Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Another example of the insanity that fuels the Kavanaugh opposition:
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11369
Pretty crazy to describe him as a serial rapist as neither of the two semi-credible accusers has described anything approaching rape.
joedirt wrote:
Actually, if you notice Kavanaugh's testimony, he is careful not to perjure himself (he will either delay or deflect the question while he considers his words, but he will not lie). As far as the letter from one of his classmates at Yale that Booker read, it would be inadmissible in court as she is stating that he must have blacked out (it would be impossible for another person to determine if someone else blacked out). She could say he drank a lot of beer (which he has already testified to), but she can't say what frame of mind he is in. If you want to talk about respect for the rule of law, he has it. Whereas the Democrats who are calling for the FBI investigation have no respect for the rule of law.
According to the rule of law, this entire accusation is not something we should be discussing. The statute of limitations for sexual assault or attempted rape in Maryland in 1982 was 1 year. Additionally, we are talking about the actions of a minor, which would have been sealed in 1983 even if charges had been filed back then. The evidence presented would not have been sufficient to bring to trial, as there is no location named, no date named, the number of accusers in her testimony has been inconsistent (from 4-6 people at the party with 2-4 people in the room), there is no explanation for how she got to or from the party (which if she left the party in 1982 when cell phones were not in existence, and she was miles from home, would have been memorable). She never mentioned Kavanaughs name to anyone until now, not to her husband, not to her friends, nobody.
One thing nobody else is discussing is the two locations where the accusers are coming from: Boulder, Colorado and Palo Alto, CA. Not exactly conservative strongholds (pretty much all elected officials in those areas are Democrats). So when Blasey is talking about beach friends, she is really talking about a bunch of angry Democrats who are trying to keep Trump from getting another conservative on the court.
You really only need the second paragraph's facts to end this foolish debate. There's not enough evidence to prove the allegation. It's as simple as that. Nothing else matters. A list of people that believe her, a list of people that support her, a list of people that have been assaulted..... none of it matters. It has nothing to do with the allegation.
joedirt wrote:
Pretty crazy to describe him as a serial rapist as neither of the two semi-credible accusers has described anything approaching rape.
Attempted rape = rape
Attempted robbery = robbery
Attempted murder = murder
Got it. That Kavanugh was to drunk to get rip Ford's clothes off it up is not a get-away-wit-attempted-rape card.
Why is everyone so dumb? wrote:
There's not enough evidence to prove the allegation.
You do not understand what "evidence"means.
evidence? wrote:
Why is everyone so dumb? wrote:
There's not enough evidence to prove the allegation.
You do not understand what "evidence"means.
Also, apparently does not understand that this is not a criminal trial.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-false-memory-2795193Fat hurts wrote:
Was Dr. Ford lying?
Republicans have been falling all over themselves to remark that Dr. Ford came across as "credible". Republicans on the committee said it. Even Trump said it.
No reasonable person can look at the facts and watch that testimony and say that Dr. Ford was lying. Even Meryl Streep is not that good an actress.
So that just leaves us with the "mistaken identity" theory.
Find me a memory expert who thinks mistaken identity is possible in a case like this. Right now all the experts I have seen are saying that Dr. Ford's testimony is perfectly consistent with what you would expect in this situation.
The attack is seared into her memory. She knew her attacker beforehand, so Kavanaugh's name and face are indelibly associated with the attack.
Find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible here.
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
evidence? wrote:
You do not understand what "evidence"means.
Also, apparently does not understand that this is not a criminal trial.
What I do understand, is that none of the he-said-she-said matters if you cannot prove that anything happened. She cannot. No one can corroborate her claims.
Get ready for his confirmation. Get your tissues ready.
theJeff wrote:
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-false-memory-2795193Fat hurts wrote:
Was Dr. Ford lying?
Republicans have been falling all over themselves to remark that Dr. Ford came across as "credible". Republicans on the committee said it. Even Trump said it.
No reasonable person can look at the facts and watch that testimony and say that Dr. Ford was lying. Even Meryl Streep is not that good an actress.
So that just leaves us with the "mistaken identity" theory.
Find me a memory expert who thinks mistaken identity is possible in a case like this. Right now all the experts I have seen are saying that Dr. Ford's testimony is perfectly consistent with what you would expect in this situation.
The attack is seared into her memory. She knew her attacker beforehand, so Kavanaugh's name and face are indelibly associated with the attack.
Find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible here.
You just proved my point. While "false memory" is a real phenomenon, it is not a phenomenon that occurs in this kind of case.
Again, find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible in Dr. Ford's case.
joedirt wrote:
Actually, if you notice Kavanaugh's testimony, he is careful not to perjure himself (he will either delay or deflect the question while he considers his words, but he will not lie). . .
I mostly agree with this. He's a skilled lawyer and it's not clear that he said anything that risks putting him strict legal jeopardy.
According to the rule of law, this entire accusation is not something we should be discussing.
It's been pointed out many many times that this is not a criminal trial. The question is whether there is significant adverse information on the nominee that weighs on his suitability for the position.
One thing nobody else is discussing is the two locations where the accusers are coming from: Boulder, Colorado and Palo Alto, CA. Not exactly conservative strongholds (pretty much all elected officials in those areas are Democrats). So when Blasey is talking about beach friends, she is really talking about a bunch of angry Democrats who are trying to keep Trump from getting another conservative on the court.
The most disturbing thing about current politics is the demonization of the opposition. I don't know how we get out of this cycle and return to some level of civility and I don't see how the country survives it in the long run.
Nobody “understands” memory. Certainly not academics.
Ford of all people knows this.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Another example of the insanity that fuels the Kavanaugh opposition:
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11369
Notice the emphasis on the word WHITE, What is all this White Bashing? Are the Democrats starting to become Anti-White? I have spoken out against bashing of Blacks (Example American only prize money which happened after kenyans and Ethiopians started winning most road races, there was never a call for American only prize money when De-Castella, Jones, Waitz were winning all the races) but bashing of Whites is equally wrong (Oddly most of the White bashing is by other whites) Why is this happening?
Add to that Ford is White and Kavanaugh is white, Why is race even mentioned when both subjects are white?
Fat hurts wrote:
You just proved my point. While "false memory" is a real phenomenon, it is not a phenomenon that occurs in this kind of case.
Again, find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible in Dr. Ford's case.
Yes it does happen in these cases. I'll find another link later.
L L wrote:
At least you can laugh at your mistake.
Flagpole would have explained how he did it on purpose and how he was actually right in some long winded fashion.
BS. I have never done that, have admitted mistake at least a few times especially in the Trump thread but here and there throughout my time at Letsrun dating back to 2001. You can not find an example of me doing what you said I would do.
And, to demonstrate that I DO admit fault and/or apologize for things, if you search for the word "unreservedly", you will see several comments from me doing just that as I often (but not even always) use the phrase "I apologize unreservedly" when I do so.
You have a mischaracterization of me for some reason, and I have demonstrated how it is not so above, and I challenge you to find an example supporting your assertion. You will not be able to.
What will you do faced with THIS mistake of yours? Show integrity like I ALWAYS do when wrong, let it pass by without saying a thing, or admit your mistake?
Don’t worry, Flaggy, Trump is still your President.
Flagpole wrote:
L L wrote:
At least you can laugh at your mistake.
Flagpole would have explained how he did it on purpose and how he was actually right in some long winded fashion.
BS. I have never done that, have admitted mistake at least a few times especially in the Trump thread but here and there throughout my time at Letsrun dating back to 2001. You can not find an example of me doing what you said I would do.
And, to demonstrate that I DO admit fault and/or apologize for things, if you search for the word "unreservedly", you will see several comments from me doing just that as I often (but not even always) use the phrase "I apologize unreservedly" when I do so.
You have a mischaracterization of me for some reason, and I have demonstrated how it is not so above, and I challenge you to find an example supporting your assertion. You will not be able to.
What will you do faced with THIS mistake of yours? Show integrity like I ALWAYS do when wrong, let it pass by without saying a thing, or admit your mistake?
I must really be slipping up. I actually thought for a while that all this Ford/Kavanaugh carp was real.
Bread and Circuses.
I think over time, she has formed the memory to fit her narrative and her narrative has been influenced by politics and her friends. She did not mention Kavanaugh by name anywhere recorded until July 2018. She admits that she does not remember things as well as she would like. She testified herself that "Brett did not rape me". She states that it interfered with her academics early in college, but doesn't mention how her academics were just fine her junior and senior year of high school and later when she went on to get her doctorate (obviously she is over stating the impact this had on her life in order to appear more sympathetic). Everyone is saying she is credible only to appear sympathetic towards women for the next election, that is why she was treated with kid gloves by the senate committee and the prosecutor and why the democrats held back the information when it could have been handled behind closed doors. I hope that the FBI interrogates her properly to get further inconsistencies that were not in the rehearsed statement.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You just proved my point. While "false memory" is a real phenomenon, it is not a phenomenon that occurs in this kind of case.
Again, find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible in Dr. Ford's case.
Yes it does happen in these cases. I'll find another link later.
I can't wait to hear back from you. Seriously.
Everything I have found shows that Dr. Ford's memory is exactly what you would expect. Every memory expert I have seen who commented about Dr. Ford's case has said this. It's actually a bit surprising to me that there is so much unanimity.
So find me someone who understands human memory that thinks mistaken identity is possible in Dr. Ford's case. I'm waiting...
I think over time, KAVANAUGH has formed the memory to fit HIS narrative and HIS narrative has been influenced by politics and HIS friends. HE did not mention CHRISTINE BLASEY by name anywhere recorded until July 2018. HE admits that HE does not remember things as well as HE would like. HE testified HIMself that "I did not rape HER". HE states that HIS DRUNKENNESS interfered with HIS ABILITY TO RIP HER CLOTHES OFF (obviously HE is over UNDERstating HIS DRINKING AND CLAIMING VIRGINITY in order to appear more sympathetic). Everyone is saying HE is credible only to appear sympathetic towards women for the next election, that is why HE IS treated with kid gloves by the senate committee and the REPUBLICAN prosecutor and why the REPUBLICANS held back the information when it could have been handled behind closed doors. I hope that the FBI interrogates HIM, JUDGE AND OTHER KAVANAUGH CRONIES properly to get further inconsistencies that were not in the KAVANAUGH'S rehearsed statement.