Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.