Fox News exposes the connection between Soros and the Kavvanaugh accusers
Fox News exposes the connection between Soros and the Kavvanaugh accusers
As a follow-up:
Presumption of innocence is more foundational than just keeping the state from taking away life or liberty.
It is vastly easier to make up a false allegation that can't be refuted than it is to falsely refute a true allegation. The accused is, after all, being asked to prove a negative.
For any specific allegation, you are weighing a specific account vs. the field, i.e. every other thing that could possibly have happened. So, for instance, you are weighing Dr. Ford's account vs. the collective probability that:
- She mistook his identity originally
- She is exaggerating what happened
- She misremembered what happened
- Her memory of the event was corrupted over time and by suggestion
- She lied to her therapist for her own reasons in 2012, and the lie compounded based on opportunity recently
- She was actually assaulted originally, but by someone else, who she then lied about the identity of in order to protect Roe, recently
- etc. etc.
Unless you have really strong evidence that one particular case is the truth (e.g. that Kavanaugh is guilty), you bet on the field as the more likely possibility.
Societies don't take a presumption of guilt well; it ends poorly.
TheOhioState wrote:
Pookie Washington wrote:
THOUSANDS of blacks have been arrested AND sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit but you Caucasians always bring up Duke Lacrosse. Phuck them! How many years did they spend in prison?
You ever heard of the Central Park 5?
Thus speaketh the racist.
Pookie speaketh the truth. Everything he said was true.
I assume since you can't refute his post you attack him personally.
L L wrote:
Why is this called the confirmation thread?
Is this an assumption that he will be confirmed?
Confirmation that he's a serial rapist.
Avocado's Number wrote:
Why stop there? Why not impeach and remove Clarence Thomas
I've already thought of this, as probably many others have too. It's a great idea, and should be done right away.
jamin wrote:
Fox News exposes
That's exactly what Kavanaugh does.
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Republicans will hold the senate regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh. But they are considerable underdogs to maintain the House, even if I think the current 80% number is too high.
80% according to who, a wagering site? i.e. random people on the internet?
In all likelihood, they were making similar bets this time in 2016, based on whatever the sum was of the different things each of them was thinking. Most of their thinking was due to media hype and badly-modeled polls. None of that has changed, despite the polls failing miserably en masse in 2016. They haven't recalibrated at all - partly because it's not possible since there is no longer a stable history of turnout trends, and partly because most media polls are more interested in propaganda than prediction and aren't afraid to be proven wrong again. They're already in a twilight zone where they can lie all they want without consequence. The only really meaningful thing anymore is which way the averages are trending.
Polls in house races are even more unreliable, because they are so rarely contested that the data just aren't there for comparison. Neither the RNC nor DNC has any way of keeping tabs on the independents without a least a few data points. It's the midterms, nobody has any idea whether they're going to vote at all, let alone how - especially the millennials.
To have "no doubt" kavanaugh is guilty because a guy wrote a book about other people doing it is irrational. That's a bad habit for someone who apparently gambles a lot.
Kavanaugh sounds like the typical prep schol yale grad, and, yeah, they do that stuff, and, yeah, they play by a different set of rules than you. Stop defending the undefendable.
Bad Wigins, I viewed you as a fierce civil libertarian. I didn't view you as a soldier willing to die on the beach with Kavanaugh?
If she sticks to the account her attorney wrote for her she'll do fine. But she'll have a ton of don't remembers
which will hurt her credibility.
Senators struggling with this have to nominate him because in America we need to see real evidence not her account only.
23rr wrote:
Senators struggling with this have to nominate him because in America we need to see real evidence not her account only.
Kavanaugh isn't facing prison time or civil penalties so this isn't an "innocent until proven guilty" situation like a criminal trial and doesn't even have to reach the "preponderance of evidence" standard of a civil case. At issue is solely the political question of whether the senate wishes to consent to the president's nomination of him to a lifetime appointment on a supreme court. Since Trump will (likely) be president for another 2 years, the senate is unlikely to change hands and there is a pool of similarly conservative candidates to replace Kavanaugh, I'd argue that the burden of evidence for Kavanaugh's accusers is actually quite low. All they have to do is instill in two republican senators enough doubt about Kavanaugh's character to justify the delay in substituting a different (and more thoroughly vetted) nominee.
Sexual abusers tend to hang together.
Sure you were, bro
Awsi Dooger wrote:
You are relying on turnout. That is fool's gold. Turnout does not win elections, which are decided by preference.
Republicans will hold the senate regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh. But they are considerable underdogs to maintain the House, even if I think the current 80% number is too high.
Independents preferred Trump in 2016. That's why Hillary never had any chance to win big. I wasn't posting here at the time but I was emphasizing it elsewhere.
...Renate....
God is the ultimate judge. He judges what is the the hearts of men.
His winnowing fork is in his
hand, and he will thoroughly
cleanse his threshing floor. He
will gather his wheat into the
barn, but the chaff he will
burn up with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 3:12
M.A.G.A
S.O.W.P.
IB.B.K.
Carnac the Magnificent wrote:
Sure you were, bro
Awsi Dooger wrote:
You are relying on turnout. That is fool's gold. Turnout does not win elections, which are decided by preference.
Republicans will hold the senate regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh. But they are considerable underdogs to maintain the House, even if I think the current 80% number is too high.
Independents preferred Trump in 2016. That's why Hillary never had any chance to win big. I wasn't posting here at the time but I was emphasizing it elsewhere.
I never said it out loud, but I was thinking the same thing about why Clinton never had a chance.
Live stream to the circus
Get ready for the spectacle setup by the vile miscreant Democrats. Nothing to see here but a freak show of lefty liberal commies who will stop at nothing to undo fairness and the Constitution on which this great country was built. It's all about ratings and feeding the frenzy of a first-rate character assassination by amoral political lowlifes bent on power and digging up dirt for their evil ways.
M.A.G.A.
S.O.W.P.
I.B.B.K.
Grassley is acting like an idiot with his opening statement. What a jerk.
Live hearing: