redskins59

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You don’t think being asked if you have ever sexually assaulted a person would provoke an involuntary physiological reaction?

 

And if there is any response, a polygrapher is going to ask follow up questions, you don’t get to say you can only ask a question. That’s not how polygraphs work. 

The question is specific.  Did you sexually assault Ms Ford?  The question isn't have you sexually assaulted anybody, which is probably not a fair question. If he is innocent, statistically speaking, he will pass the majority of the time. The question will be only about Ford.  She is the one accusing him after all.

37 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

As someone who was telling the truth but still failed a polygraph, I can tell you that they are complete bull****. Serial killer Mark Hoffman and the CIA's worst traitor Aldrich Ames both passed their polygraphs with flying colors.

It didn't work for you, but it works the majority of the time.  It does not work on serial killers. Obviously, it does not work if your mind is messed up.  It probably does not work on Trump (he probably believes his lies).

She took a polygraph test and passed.  Not much to ask Kavanaugh to do the same.  They need to decide what specific questions to ask.

17 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Not if you have a good lawyer you wouldn’t. A polygraph is only as good as the questions being asked. You can word a question in a way to provoke a phisiological response that will give the impression the tester is hiding something. Agreeing to take a wide open polygraph regarding something that happened 36 years ago would be a bad idea.  Even if you swear you have nothing to hide.

Don't do a wide open polygraph then.  Agree to ask certain questions.  Did you sexually assault Ms Ford in any way?  A question similar to that.

How about just taking a polygraph test?  Ford took a polygraph test and passed (mentioned in the Washington Post article where her name was first mentioned).  Why can't Kavanaugh do the same?  In a courtroom a polygraph test is not allowed, but this is not a courtroom.

If I got accused of sexual assault and  knew I was innocent, I would be taking a polygraph test in a hurry. 

Honestly, I don't believe Kavanaugh.  I think he remembers her well.  If he knows for a fact that he didn't do it, take a lie detector test.

2 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

You gotta be kidding me...I mean, Novak is the great returner, but I don't expect him to beat Juan. 

No way. 

This is going to be a tough match.  Del Potro is IMO just a notch below the big three when healthy.  The trouble is he has had injury issues.  I like his playstyle a lot.  Big serve and a big forehand.

Serena Williams threw a tantrum because she was losing as simple as that.    Having said that, Naomi Osaka looks to me like a young Serena.  Even her serve reminds me of Serena.  She may have an even better forehand.

I am looking at the younger generation of players.  Naomi is one player who is going to be one of the better young players.  The other one I am looking at is Aryna Sabalenka, who, yes, played against Naomi Osaka in, I believe, the 4th round in the US open.  That was the only match where Osaka struggled some.  It went 3 sets.  You look at all her other matches, she owned the competition(including Serena).  Sabalenka is also just 20 years old.  She is in fact younger than Osaka.

Not good for Croatia here.  Game over IMO.

He is at least better than the lady with 7 children, let's face it.

What was the defamation lawsuit about?  I guess the newspaper knew about this guy.  They published something about this guy that he didn't like.    There is a possibility that this isn't political but personal. 

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

god political discourse has become a charicature of itself 

For the record though, I don't want him banned.  

14 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

So are mods going to ban this misogynistic racist already or does he get to waltz back in and out of the tailgate to **** with people? He contributes nothing and damn near derails every thread he comes into.

What's the deal? I'm seriously trying to understand what the rules are here. Are there different sets of rules for different people?

You know what,  how come all the people outraged by Benning are not as outraged by this guy?  This guy has been spouting White Nationalist BS for a long time.  The only people who have been outraged have been minorities from what I can tell.

Red States are going to lose anyway.  Look at West Virginia.  Worst state in the country.  Midwest isn't far behind.  I hope immigrants don't move to those areas.  They need to be punished long-term.  And actually by all means move to states like Texas or Georgia that will eventually go blue.

Conservatives are going to realize that they aren't going to win, especially when people put pressure on corporations (No Excuses pointed that out above).  Think North Carolina and all those companies giving them major economic pressure.

I guess liberals have figured out how to punish extreme conservatism.

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

I wonder if the Bernie bros see a difference between HRC and Trump now...

They don't.  I just went to jackpineradicals.  They are blaming HRC for stealing the election and causing this.

Hopefully the Justice that Trump nominates turns out to be a liberal.  It happens from time to time..so.

19 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Trump framed this as a race issue because he wanted the white working class vote, now everyone sees this as a race issue. Keep the brown rapists/murderers people out vs stop the racism and the neonazism.

 

Actually, Obama was the one whose policy was to keep rapists/murderers out.  Trump's policy is to keep all illegal immigrants out.  Not just that, he wants to target naturalized American citizens also:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trump-administration-launches-denaturalization-effort-to-strip-citizenship-from-those-suspected-of-irregularities.html

Trump is a White Nationalist basically.  That's why any comparison to Obama is invalid.  I will just say it, even if Obama caged ten thousand brown children, he would still have more credibility than Trump in the eyes of minorities because 1) minorities voted for him and 2) He did not run as a White Nationalist.

Sure, it's a complicated issue, but under Trump, this is a simple issue.  He wants to make america white again.

31 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

yeah, so whats stopping them. I know these guys can build stuff and are hard workers.

