ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , Christine Blasey Ford , Congressional hearings , Supreme Court nominees , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 30th September 2018, 09:33 AM   #401
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thanks for that. It clears up some confusion. I had seen pretty authoritative sounding statements that said the statute of limitations had expired, but other statements that it had not, and my own reading of Maryland law suggested that it had not. Apparently, the laws have changed since 1982, so current law is not the relevant law to apply.


So, there isn't anything that Kavanaugh, Judge, or an assaulter to be named later need fear in terms of criminal prosecution.
I'm still not clear on this: Does the statute of limitations indicated here apply to *actual rape*, or just *attempted* rape?
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 09:43 AM   #402
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
It must make everyone (except for Ford and, well, pretty much all women) ecstatic that Kavanaugh probably can't be prosecuted for a crime he committed in 1982. The question is still - however - should the bar for the supreme court be set at "can't be prosecuted for a crime he probably committed"? Or perhaps "only tells obvious lies under oath about stuff that I don't personally consider that important"?

Because the obvious answer is "no". Kavanaugh should not be seated. Doing so would be an affront against not only all women of the nation, but against the justice system itself.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 09:46 AM   #403
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,825
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Two things you might be getting conflated:

1: This is just a background check sort of investigation, not a criminal investigation. The sorts of crimes claimed by Ford would not normally be investigated by the FBI anyway, because they would not be federal crimes. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they might be able to continue investigating that - at least if the criminal activity is something that would be a federal crime. Otherwise, it is just find out what you can during the time you have, to see if there is anything to suggest we should hire someone else.

2: The news reports said that the investigation would not look into allegations made by Julie Swetnick. So if someone who they interviewed with regards to the investigation into Ford's allegations says something in regard to Ford's allegation, they can follow through on that. They just could not look into Swetnick's allegations, or any of other more anonymous stories circulating out there (one story of a rape on a boat, another of an assault at a restaurant)(At least, that was my understanding.)

2b: The President seems to have retracted the restriction against investigating Swetnick's claims anyway.
Okay, thanks!

That clears a few things up.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 09:46 AM   #404
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,743
Quote:
Lindsey Graham promises 'full scale' probe into Democrats' handling of Ford-Kavanaugh allegation

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., vowed Sunday to launch a thorough inquiry into Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to find out whether there was any wrongdoing in how they managed the sexual misconduct allegation Christine Blasey Ford leveled at Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust? Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?" Graham said, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford's attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.

-- Washington Examiner (Sept 30, 2018)

Only three things are certain in life: Death, Taxes, and Lindsey Graham becoming the next Attorney General.
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:03 AM   #405
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,593
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I'm still not clear on this: Does the statute of limitations indicated here apply to *actual rape*, or just *attempted* rape?
I can speak to current Maryland law, because that's what I have read.

Under current law, there is a crime of rape, which is forcible sexual intercourse. It's a felony, and there is no statute of limitations. There is attempted rape. That's a felony, with no statute of limitations. Then there are varying degrees of sexual offenses that have different penalties. At the lowest, there's groping someone against their will. (I can't remember the legalese for that, and I won't try.) That's a misdemeanor, and has a statute of limitations, UNLESS the groping involved smothering, strangling, or any action which put the victim in fear for her life. Then it's a felony, with no statute of limitations.


So, under current law, attempted rape is a felony and has no statute of limitations. However, according to the letter that River posted, it appears that in 1982, attempted rape was a misdemeanor.


Under current Maryland law, the assault that Ms. Ford described would basically be an aggressive groping, and so would be a misdemeanor, except that she has also alleged that by covering her mouth, the attackers made her fear for her life. That fear would make such an attack a felony.


However, in 1982, the laws were different, and the authors of that letter were familiar with the 1982 laws, and reached the conclusion that that attack would have been a misdemeanor and subject to the statute of limitations, and would not be prosecutable even if it could be proved to have happened.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:09 AM   #406
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,593
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
"Three-ring-fecal-festival."

Yep, well put!
That quote is not from Orrin Hatch. (Can anyone seriously suggest that Orrin Hatch talks that way?)

That quote is from Jonah Goldberg, in this article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/g-fil...l-panic-phase/
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:21 AM   #407
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,472
In high school I went to a party where there were no adults. CZ, at one point pushed me in a dark room and pinned me to the bed. He was a big guy, a football star, and I had trouble breathing. Luck had it that another of the guy football players saw it and grabbed CZ off of me.


I bring it up because I could not even tell you the month it happened, whose home it was, who else where there. But I know what he did. So, I just did a search and located him on Facebook. He is a Trump supporter, misogynist, a bully, still. I'm pretty sure he has no memory, he was quite drunk.

I think I may need to message him.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:21 AM   #408
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,323
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
Only three things are certain in life: Death, Taxes, and Lindsey Graham becoming the next Attorney General.
So why would he give up a secure senate seat to become Trump's doormat, especially after seeing how Trump treats veteran senator and early Trump supporter Jeff Sessions? For that matter, why has Graham -- once one of Trump's most outspoken critics -- made himself Trump's lap dog?

Quote:
The South Carolina Republican, who recently endorsed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush after ending his presidential bid in December, was asked whether he preferred Trump or Cruz as the nominee during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

“It’s like being shot or poisoned,” Graham told reporters Thursday in response. “What does it really matter?”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-choice-218069

Some speculation:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ey-graham.html
https://nordic.businessinsider.com/w...7-12?r=US&IR=T

Kinda makes me wonder if Trump has something on him personally. Graham could support the leader of his party without being so blatantly fawning.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:28 AM   #409
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,275
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thanks for that. It clears up some confusion. I had seen pretty authoritative sounding statements that said the statute of limitations had expired, but other statements that it had not, and my own reading of Maryland law suggested that it had not. Apparently, the laws have changed since 1982, so current law is not the relevant law to apply.


So, there isn't anything that Kavanaugh, Judge, or an assaulter to be named later need fear in terms of criminal prosecution.
Perjury aside, of course.

Not saying it's been proved, but it matters.

Also, I'm totally not keen on the argument that a man should be selected for the top court, since his previous crimes were a long time ago. Depends, mind, on the severity of the crimes. Not sure whether you disagree.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:31 AM   #410
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,560
Limits to FBI's Kavanaugh investigation have not changed, despite Trump's comments

Quote:
According to the sources, the president’s Saturday night tweet saying he wants the FBI to interview whoever agents deem appropriate has not changed the limits imposed by the White House counsel’s office on the FBI investigation — including a specific witness list that does not include Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school.

Also not on the list, the sources say, are former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s account of his college alcohol consumption, instead describing him as a frequent, heavy drinker. The FBI is also not authorized to interview high school classmates who could shed light on what some people have called untruths in Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony about alleged sexual references in his high school yearbook.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:36 AM   #411
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,888
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
What are Democrats whining about? They've got their investigation. Sure, the FBI aren't allowed to talk to people who don't support Kavanaugh, and aren't allowed to gather or consider evidence that might inculpate him, but it's called an investigation so it counts.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:38 AM   #412
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,323
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post

Also from above link:
Quote:
Separately, a White House official made clear that the White House is the client in this process. This is not an FBI criminal investigation — it is a background investigation in which the FBI is acting on behalf of the White House. Procedurally, the White House does not allow the FBI to investigate as it sees fit, the official acknowledged; the White House sets the parameters.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-brett-n915061

So the White House is stage-managing a sham that will only talk to people who won't challenge Kav.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:50 AM   #413
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post

NBC: "according to several people on the condition of anonymity."

Translation: Fake News!
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:51 AM   #414
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,490
Originally Posted by River View Post
Yet here are tons of liberal posters willing to believe Ford forgot tons. #doublestandards
Hi, again.

Argument from incredulity. Do you know what it is? Have you heard of it? Do the terms “argument” or “incredulity” ring any bells?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:52 AM   #415
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,323
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
NBC: "according to several people on the condition of anonymity."

Translation: Fake News!
You don't understand how journalism works, do you?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 10:53 AM   #416
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,890
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
NBC: "according to several people on the condition of anonymity."

Translation: Fake News!
What are you alleging? The sources are not real or do not know?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 11:04 AM   #417
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,560
Sanders Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Lied to Congress

Quote:
Dear Chairman Grassley,

In order for this FBI investigation regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to be complete, it is imperative the bureau must not only look into the accusations made by Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, it should also examine the veracity of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

The Senate should not constrain the FBI to one week and must allow time for a full investigation. I would request that you inform the FBI that you will not consider their work complete until they examine the truthfulness of Judge Kavanaugh’s statements under oath while testifying before the Senate throughout his career, given the very serious fact that lying to Congress is a federal crime.

If you are concerned with a delay in this confirmation process, remember that Senate Republicans refused to allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court for nearly a year.

In addition to investigating the accusations made by multiple women, a thorough investigation should include a review of Judge Kavanaugh’s numerous untruthful statements in his previous testimony before Congress. Specifically:

In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line “spying.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he did not know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year an email revealed that while at the White House he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

In 2004 Judge Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit “was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh testified, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearing contradicts that assertion. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

Kavanaugh testified before the committee that he did not believe polygraphs were reliable. In 2016 he wrote, “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to ‘screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.’ . . . The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” (Sack v. United States Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016)) What changed his opinion or was he misleading the committee as to his beliefs about the reliability of polygraph tests?

Additionally, several statements made by Judge Kavanaugh under oath regarding his treatment of women and his use of alcohol appear not to be true. The scope of the FBI’s investigation must include investigating the following statements:

Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly told the committee he never drank to the point where he didn’t remember something. He also denied ever becoming aggressive when he drinks. However there have been many reports from those Judge Kavanaugh attended high school, college and law school with that contradict this assertion. Was he being truthful with the committee?

Judge Kavanaugh testified he treated women “as friends and equals” and “with dignity and respect.” Numerous entries in his school yearbook would seem to contradict this. Was Judge Kavanaugh’s statement to the committee truthful?

Judge Kavanaugh claimed that he and Dr. Ford “did not travel in the same social circles.” Dr. Ford said she dated Chris Garrett, referenced as a friend in his yearbook. In fact she testified Garrett introduced her to Kavanaugh. Was Judge Kavanaugh’s statement to the committee truthful?

Kavanaugh claimed he did not drink on weeknights but an entry on his calendar for Thursday July 1 states, “Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, Pj, Bernie, Squi.” Kavanaugh clarified to Sen. Booker that “Skis” referred to beer. Was his original statement to the committee truthful?

A fundamental question the FBI can help answer is whether Judge Kavanaugh has been truthful with the committee. This goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court. If a thorough investigation takes longer than a week, so be it. First and foremost, we need the truth.

Sincerely,

Bernard Sanders
And... despite Sanders being completely correct here, does anyone believe that Grassley or pretty much any of the other Senate Republicans actually care enough to back this up?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 11:15 AM   #418
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
NBC: "according to several people on the condition of anonymity."

Translation: Fake News!
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Two things you might be getting conflated:

1: This is just a background check sort of investigation, not a criminal investigation. The sorts of crimes claimed by Ford would not normally be investigated by the FBI anyway, because they would not be federal crimes. If they find evidence of criminal activity, they might be able to continue investigating that - at least if the criminal activity is something that would be a federal crime. Otherwise, it is just find out what you can during the time you have, to see if there is anything to suggest we should hire someone else.

2: The news reports said that the investigation would not look into allegations made by Julie Swetnick. So if someone who they interviewed with regards to the investigation into Ford's allegations says something in regard to Ford's allegation, they can follow through on that. They just could not look into Swetnick's allegations, or any of other more anonymous stories circulating out there (one story of a rape on a boat, another of an assault at a restaurant)(At least, that was my understanding.)

2b: The President seems to have retracted the restriction against investigating Swetnick's claims anyway.
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Okay, thanks!

That clears a few things up.
Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong on the second point. The President said that the investigators had a fair bit of freedom, but that's being contradicted in statements made by Conway and in off-the-record communications to the press.

The scope of the investigation seems very limited indeed.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 11:24 AM   #419
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What do you think are the odds that he "forgot or misremembered" everything written in his yearbook relating to sexual or drinking slang?
He "forgot or misremembered" what "boofing", "ralphing", and "devil's triangle" all mean? How convenient.

