out how lame your debating tactics are. Because just like Tucker, you won't listen anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I've never tried to make you watch Ben Shapiro slow-walk you through his analysis of MSNBC. MSNBC's ridiculousness is self-evident.

---

Change the subject to something irrelevant that makes the 'other' side look bad. Straight out of Tucker 101.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Tucker's on TV every goddamn night and has been for a jillion years. So far your lowlight reel has a clip from 2004 and another clip that apparently needs 11 minutes of nuanced explanation from Sam friggen Seder.

---

Another great job of doing a Tucker here. Argue that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. The expectation apparently is that I watch every single show of Tucker and point out every single time he interrupts his guest, changes the subject, uses ad hominen, twists their words, and, when things aren't going his way, ends the interview.

There's so many examples of these lousy "interview" tactics that I don't have time to post them all; at least one of them happens every time he interviews someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Maybe he's just not as bad as you wish he was.

---

I WISH he was a decent journalist. He's just not. He's quite possibly the worst interviewer in mass media history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lol, deal with it. You think my purpose here is to please you by finding clips that are edited to your tastes?

---

No, just post the relevant content. Keep the drooling libtard commentary to yourself.

Quote:

---

I WISH he was a decent journalist. He's just not. He's quite possibly the worst interviewer in mass media history.

---

Literally every objective measure that exists for evaluating this...says the exact opposite. So...there's that.

Quote:

---

lol, get over yourself.

---

Indeed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

But I guess it's not as bad as having the entire world laugh at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy-VTGhi8T0

---

And Fox edited that part out of their footage. People in the Fox Bubble never even saw that happening. It's then #FakeNews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No, just post the relevant content. Keep the drooling libtard commentary to yourself.

---

I guess you missed what I said. "Deal with it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Literally every objective measure that exists for evaluating this...says the exact opposite. So...there's that.

---

What are these 'objective' measures? You mean some award he's won from right-wing media?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

And Fox edited that part out of their footage. People in the Fox Bubble never even saw that happening. It's then #FakeNews

---

Actually.....it's in the headline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ica-first.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What are these 'objective' measures? You mean some award he's won from right-wing media?

---

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-...018-are/375391

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scor...sept-25/378634

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Yeah, speculation, like maybe there is such a thing as a guy who coordinated gang rape from ages 17-20, and then lived the next 35 years beyond reproach as an honorable public servant.

---

Is this the claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Is this the claim?

---

Yes

This guy has gone through six FBI personal background checks. That's not just looking up speeding tickets. This guy was Staff Secretary to President Bush....he had access to the fucking nuclear codes. You can bet that the FBI and Secret Service crawled up this guy's ass eighty different ways.

There isn't a peep about this guy prior to 1982.

Creepy porn lawyer says that before age 20 though, BK was a notorious gang-rape facilitator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-...018-are/375391

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scor...sept-25/378634

---

I guess you're trying to argue that ratings are "objective" measures of good journalism? In fact, they're pretty much orthogonal to one another. That should be kinda obvious by the fact that Hannity is #1.

Or maybe in your mind a journalist's role is to reflect the political leanings of their audience, and help them avoid cognitive dissonance at all costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Actually.....it's in the headline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ica-first.html

---

After getting called out on it, they spin

Can't really hide the sun with one finger there

Quote:

---

Trump brushes off laughing UN audience, doubles down on 'America First'

---

Wouldn't a more accurate headline say something about Trump being "Laughed at"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Actually.....it's in the headline

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ica-first.html

---

Maybe try reading the thing you're responding to. It's referring to Fox's twitter.