 

Why wont their country get off the ground and prosper

All countries are developing, even if it is slowly.  Eventually, most countries will be as developed as Europe.  That's my belief.

Mexico is more developed than some countries in Europe.  I am looking at the per capita GDP, and it is at 8k, which is not too bad.  12k is considered developed I believe.  It is getting there.  Immigration from Mexico has slowed down.  The majority of migrants coming to the US are from other poorer countries who take the Mexico route.

The solution is for those countries to develop. Otherwise, they will keep coming. If your situation is hopeless, you will take chances.  I mean, seriously, unless you start shooting people, immigration of any kind cannot be stopped.

Illegal immigration rate is back to Obama level. Trump halted it for a year.

5 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

I think the response will be nothing. People will fear for their lives, so they will just stay home quietly.  

Actually, to elaborate, an authoritarian government always needs someone to blame.  For Hitler, it was the Jewish people.  Here in America, we see people blaming blacks, Jews (Soros) and Muslims, as well as immigrants (illegal ones, but some oppose legal immigrants as well).  What happens though if all these groups either run away from the country or are completely slaughtered?  Guess what, the authoritarian government will find somebody else to blame.  I have read enough Stormfront to know that a lot of people don't considered Italians to be White--so they are probably the next one to go.  What happens next?  Probably the Irish because they are Catholics.  I can see the people of Polish origin after that.  Maybe move to East Europeans next.  All non- Northern Europeans are targets.

This will probably enforce the one-drop rule after that, which is that if you have even 1 % black blood, you are gone.  At this point, the American population is down to maybe 30%.  Homosexuals gone.  Feminists gone.  

Worst case scenario right here.  

14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Okay.  But what will the people do in reaction to this?  Will violent actions be the response?

I think the response will be nothing. People will fear for their lives, so they will just stay home quietly.  

Here is a manscript that was published recently:

https://github.com/svmiller/woi/blob/master/woi.pdf

The title of the manuscript is "White Outgroup Intolerance and Declining Support for American Democracy".

The American right has become more authoritarian.  Americans in general won't go around killing people, even the far-right types, but I bet a lot of them don't mind electing an authoritarian government that will go around killing people. The danger is the demise of democracy.

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm telling you I don't think the total risk change very much at all.  I don't think many deranged people become teachers.  From there, I think the chances of a teacher being deranged and passing the test will be offset by deranged teachers uncovered by the screening.

 

Do you have any evidence that the probability will increase?

 

How often do you think we'd need to screen?

 

I'd like to see every 2 months, but I could probably settle for every 6 months.

How can the total risk not change at all? If 20% of teachers bring guns to schools, that alone increases the risk.

Of course I don't have the evidence that the probability will increase just as you don't have the evidence that the probability will go down.  It is what I believe.

I guess 2 months would be good.  Now what will be the cost?

Ultimately, arming teachers is highly experimental.  That is the bottomline to me.

8 minutes ago, twa said:

The situation then is reduced to a teacher snapping at school 

No question that it reduces risk, but you need to look at the fact that there are 3.5 million teachers out there.  So even 1% becomes a big number.

Okay question, if teachers are allowed to bring guns to school, by how much will mass shooting be reduced?  By 50%?  Now, how many deaths will be lost due to deranged teachers or accidental firing, etc?  If you add all the numbers up, what sort of improvement will we see?

The media loves mass shootings, so the public perception might improve due to fewer mass shootings, but the actual deaths may not improve, and in fact may go up.

Just now, PeterMP said:

Again, if a deranged teacher wants to get a gun now and kill kids what is stopping them?  It is about the risk now compared to the added risk.

 

If a deranged teacher can bring a gun legally to his classroom, there is a much bigger chance that he will snap.  Are you telling me that the probability of risk will remain the same?

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

You've simply made the 10% number, and there is no way that percent of Americans that suffer from mental illness applies to the total teacher population.  People like Adam Lanza could never have been a teacher.

It is a hypothetical. 

What if you go deranged after you pass your screening?  How often are you going to screen?

It just seems like a nightmare scenario to give teachers guns.  Just too many risky variables.  

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

If you can explain a reasonable mechanism by which it would fail, I'll be willing to listen, but so far nobody in this thread has done so.

 

Okay, there are 3.5 million teachers in the United States.

18.2% of Americans suffer from mental illness.  So if you apply this number to teachers, you end up with 630,000.  Now, let's say 20% of these teachers apply for guns.  So now we are left with 126000 teachers with mental illness.  Now, suppose 1% of these teachers are not detected by screening.  You are left with 1260 teachers who manage to get firearms.  Now, if 1 % of these teachers can commit murder, we now have 12 teachers who can commit these crimes.  That is a big number to me. 

You are making a huge assumption that screening will detect every single deranged teacher.  It won't work like that.  Even if just 1% of teachers with mental problems pass screening tests, it turns out to be a huge number.  The reality is probably 10% or more would pass this test.

I don't trust screening tests like you do.  How good are these tests? 

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

I think you are experimenting on children if you forbid screened and trained PROVEN security options that are generally accepted OUTSIDE shools/

 

a FAILED experiment by the results

I am just not convinced.  The more guns that are available, the higher the chance of accidents.  Children act different from adults.  

And re: teachers not doing mass shootings, that's true, but like I said, mass shootings is not the no. 1 concern for me with armed teachers.  

And anyway, I think we will just end up repeating the same argument, so I am done.