Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[BananaStand]

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.

Right, and drunk 15 year old girls have steel-trap memories.

[Poopadoop]

Right, and drunk 15 year old girls have steel-trap memories.

She doesn't need one if she's making the whole thing up.

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?

titanic.jpg

[BananaStand]

She doesn't need one if she's making the whole thing up.

*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.

Same with the second woman.

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.

Also, the creepy porn lawyer's stuff.

you really can't think that guy has any credibility at all, can you?

But who'r ya gonna believe? A SCJ nominee begging for a job or a whole bunch of people with nothing to gain?

You think they have nothing to gain?

[Poopadoop]

By the time the Dems and creepy porn lawyer get done with him, Kavanaugh's image is gonna be totally shot:

homer leers.jpg

[BananaStand]

By the time the Dems and creepy porn lawyer get done with him, Kavanaugh's image is gonna be totally shot

I still say his chances of getting confirmed are >75%

[BananaStand]

Wow....Tucker Carlson is KILLING it right now. Check the clips in the morning

[Poopadoop]

Wow....Tucker Carlson is KILLING it right now. Check the clips in the morning

I hope you've got your hand lotion nearby.

[BananaStand]

I hope you've got your hand lotion nearby.

I feel like I need a cigarrette right now

[BananaStand]

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

[BananaStand]

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)

[MadMojoMonkey]

For all we know, the whole point of the event is to get some dude to tackle him.
Confirmed teh gay.

[Poopadoop]

So he's not an attempted rapist, he's a loser.

milhouse.png

Either that, or he paid off the girl he slept with in college not to talk.

[BananaStand]

Either that, or he paid off the girl he slept with in college not to talk.

Occam is just shaking his head.

[Poopadoop]

Occam is just shaking his head.

Occam is dead but still moving, Kavanaugh is Milhouse. It's a topsy-turvy world.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and Tucker Carlson is smart. Can't forget that one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

[BananaStand]

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??

[BananaStand]

I.e. typical frat-boy humor.

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.

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.

[BananaStand]

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

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. At least One of these people is flat out lying, period.

FYP

... 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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

These aren't credible accusations

irrelevant, IMO.
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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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?

[Poopadoop]

irrelevant, IMO.
neither of these accusations is even a relevant accusation, regardless of truth.

What about the creepy porn lawyer's accusation K was involved in a rapey sex ring?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I personally think the dick-waving allegation is pretty tame. It's fun to watch banana get all triggered over it though.

But, uh, what, attempted rape is not against the law now?

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

[BananaStand]

What about the creepy porn lawyer's accusation K was involved in a rapey sex ring?

Wuf might try and tell you that Avenatti is secretly working for Trump raising allegations so ridiculous, that it can only weaken the opposition

[BananaStand]

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!

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

[Poopadoop]

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

What is she calling it?

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What is she calling it?

Remember this?

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

[BananaStand]

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[BananaStand]

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

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.

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

[BananaStand]

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"

[Poopadoop]

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)?

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.”

[Poopadoop]

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.

[BananaStand]

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

[Poopadoop]

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.

[BananaStand]

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

[Poopadoop]

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

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

[BananaStand]

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

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.

[BananaStand]

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

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

[Poopadoop]

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

[Poopadoop]

aaargh.jpg

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

[Poopadoop]

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?

[BananaStand]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

[BananaStand]

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

[Poopadoop]

What exactly is my preferred conclusion?

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

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.

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'.

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.

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

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

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

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

you clown

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.

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

[BananaStand]

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.

[BananaStand]

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?

[BananaStand]

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.

[BananaStand]

#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"

[MadMojoMonkey]

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?

[BananaStand]

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.

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.

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?"

[BananaStand]

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.

[BananaStand]

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?

[Poopadoop]

Still someone waiting to tell their story here.

avenatti.jpg

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A barely-attempted rape

demagogue

[BananaStand]

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.

[BananaStand]

demagogue

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

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

[BananaStand]

Still someone waiting to tell their story here.

avenatti.jpg

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

But they're working on it

[BananaStand]

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"

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.

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.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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.