Reply With Quote
A polygraph test means . You can just squeeze your asshole to raise your heart rate enough to completely the baseline. I wouldn't trust a polygraph any more than I'd trust Trump.
'Common sense' or 'Alternate facts' are entirely opinion, not facts, which are largely irrelevant in law...
A polygraph test means . You can just squeeze your asshole to raise your heart rate enough to completely the baseline. I wouldn't trust a polygraph any more than I'd trust Trump.
Federal govt. making it a crime to teach how to beat lie detector tests. Only Ford's CIA buddies should be allowed to do that.
Ford was the accuser, so her credibility only comes into play when considering whether or not to pursue investigations of the accused. It would be foolish for any network to spend time going after a professed victim of sexual assault, especially by trusting an ex-lover's testimony (who happens to be a guy). Though it would cast some doubt on her credibility, she's not the one lined up for the supreme court, so her credibility is only meaningful in the one instance of what she says occurred. Everything since then, no matter who she told or when, is meaningless to that fact. She has the victim card, and that allows her to be inconsistent in her statements. Victims do not have to testify, they are not under oath, and it's political suicide to go after them.
Instead, you have to appear to be sheltering them as you separate the accused from the allegations and as you paint the victim as someone who's traumatized and unsure of their claims. So it works against the victim as well as for them. The end result is that the accused can gain ground while the victim is no worse for wear, except from those she trusted with her story.
I do have a hard time though believing that Ford didn't want this leaked. You don't tell a politician something about their opponent in a critical moment and expect them to not use it. Ford pretends to be naive, but her credentials show her as anything but.
None of Ford's friends backed up her claims. Her lies are do ented. Her connections to the deep state are significant. Prosecution or no, she was a willing vitriolic attacker on an innocent man, and she deserves the derision and negative consequences (though she'll go back to her safe space in academia and be insulated from the scorn). Trump pretty well nailed it though.
Double post
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 10-07-2018 at 12:02 PM.
They should leave Ford alone but avenatti should be disbarred. He ed you guys.
When you say "deep state" you're negating rationality where media is concerned. I was explaining why the media didn't pursue allegations against Ford. She was given benefit of the doubt for her story, but so was Brett K. I'm pretty sure a judge at Brett K's level has friends in the "deep state" as well.
What really sealed this is the insane amount of partisanship in the senate. If the dems had the majority in the senate, Brett wold not be a justice today and it's very likely you would have never heard of Ford.
Avenatti won't be disbarred. His clients might be harassed however, but they'll all get money from it.
This pretty much sums it up. The GOP had the votes, that's it and that's all. Outside of the nomination, this really has nothing to do with Trump (and I would advance that not even the nomination, he probably was told who to pick and why).
On the Dems side, they had a choice to make: 1) do nothing and let the nomination go through across party lines, sending a message to their cons uency that they need to get out and vote if they want to stop this kinda stuff or 2) pretend they were putting up a fight, even if the outcomes was mathematically set, and try to make this another banner for the election.
They choose 2, mostly out of self-preservation, but I think it could be sending the wrong message to the non-base, so we'll see how that gambit works out.
And my comment about Dr Ford - If the dems had control of the senate, she'd know that and not be worried that Brett K would be confirmed. She likely would not have come forward. This is dismissing, of course, any conspiracy theories regarding the affair and taking her at face value (about a buck fifty). This is one major hurdle she faced, the fact that she only came forward for political reasons. If she was a victim and scarred because of her encounter to the point where she needed two front doors, the act alone didn't provoke a response from her. It was only when she found out he was going to be nominated that she gained the courage to come forward. That casts a lot of doubt on the veracity of the claim.
Regardless of her claim being true or not, she was certainly used as a part of a much larger strategy. She entered the picture through a Democratic Senator. If the strategy would've been not to fight, she probably doesn't testify either, and we're not evaluating now the veracity of her statements.
As much as I've said that BK walked into this circus willingly, so has Dr Ford. And in this current climate of partisan acrimony, you knew they were going to get roasted. No low is too low right now, unfortunately.
Now talking about that strategy, I'm not sure it was the proper strategy for the Democrats. We can go deeper into the reason and causes, but I'm not convinced the pluses beat the minuses, especially long term.
There's only two real parties. The voter base has to decide if it wants to vote at all. If it does, it has to pick a side. The third party vote is just a symbolic gesture. It seems that day to day living for most Americans hasn't changed enough to compel them to put down the remote control and learn about the issues, and they see voting as just another blip on the news. Half the country basically doesn't even vote.
I don't think the dems are going to compel more people to vote dem instead of republican. They have to instead fire up their voter base so they get a better turnout. The landscape is so partisan right now, it's like people are living in different worlds. We have our news tailored and spoon fed to us to suit our biases, because it sells. Politics has become religion.
In a social media post on Saturday, a writer for CBS's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" seemingly celebrated the damage done to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's reputation during his bruising and bitterly partisan confirmation battle.
I agree that there's no third party anything, and neither of the two main parties are going anywhere, tbh...
"he probably was told who to pick and why"
McGahn make the pick and shepherded K through the Senate
Then it was McGahn, on behalf of Trash, who defined, cir scribed the FBI's so-called investigation to make sure FBI didn't confirm/find any dirt on his boy K.
the whole show was rigged from beginning to end. iow, standard Repug cheating and fraud
btw, when K was in dubya's WH, it was K who advised dubya to choose Roberts for Chief Justice, and then it was Roberts in the past few weeks who sat on judicial complaints about K's ty judging.
Is there spooky music in your conspiracy YouTube?
you bet. just click to random intervals. its pretty great.
and spooky
in a country where voter turnout is so low, appealing to the non-base is a losing strategy. you're better of tapping into the base because that well hasn't run dry yet. as voter participation rises, that ceases to be the case. voter participation was under 37% during the last midterms
The biggest hurdle is that when the economy is doing well (and it has since the 2nd term of the last prez), it becomes much more difficult to get out the vote, unless there's some really difficult cir stance (ie: war). But the base will be there. A non-base vote is probably worth 2x as much in any given election, since they are largely the deciders.
Automatic voter registration is on the rise. Convenience seems to be getting more "non-base" voters to the polls in Oregon, for example.
turnout in the 2010 midterms was about 40%
in 2006 it was 42%
its just generally low, economy notwithstanding
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
