New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regnad Kcin said:
But isn’t it then the purpose of a deeper investigation as well as more detailed questioning of the parties involved to get a better sense of who may be lying?

He did this-No I didn’t. That isn’t much help for, say, a domestic dispute much less a lifetime appointment to a position that will have an effect on millions for decades.
Click to expand...
Maybe, I don't oppose the FBI or anyone else investigating but even if they do, we may still never know. That want stop folks from being certain they do know of course.

Even if one of them is much closer to the truth than the other, that doesn't mean one of them is lying, thy might just be wrong. As I have argued, they probably are both wrong on some key details of the day in question.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Trump's not ignorant. He's a repeat offender. He has strategies for how to confront accusations. It's purely about trying to discredit her.
Click to expand...
This ^.

But it is also possible he believes his lie: Any of his own assaults that weren't reported to the police immediately weren't serious.
 
theprestige said:
Regnad Kcin masks the source URL in his post, even though the URL provides important information for judging the post. That is dishonest, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
First of all, if you move your mouse over the link, it SHOULD give the correct URL on the screen.

Secondly, we're (mostly) skeptics here. We don't expect something to come to conclusion based on just a reported headline (without following an article, or at least learning more about the source)
In addition, calling it out explicitly as fake news ensures that people just skimming the thread and confirming their biases have a fair shot and not accidentally believing it's a true headline.
Click to expand...
I think you might have chosen your words better. "Fake News" is a term used by Trump to refer to stuff about him that is largely accurate but that makes him look bad. (Which, for the most part, seems to be everything he says or does these days.)

Since the article was obviously satire, then actually labeling it 'satire' would have indicated to people that you recognize the 'joke'.
 
theprestige said:
Regnad Kcin masks the source URL in his post, even though the URL provides important information for judging the post. That is dishonest, in my opinion.
In addition, calling it out explicitly as fake news ensures that people just skimming the thread and confirming their biases have a fair shot and not accidentally believing it's a true headline.
Click to expand...
Placing a headline or quote over its embedded url is how I’ve always formatted things here. No dishonesty intended.
 
Republican counteroffer:

The GOP is offering to hold the hearing on Wednesday after Ford sought Thursday and is meeting some of her requests but not others, the senator said. The senator added that Republicans are not inclined to agree with Ford’s lawyers that she should only be questioned by lawmakers – not an outside counsel.

“We’ll do it on Wednesday, we expect the accuser before the accused, and we do intend to have the counsel do the questioning,” the senator said, summing up the Republicans’ stance.

The party is assenting to two of the terms Ford’s lawyers laid out in a Thursday evening call with staff from both parties, the senator said: limiting the hearing to one camera and ensuring that Kavanaugh is not in the same room as her.

GOP members of the Judiciary Committee held a conference call on Friday morning to discuss how to respond to the requests from Ford’s lawyers. But several elements of their offer appear to be nonstarters with Democrats and Ford’s camp, which had made clear that she could not be in the capital to testify before Thursday, according to a senior aide to the minority.

“They’re making this disingenuous counter-offer knowing she won’t be here,” the Democratic aide said.

The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country to make the hearing. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.

Republicans have discussed using an outside counsel to question Ford, potentially a woman, in order to avoid the potentially painful sight of their 11 male Judiciary Committee members grilling Kavanaugh’s accuser in an echo of the 1991 Anita Hill hearings.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
ahhell said:
Maybe, I don't oppose the FBI or anyone else investigating
Click to expand...

I oppose the FBI investigating. It's not a federal matter. They have no jurisdiction on this issue. I don't oppose local law enforcement from investigating, but...

but even if the do, we may still never know.
Click to expand...

That is likely the case.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Republican counteroffer:

The GOP is offering to hold the hearing on Wednesday after Ford sought Thursday and is meeting some of her requests but not others, the senator said. The senator added that Republicans are not inclined to agree with Ford’s lawyers that she should only be questioned by lawmakers – not an outside counsel.
...
The party is assenting to two of the terms Ford’s lawyers laid out in a Thursday evening call with staff from both parties, the senator said: limiting the hearing to one camera and ensuring that Kavanaugh is not in the same room as her.
...
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or did the Republican senators pick the mildest conditions to concede on, while standing firm on the most contentious?

The demand that there only be one camera and that Kavanaugh is not in the room wouldn't seem like it would affect the hearings in a significant way, whereas the other demands (if not agreed to by the republicans) would give republicans an advantage.
 
Ziggurat said:
I oppose the FBI investigating. It's not a federal matter. They have no jurisdiction on this issue. I don't oppose local law enforcement from investigating, but...
Click to expand...
It's going to free up a lot of Bureau resources when you let the FBI know that conducting background investigations on candidates for federal jobs isn't within their jurisdiction.
 
theprestige said:
Regnad Kcin masks the source URL in his post, even though the URL provides important information for judging the post. That is dishonest, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean. You hover over the link and see "onion". You click on it and see "onion". What's "masked"?

Not all of us have mouse over available.
Click to expand...

You can't simulate that over a mobile? Huh. In any case once you click on it you see exactly where it's from, you chuckle and say "oh, of course!" and shrug it off.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
Satire is dishonest.
Click to expand...

I had not considered that people on cellphones wouldn't be able to mouse over, so jokes should be labeled as such in some way, so theprestige has a point there. I clicked on it on my phone thinking it was going to be a real statement too.

Think of others. So many Trump Republicans had to agonize over which way to rationalize or translate that statement would make them look least horrible.
 
theprestige said:
You're begging the question.

Admitting the attack happened is only the first step if the attack happened.
Click to expand...
Gotta agree, though my interpretation of the known facts suggests that the attack happened is probable.
 
theprestige said:
Regnad Kcin masks the source URL in his post, even though the URL provides important information for judging the post. That is dishonest, in my opinion.

In addition, calling it out explicitly as fake news ensures that people just skimming the thread and confirming their biases have a fair shot and not accidentally believing it's a true headline.
Click to expand...

A snap judgment you made without bothering to click on the link.

Maybe “confirmation bias police” isn’t a good role for you.
 
tyr_13 said:
I had not considered that people on cellphones wouldn't be able to mouse over, so jokes should be labeled as such in some way, so theprestige has a point there. I clicked on it on my phone thinking it was going to be a real statement too.

Think of others. So many Trump Republicans had to agonize over which way to rationalize or translate that statement would make them look least horrible.
Click to expand...

And they are required to do so instantly.

No precious seconds to waste on clicking links or verifying claims.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not sure you're clear on what racism is. Do you really think that calling a single black person a n-word somehow escapes the accusation of racism?

.
Click to expand...

A fine point. My brother insists that he's not racist, because while he calls Obama a ******, he doesn't call all black people *******.

Not a good argument.
 
Segnosaur said:
Is it just me, or did the Republican senators pick the mildest conditions to concede on, while standing firm on the most contentious?

The demand that there only be one camera and that Kavanaugh is not in the room wouldn't seem like it would affect the hearings in a significant way, whereas the other demands (if not agreed to by the republicans) would give republicans an advantage.
Click to expand...

An advantage? What does that mean?

She is a witness testifying, the fact that she wanted to control the entire hearing is absurd.

The accused goes first, the accuser goes second, and the accused does not get a chance to respond.

By any stretch that should be clearly obvious to any reasonable person that is totally absurd, and it is difficult to imagine that anyone would think that was reasonable at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom