Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Nolder

Kavenough

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Sure it matters. When your sides claiming it's a democrat conspiracy.

There political leanings mean it's entirely plausible they could be lying for political gain.
Just like you guys are saying, she's lying for political gain.

May I ask you to consider the logic of what you said.

 

Certainly its my view that she lied for pollitical gain. However she was the one who identified those that she claimed could cooraborate her claims. The fact that they did not corraborate her claims does not in any way suggest that it was their political leanings that led them to make the statements they made. 

 

Also a rather large percentage of white affluent upper middle class people consider themselves Democrats and vote Democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

Also a rather large percentage of white affluent upper middle class people consider themselves Democrats and vote Democratic.

Check out the 2 guys that called Swetnick a liar. Note, she didn't list these two guys as people to corroborate her story. (I don't think she ever listed anyone to corroborate it?) You're thinking of Ford.

I know for sure the weatherman is Republican, and the other, I wouldn't be surprised if he is as well.

 

Those Ford mentioned, those that out-right denied it, and called her a liar, what's there political allegiance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those Ford mentioned, those that out-right denied it, and called her a liar, what's there political allegiance?"

 

Again I do not know their political affiliation as their social/economic backbround is not enough to assume such a fact. That Ford did offer them as witnesses makes it more likely that they share her liberal political views but the fact that they did not support her claims cannot be "blamed" on their political affiliation as in that case they would have been more likely to support her claims if politics trumped the truth for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

Again I do not know their political affiliation as their social/economic backbround is not enough to assume such a fact. That Ford did offer them as witnesses makes it more likely that they share her liberal political views but the fact that they did not support her claims cannot be "blamed" on their political affiliation as in that case they would have been more likely to support her claims if politics trumped the truth for them.

 

But they are clearly good friends of Kavanough. (Those that called Ford an outright liar)

Ford Naming them doesn't mean they are straight Democrats. (If they were, wouldn't they corroborate her, if this was some vast Democrat conspiracy!?)
It means that they might have been there, regardless of friendship/political leaning.

Also, you ignored the thing about Swetnick.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Swtnick allegations have been pretty much debunked. She is not at all a credible witness.

 

"(If they were, wouldn't they corroborate her, if this was some vast Democrat conspiracy!?)"

 

No, that would be true if they were actually part of the conspiracy. Ford might have believed that because of their political leanings they would have corraborated her story.  However, that they did not their political leanings are irrelevant unless you can show any evidinece that their testimny was clouded by their political views.

 

 

"But they are clearly good friends of Kavanough."

 

While it can be said that they knew Kavanaugh it is more correct to say that most of those witnesses were at the time good friends of Ford. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CUBAREY said:

The Swtnick allegations have been pretty much debunked. She is not at all a credible witness.

What debunked it?

2 ex's saying she didn't tell them about it? When they weren't even at these parties in the 80s?

That doesn't debunk anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nolder said:

So, in essence, you choose to believe Ford. It's faith more than anything else.

 

It's a judgment call given limited evidence.

 

 

10 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

A two question polygraph test (Normally, "when the polygraph test starts, the questioner asks three or four simple questions to establish the norms for the person's signals. Then the real questions being tested by the polygraph are asked. Throughout questioning, all of the person's signals are recorded on the moving paper).  Thus the test given to Ford fails to satisfy even the common standards set for a polygraphg test!  " However, because the examiner's interpretation is subjective and because different people react differently to lying, a polygraph test is not perfect and can be fooled." Thus while it might be considered a helpful tool in assessing a person's veracity it is not admissable in a court of law.

 

This wasn't a court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WWWwombat said:
Quote

A two question polygraph test (Normally, "when the polygraph test starts, the questioner asks three or four simple questions to establish the norms for the person's signals. Then the real questions being tested by the polygraph are asked. Throughout questioning, all of the person's signals are recorded on the moving paper).  Thus the test given to Ford fails to satisfy even the common standards set for a polygraphg test!  " However, because the examiner's interpretation is subjective and because different people react differently to lying, a polygraph test is not perfect and can be fooled." Thus while it might be considered a helpful tool in assessing a person's veracity it is not admissable in a court of law.

This wasn't a court of law.

The one thing I wonder about this, because I don't see many polygraphs released to the public. Do they even include the test-baseline questions in this kind of report?

Or do they only release the actual questions in context of the case?
I assume any polygraph is going to have a baseline. Not that I believe Polygraphs are even worth their salt. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

The one thing I wonder about this, because I don't see many polygraphs released to the public. Do they even include the test-baseline questions in this kind of report?

Or do they only release the actual questions in context of the case?
I assume any polygraph is going to have a baseline. Not that I believe Polygraphs are even worth their salt. :wink:

Problem is that the person who did the test has stated that he only asked two questions, total. He although an expert did not deem it necessary to to even set up a baseline.  Polygraphs are problematic at best. The most you can say about them is that the subject appear to have reacted differently then expected. That in itself is not enough to whether the person is being truthful or not. Further, it's quite well kown that sociopaths can pass any lie detecter test and that others can learn to pass lie detecter tests by purposely reacting unnaturally to the baseline questions.

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

What debunked it?

2 ex's saying she didn't tell them about it? When they weren't even at these parties in the 80s?

That doesn't debunk anything.

Swetnik changed her story. In the Affidavit she said she saw Kavanaugh spike the punch he gave to girls. Later she said that she only saw him near the punch bowl handing out drinks. She has also alleged that the lawyer was the one who suggested certain language in the Affidavit that she now admits is incorrect (that's why the lawyer;s name was also given to the FBI for investigation).  Further her story is rather strange, she was a college student at the time and no one that is actually known to have attended the parites remembers her. She was also a graduate from a near by public school and not a member of the social group which Kavanaugh belonged to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2018 at 2:37 PM, Tyzack said:

 

The mimunum national standard of "abortions should be legal"

 

Which is a diferent standard than "no standard; states are free to do as they choose"

 

I'm 100% for the former, and 100% against the later.

 

 

The coming months are sure going to be interesting.

image.png.25c833b91ec81c7ade7b8aec18018f03.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 3:58 PM, SinisterDeath said:

The coming months are sure going to be interesting.

image.png.25c833b91ec81c7ade7b8aec18018f03.png

He is a Supreme Court Justice. They should not be making any laws, the court's role is to interprete the existing lasw and constitution not make laws based on what they believe would make good laws or policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

He is a Supreme Court Justice. They should not be making any laws, the court's role is to interprete the existing lasw and constitution not make laws based on what they believe would make good laws or policy.

Have you been keeping up with the news? 
 

The meme wasn't anything I said, It was a meme to illustrate someone who doesn't know shit, enforcing/upholding the current abortion legislature that' is clearly aimed at going to the supreme court. 

 


 

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Have you been keeping up with the news? 
 

The meme wasn't anything I said, It was a meme to illustrate someone who doesn't know shit, enforcing/upholding the current abortion legislature that' is clearly aimed at going to the supreme court. 

 


 

.As a Justice he does not need to know anything about abortion.contraception, all he needs to know is the proper role of the Supreme Court which is not to judge the wisdom of legislation but only to opine on it's constitutionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

.As a Justice he does not need to know anything about abortion.contraception, all he needs to know is the proper role of the Supreme Court which is not to judge the wisdom of legislation but only to opine on it's constitutionality.

I would say if you think any given supreme court justice is ruling purely based on constitutionality, your naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

.As a Justice he does not need to know anything about abortion.contraception, all he needs to know is the proper role of the Supreme Court which is not to judge the wisdom of legislation but only to opine on it's constitutionality.

One would think you would need to know the basics of what is being discussed, to know how it potentially impacts it's constitutionality. 

 

5 hours ago, Lenlo said:

I would say if you think any given supreme court justice is ruling purely based on constitutionality, your naive.

It's almost like they think all the Liberal judges are activist judges, and the Conservative judges are all pure constitutionalists without an activist bone in their body.

Interestingly out of the 9 Justices, 5 are Catholic, 1 Raised Catholic. The other 3 are Jewish. 

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One would think you would need to know the basics of what is being discussed, to know how it potentially impacts it's constitutionality."

 

And you would be wrong. The only legitimate question is whether abortion rights are protected by the lan guage of the constitution. 

 

 

"Interestingly out of the 9 Justices, 5 are Catholic, 1 Raised Catholic. The other 3 are Jewish. "

 

You do know that the only question that cannot be legitimately asked of a Judicial nominee is his religious affiliation?

 

And the Justice that penned Roe v. Wade was himself a Practicing Catholic. 

21 hours ago, Lenlo said:

I would say if you think any given supreme court justice is ruling purely based on constitutionality, your naive.

All Justices are people. All people have biases but Supreme Court Justices do actually attempt to self-consciously avoid them to the extent that they do not fundamentally impact their judicial philosophy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

And you would be wrong. The only legitimate question is whether abortion rights are protected by the lan guage of the constitution. 

 

Knowing the Scientific definitions of what exactly is involved with abortion, and the moral & Philosophical aspects of the Mother's right to privacy and life, versus that of the Embryonic cell's/Fetus's right to life/self seems rather integral to the constitutional arguments of the validity of abortion rights.

 

16 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

You do know that the only question that cannot be legitimately asked of a Judicial nominee is his religious affiliation?

and?

I just said it was interesting... It's interesting because 6 out of 9 Justices are from a religion that are vehemently opposed to Abortion.
6 out of 9 Justices are part of a religion that 56 years ago, America was convinced shouldn't have been able to hold the office of POTUS because of prejudiced view that they would hold an allegiance to the Pope, over that of our constitution and country.

 

Quote

All Justices are people. All people have biases but Supreme Court Justices do actually attempt to self-consciously avoid them to the extent that they do not fundamentally impact their judicial philosophy. 

Unless their judicial philosophy is to say F*** precedence , liberals, and any interpretation of the constitution that doesn't conform to the republican party's view..  :Wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Posts

    • I am currently rereading WOT for the first time since first reading it. I was just reading the following quote from chapter 12.   “You must handle it,” Moiraine said in answer to something unheard from Lan. “He will remember too much as it is, and no help for it. If I stand out in his thoughts. . . .”   I am trying to figure out what this might be referring to and can't remember what it might be. If somebody could point out what this is meant to reference I would appreciate it. 
    • skin color is irrelevant in wot and I could care less how they cast it.  If they go by the books there will be many races and cultures and main characters like Tuon will be black.  All that is great, no problem.  Just hope they keep the modern political narratives out of this.  I want it to be more like game of thrones where they can do surprising things without offending someone.  If they have to be politically correct then it will ruin the tv show.  Many of the characters have do offensive things and have offensive thoughts so hopefully they can let that shine through.   One of the key traits of the wheel of time was all the different perspectives and all the communication barriers that would crop up between different groups of people.  hopefully they can let all that shine and they will need a very diverse cast to make it happen. 
    • In this thread: some people who are gonna lose their shit when non white actors get cast despite most characters not having an explicitly established skin colour and Randland being a far future setting where skin colour is entirely irrelevant.
×
×
  • Create New...