New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regnad Kcin said:
What about? That’s what you want to go with?

At this stage Dr. Ford has: 1) raised the issue, and 2) said she wants to testify. With that expectation, we give her words an additional measure of authority (for the time being) since lying to Congress, either under oath or not, is a crime. When anyone else in this matter does, or indicates they will do, the same, they’ll receive the same consideration.
Click to expand...

Hi! We know that Kavanaugh has already testified under oath and categorically denied the claim. At this point Ford has not done so, and has refused to give a similar statement to Congress that Kavanaugh has already given.

Right now, at best Ford’s statement has exactly the same “authority” as the other three statements contradicting it, and less than Kavanaugh’s
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
:rolleyes:


ETA: What you are doing is the very thing my post was talking about. You are taking Ford as being a single individual, and asking whether that single individual could do this. The correct question to ask is whether there could exist someone who could do this.
Click to expand...

Essentially you're saying, hey there are 300 million people in this country, right? And some are psychopaths, right? And Ford could be a psychopath who specializes in ruining people by cunningly making up stories to a therapist and then, years later, anonymously making an allegation to a Senator, and then- when the time is just right- she "reluctantly" comes out in public for the big reveal. Oh, and to add a little verisimilitude, she doesn't remember certain details (how clever! someone who remembers everything would be suspect, of course). And she just happened to live close to the guy, and be around the same age. Oh, and in the meantime she's managed to live a stable life and be a respected professor. How can we believe her???

Do you see how preposterous this line of reasoning is?

As for the specifics of your questions, there's so many assertions within those questions that it simply isn't worth trying to address them.
Click to expand...

What assertions do you have problems with?
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Essentially you're saying, hey there are 300 million people in this country, right? And some are psychopaths, right? And Ford could be a psychopath who specializes in ruining people by cunningly making up stories to a therapist and then, years later, anonymously making an allegation to a Senator, and then- when the time is just right- she "reluctantly" comes out in public for the big reveal. Oh, and to add a little verisimilitude, she doesn't remember certain details (how clever! someone who remembers everything would be suspect, of course). And she just happened to live close to the guy, and be around the same age. Oh, and in the meantime she's managed to live a stable life and be a respected professor. How can we believe her???

Do you see how preposterous this line of reasoning is?

What assertions do you have problems with?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is preposterous that you continue to construct fields of straw just to mow it down, while refusing to deal with the massive holes in her story.

She told the therapist about four boys. There were not four boys at the party.

Explain that please.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes, it is preposterous that you continue to construct fields of straw just to mow it down, while refusing to deal with the massive holes in her story.

She told the therapist about four boys. There were not four boys at the party.

Explain that please.
Click to expand...
Reframed:

"She told the therapist about four boys. There are conflicting recollections and incomplete accounts of how many were at the party"

We do not know what the absolute truth is. We may never know - we are dealing with witness testimony, there is no DNA, and no photos were taken.
 
Meadmaker said:
A lot of people ask variations on the question, "Why would she come forward if she were not telling the truth?" They cite the problems it causes for her life. The attention. The anonymous threats. The attacks in the press. Why would anyone put themselves through that if she wasn't telling the truth? This, they say, is a reason she ought to be believed. She has no incentive to lie.

It's the wrong question to ask.

The correct question is more like this: There are 300 million people in the United States. Is there one among those 300 million who would be willing to make up a story to defame him, and whose life experience could make that defamation plausible?

When looked at it that way, it becomes clear that we can't draw any inference from the irrationality of making the accusation. When looked at as whether there is one person in the United States who would do such a thing, it's clear that this is not wildly improbable that someone might lie about it. Yes, it would be irrational to invent a false story, but, among all the people in the country who have interacted with Brett Kavanaugh in his life is there at least one person sufficiently irrational to invent a story that might prevent him from being confirmed? There are plenty of irrational people.


The story she tells is certainly plausible. However, the possibility that the story is false is also certainly plausible.
Click to expand...

Your premise is faulty from the start. Of course it's possible that a person could just make up an entirely fictitious story. But that completely false accusation would have nothing behind it to back it up in the way of previous supporting evidence. You wave off the following facts:

1. B-Ford told her therapist about it 6 years ago, well before Kavanaugh was in the running for the SC.

2. In that session she related that the boys were from an "elitist boys' school". Kavanaugh went to such a school whose students commonly interacted with B-Ford's school at the same time that B-Ford was there. Coincidence?

