Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

#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"

[Poopadoop]

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?

[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.