You think he "forgot or misremembered" what a "Renate alumnius" was when he claimed the term was " used to show affection, to show she was one of us"?
This is the yearbook 'poem' that another boy wrote about Renate:



K's best bud at the time, Mark Judge, described in his book
(The Guardian)

When asked by Sen. Leahy if he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh" K became belligerent and accused Leahy of trying to make fun of an alcoholic:


K would neither deny nor confirm that he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh".
Originally Posted by River View Post
Yet here are tons of liberal posters willing to believe Ford forgot tons. #doublestandards
Nice try but it doesn't work. When Ford didn't remember something, she said she didn't remember it. She didn't make up **** to explain it away. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, simply made up **** in an attempt to make what he wrote appear uncompromising. Face it: Kavanaugh LIED...and knowingly lied. Your flagrant attempt to excuse this away is pitiful.

ETA: Can you provide a single piece of credible evidence that "boofing" has ever meant "farting"?
Can you provide a single piece of credible evidence that "devil's triangle" has ever referred
to a drinking game?

Last edited by Stacyhs; 30th September 2018 at 11:31 AM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 11:36 AM   #420
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,049
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
NBC: "according to several people on the condition of anonymity."

Translation: Fake News!
Trump comes with a presumption of dishonesty. The fake news is when he said he didn't limit it. You'd have to hear that from someone untainted by Trump before you could take it seriously.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:00 PM   #421
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Hi, again.

Argument from incredulity. Do you know what it is? Have you heard of it? Do the terms “argument” or “incredulity” ring any bells?

How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?

Here we have 3 witnesses named by the accuser that DO NOT corroborate her story. In fact, her alleged friend says she does not even know Kavanaugh. You may want to consider that those same 3 people named by the accuser -- did corroborate Kavanaughs claims regarding the assault. Yet, many posters here say they "believe" her based on her statements. Does that sound like an argument from incredulity?
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:05 PM   #422
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong on the second point. The President said that the investigators had a fair bit of freedom, but that's being contradicted in statements made by Conway and in off-the-record communications to the press.

The scope of the investigation seems very limited indeed.

As it should be IMHO. This is not Mueller 2.0

We all know this is a piece of fluff anyways. No one is going to change their votes here.
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:06 PM   #423
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
In high school I went to a party where there were no adults. CZ, at one point pushed me in a dark room and pinned me to the bed. He was a big guy, a football star, and I had trouble breathing. Luck had it that another of the guy football players saw it and grabbed CZ off of me.


I bring it up because I could not even tell you the month it happened, whose home it was, who else where there. But I know what he did. So, I just did a search and located him on Facebook. He is a Trump supporter, misogynist, a bully, still. I'm pretty sure he has no memory, he was quite drunk.

I think I may need to message him.
You might want to hold off on that. After all, he may be next in line for Supreme Court Justice.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:10 PM   #424
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,259
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
Already answered, you just ignored it.
No you didn't.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:17 PM   #425
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,744
Originally Posted by River View Post
Ignore the facts, think of the feelings River! The FEELINGS!

Let me ask, do you believe in equal rights for everyone?
Way to miss the point River

Its people with attitudes like you who contribute to the fact that SG's chalkboard list is so one-sided.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:20 PM   #426
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,490
Originally Posted by River View Post
As it should be IMHO. This is not Mueller 2.0

We all know this is a piece of fluff anyways. No one is going to change their votes here.
Jeff Flake proves otherwise.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:20 PM   #427
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Originally Posted by River View Post
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?

Here we have 3 witnesses named by the accuser that DO NOT corroborate her story. In fact, her alleged friend says she does not even know Kavanaugh. You may want to consider that those same 3 people named by the accuser -- did corroborate Kavanaughs claims regarding the assault. Yet, many posters here say they "believe" her based on her statements. Does that sound like an argument from incredulity?
The only two people who claim the party and/or assault never happened are Kavanaugh and Judge...the two people accused of being involved in the assault.

Quote:
(PJ Smyth and Leland Keyser) said they had no recollection of being at such a gathering. But they didn’t go so far as to say, “It didn’t happen.” In fact, one of them, Leland Ingham Keyser, a close friend of Ford’s, told the Washington Post she believes Ford’s allegation.
(Fact Check.org)

Keyser was never said to be in Kavanaugh's social circle or to have "known him". Meeting someone at a party does not constitute knowing someone. How many people at parties have you actually met but have no memory of having met them...especially 36 years ago?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:31 PM   #428
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,106
Originally Posted by River View Post
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?
Do you believe that Kavanaugh was being completely honest in his testimony Thursday?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:36 PM   #429
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,503
Lindsey Graham is demanding a full scale investigation into who leaked Ford's letter info. THIS he wants to investigate, but having the FBI investigate Ford's, Rivera's and Swetnick's claims? Not so much.

If he, the other GOP SJC members, and the WH narrowly limit the scope of the FBI's investigation to only a handful of people not including classmates regarding his drinking and his lying about things in his yearbook, then it will be a farce.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 12:58 PM   #430
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
BREAKING NEWS!

k.jpg
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:02 PM   #431
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,630
Party animal frat boy could not control his drinking in high school snd college. Cannot remember what he did when drunk. Gives whimpering speech, blames Democrats.

Conclusion: not supreme court material. Next candidate!!!!
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:02 PM   #432
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,560
Originally Posted by River View Post
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?
As a starting point? Bad. As a conclusion from the questioning? Quite tenable.

Originally Posted by River View Post
Here we have 3 witnesses named by the accuser that DO NOT corroborate her story.
1 witness. Mark Judge, who wasn't at all sober in the claim. Multiple other people who she claimed were at the impromptu small gathering, but weren't witnesses to what happened. It's true that that's not especially good as evidence. With that said, when it comes to the named people, they have publically stated that they don't remember the occasion in question. Kavanaugh dishonestly stated that they claimed that it didn't happen, which sure looks like a clear case of lying under oath. Blatantly and clearly lying under oath automatically makes one much less credible, normally.

Originally Posted by River View Post
In fact, her alleged friend says she does not even know Kavanaugh.
And the friend also said that she believed Ford, which really should have preemptively prevented you from invoking it as an attempt at an argument like that, if you care about truth.

Originally Posted by River View Post
You may want to consider that those same 3 people named by the accuser -- did corroborate Kavanaughs claims regarding the assault.
When? Again, the public statements have been that they don't remember the occasion, which would hardly be a surprise in the actual circumstances described. That's not corroborating much of anything. Especially in cases like Mark Judge's case, where he was involved in what is claimed to have. Judge isn't especially credible in his refusal, though, when he claims to be shy about public speaking, given that he apparently had previously made it clear that he was available to speak publicly on demand on other things. That Kavanaugh seems to have outright lied about what they said, among other things, should be a matter of notable concern.

Originally Posted by River View Post
Yet, many posters here say they "believe" her based on her statements. Does that sound like an argument from incredulity?
Personally, I find her to be immensely more credible than a guy who has pretty clearly and repeatedly lied under oath. Does that mean that she's being truthful? Not necessarily, but statistics and her actual words and actions back her up. As for believing Kavanaugh? I can believe that he's outraged, but his clear lies and dodges remove his credibility on the subject.

So, again, I'll repeat. As a starting point? It's terrible. As a conclusion from the questioning? Such a position is entirely reasonable.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 30th September 2018 at 01:17 PM.
Aridas is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:16 PM   #433
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,560
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Jeff Flake proves otherwise.
Not yet, he hasn't. He has done something, though, which is worth recognizing.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The only two people who claim the party and/or assault never happened are Kavanaugh and Judge...the two people accused of being involved in the assault.
When did Judge claim that? He first claimed that he didn't remember the party in question. Later, we got "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes," in the same letter where he claims to avoid public speaking, which is directly contradicted by Encounter Book's website, who published some of his work. This isn't particularly confidence inducing, especially when he is claimed to have also been very drunk and he's publicly been clear about how much of an extreme alcoholic he was.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:27 PM   #434
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,658
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
...
ETA: But the big mystery is why anyone thinks that the phrase "Have you boofed yet" constitutes evidence in a sexual assault investigation.
That was evidence of a pattern of behavior: drinking heavily and preoccupied with sex. Now that may very well be quite normal for a lot of teenage boys, but Kav tried to portray himself as a choir boy: virgin, only drank occasional beers, vomited because he had a sensitive stomach rather that barfing because he frequently drank to excess.

Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
Yes, if it's an actual lie and not something that he forgot or misremembered.
He lied about excessive drinking and what things in the yearbook meant. Yes they were actual lies.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
...

Now, let's pick another random date. Let's say, I don't know, September 11, 2001. Not random? Yeah, that's true. It isn't. Neither is the day that Ms. Ford (allegedly) was assaulted.
Dates like 9/11 are repeated again and again by the news refreshing memories so they don't make a good analogy.

Originally Posted by River View Post
Funny how selective people are when it fits their narrative. Lets just all forget about what the accuser said about burned in memories. Lets forget all the inconsistencies involved, and just believe. Right?
She remembers the event, not the date. It's not rocket science.

Originally Posted by River View Post
Ignore the facts, think of the feelings River! The FEELINGS!

Let me ask, do you believe in equal rights for everyone?
My post wasn't about feelings, it was about facts. You got it wrong just like I predicted. As for the equal rights question, I have no idea how that is relevant to my post.

Originally Posted by River View Post
Yet here are tons of liberal posters willing to believe Ford forgot tons. #doublestandards
I am sorry you don't get it, but there is no double standard here, except the double standard related to ignoring Ford.

Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
Really? Could you please explain how the senators questions could be perceived as making fun of an alcoholic? Kavanaughs pathetic distraction didn't even make sense.
I could have it wrong but I though Kav was talking about Judge's alcoholism.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:33 PM   #435
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That was evidence of a pattern of behavior: drinking heavily and preoccupied with sex. Now that may very well be quite normal for a lot of teenage boys, but Kav tried to portray himself as a choir boy: virgin, only drank occasional beers, vomited because he had a sensitive stomach rather that barfing because he frequently drank to excess.

He lied about excessive drinking and what things in the yearbook meant. Yes they were actual lies.

Dates like 9/11 are repeated again and again by the news refreshing memories so they don't make a good analogy.

She remembers the event, not the date. It's not rocket science.

My post wasn't about feelings, it was about facts. You got it wrong just like I predicted. As for the equal rights question, I have no idea how that is relevant to my post.

I am sorry you don't get it, but there is no double standard here, except the double standard related to ignoring Ford.

I could have it wrong but I though Kav was talking about Judge's alcoholism.
Don't think you seem biased based on the evidence and witnesses presented concerning Fords allegations? (no prosecutor would touch it)

Do you believe in equal rights for everyone?
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:35 PM   #436
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by River View Post
BREAKING NEWS!

Attachment 39000
That's classy.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:38 PM   #437
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,140
Quote:
But NBC News and The New York Times reported on Saturday that in addition to those limitations, Republicans and the White House gave the FBI a list of just four witnesses to interview.

Investigators have also reportedly not been permitted to scour certain records that could be critical to ascertaining the credibility of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the first woman to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

...

The four witnesses the FBI has been permitted to question so far are Deborah Ramirez, Mark Judge, Leland Keyser, and PJ Smyth.
Linky.

If they aren't even allowed to interview Ford (or even Kavanaugh?), that will strengthen the claim that the White House is forcing a sham investigation.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 30th September 2018 at 01:40 PM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:39 PM   #438
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I could have it wrong but I though Kav was talking about Judge's alcoholism.
He was. How is asking if Brett is Bart O'Kavanaugh mocking Judge? Shortly after, however, BK accused the senator of sitting there and mocking him (BK). And again, neither Judge nor BK was being mocked in any perceivable way. BK just didn't like the questions.

There may be no further facts revealed around the sexual assault allegation. It will probably remain as unproven as it is right now. However, in my opinion BK's testimony under oath and his demonstration of partisan fueled rage should be enough to change minds.
dmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:41 PM   #439
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,593
Originally Posted by River View Post
How about the argument that Ford is to be believed on her statement, and Kavanaugh is not concerning the alleged assault?
That is not an argument from incredulity.

An argument from incredulity would be, "I can't think of any reason she would lie, therefore she must be telling the truth."


(That argument also gets in a bonus second named fallacy, which is the false dichotomy.)
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2018, 01:41 PM   #440
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
That's classy.
Thanks. So is believing someone purely based on allegations, that were not corroborated by her named witnesses. (whos statements support the accused)

Two names.


Carolyn Bryant

Emmett Till
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY

"I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.