3. She said the boy who attacked her had become a “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington". Coincidence?

4. She describes the boys as being "falling down drunk" and named both Kavanaugh and Judge. Both Kavanaugh and Judge have previously described being heavy drinkers in high school. Judge wrote a book describing this behavior including a friend he called 'Bart O'Kavanaugh'. Coincidence?

5. Six years ago B-F told her husband about the attack and named Kavanaugh specifically. Coincidence?

You wave all this away and attempt to reduce it to the possibility of "Is there one among those 300 million who would be willing to make up a story to defame him, and whose life experience could make that defamation plausible?"

Do you think its 'plausible' that Prof. Ford looked back on what she had told the therapist and her husband six years ago and said to herself "Wow! I can use all that coincidental information and now make a false accusation against Kavanaugh because I don't agree with his politics! I can take a polygraph test and pass it and request the FBI investigate it even though I'm lying through my teeth!"
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The problem, as has already been explained to you, is that you're proscribing a "correct" way for black people to behave, and then claiming that someone who doesn't live up to your conception of what being black is is therefore not black, or is somehow secretly white. Please try to understand what is being said to you, rather than flailing around defensively.
Click to expand...

Bull **** and I already answered this. Apparently old white men are miffed and being stereotyped.

You all can please stop.
 
LSSBB said:
Reframed:

"She told the therapist about four boys. There are conflicting recollections and incomplete accounts of how many were at the party"

We do not know what the absolute truth is. We may never know - we are dealing with witness testimony, there is no DNA, and no photos were taken.
Click to expand...

Well, without agreeing, I suggest that you explain this to our correspondent who thinks what she allegedly told her therapist is significant.
 
Fudbucker said:
There's a great scene in "Lincoln" where Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) explains how the moral compass of white people had ossified. The same can be said of a lot of old white people right now. Not all of them, but a hell of a lot of them.

My parents were lovey-dovey hippies, but now they watch Tucker Carlson every night. The changing demographics of the country scare the hell out of them. It's a mindset I never expected of them and one I can't fathom.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about. And, no. obviously all old white men do not fit this stereotype. But watching Chuck Grassley certainly reinforces the image.
 
Meadmaker said:
With Leland Keyser (the female witness named by Ford) now saying that she did not know Brett Kavanaugh, I think these charges are dead.

Maybe something will happen when she testifies, but in the absence of some dramatic new revelation, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to believe the charges against Brett Kavanaugh.

Stay tuned, but I think we're in the final reel of this film.
Click to expand...

That sucks.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
What about? That’s what you want to go with?

At this stage Dr. Ford has: 1) raised the issue, and 2) said she wants to testify. With that expectation, we give her words an additional measure of authority (for the time being) since lying to Congress, either under oath or not, is a crime. When anyone else in this matter does, or indicates they will do, the same, they’ll receive the same consideration. Until then, as we might all agree, their words aren’t worth much more than the ones I gave at the McDonalds drive-through this morning.
Click to expand...

Here's another thing.

If Dr. Ford is making the whole thing up as TBD claims (and no surprise there) why would she put someone else in the room who could refute her story? Further, why pick someone who was a friend of Kavanaugh, and who she claims participated in the attempted rape, therefore is likely to be very defensive?

Why not just make the claim and leave it as he said/she said and furiously defend her position.

Regnad Kcin said:
I provided a link. Why not look and see?
Click to expand...

TBD doesn't look at links that won't support his view, let alone comment on them.
 
It doesn't look like there is enough evidence to make an argument against Kavanaugh's nomination - beyond what he already know about the scum-vat-grown Constitution-Demolitionist and serial perjurer.
 
LSSBB said:
Reframed:

"She told the therapist about four boys. There are conflicting recollections and incomplete accounts of how many were at the party"

We do not know what the absolute truth is. We may never know - we are dealing with witness testimony, there is no DNA, and no photos were taken.
Click to expand...

She told her therapist a lot more than that. See Stacyhs's post right after yours.
 
Ford is testifying Thursday September 27, at 10:00 with Kavanaugh to follow.

I am certain that Spartacus and Senator Shut Up are positively drooling
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom