SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

you are assuming.

 

Yeah.  

 

That the GOP is creating secrecy rules which have never existed before, to conceal a report that hasn't even been written yet, for a reason.  

 

[twa]

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah.  

 

That the GOP is creating secrecy rules which have never existed before, to conceal a report that hasn't even been written yet, for a reason.  

 

 

how many FBI investigation details are public in your world?

Much less one under Executive direction.

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by twa

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

how many FBI investigation details are public in your world?

 

How many are secured in a SCIF, with different Parties not even allowed in the room at the same time, on alternating hours, in yours?  

 

You know, the point I actually made.  

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

59 minutes ago, twa said:

pretty sure that would be a criminal act...

Sex with a turtle?

[visionary]

 

 

 

[twa]

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

How many are secured in a SCIF, with different Parties not even allowed in the room at the same time, on alternating hours, in yours?  

 

You know, the point I actually made. 

 

Standard practice according to the turtle that cited 09 protocol 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[twa]

How do those polls change when informed no named witness supports her story?

[Nerm]

 

I disengaged from this discussion a few days back, but I was reading some of the issues regarding memory research, and I thought I would add my 2 cents again, as my training in clinical psychology (like Dr. Ford's) may be of interest to others.  With the issue of repressed memories, there is a high likelihood that any memory was forgotten/repressed for a significant length of time is going to be completely inaccurate.  I have not seen any reports suggesting that Dr. Ford's memories were repressed or forgotten.  From what I can tell, she states that she did not discuss them with others, not that she had forgotten them.  This is a big difference when it comes to deciding if such memories are likely to relate to something that actually occurred.

 

Having said that, we all have false and distorted memories.  Our brains do not work like video recorders.  We remember things by recreating events in our minds, not by replaying the recording of what happened.  As time goes by, the details can change.  I have worked with Veteran's that have traumatic combat memories of one soldier helping to evacuate another soldier... only to find out later that those two soldiers were not in the field at the same time. The soldier basically told me "I cant shake the memory of when Mr X helped me carry Mr Y out of the field... but then I talked to Mr X... and he said that Mr. Y had been evacuated and sent back home before X joined our unit.  Why do I keep having nightmares about this?"

 

I was actually able to identify one of my own false memories.  I'm a Cowboys fan, and I clearly remember my excitement when it became clear that Dallas was going to beat the 49ers in the 1992 NFC championship game.  Aikman drops back, hits Alvin Harper on a slant late in the 4th qtr.  The announcer says "Harper is breaking away!"  I jump up yelling and screaming in excitement!!!  Only problem is... I was watching the TV in South Dakota.  The audio that I vividly remember is from the Cowboys radio crew in Texas.  I didn't actually hear that until much later.  But I do remember it clear as day.  It is my favorite football memory of all time... and it is incorrect.

 

None of this is to cast doubt on Dr. Ford or to suggest BK did not assault her.  Just trying to point out that memories for either of them can be distorted over time.

[Burgold]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Riggo-toni]

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, Nerm said:

 

 

None of this is to cast doubt on Dr. Ford or to suggest BK did not assault her.  Just trying to point out that memories for either of them can be distorted over time.

I think this is a better argument. It's possible that she has misremembered facts. It's even possible that in her effort to reconstruct this horrific attack she inserted a familiar place (Kavanaugh who she knew casually to a degree) because she needed to fill in a blank. I'm not sure I totally buy it because she was able to not only place Kavanaugh there, but Judge and several other persons at the party which suggests, at minimum, that she recollected correctly who Kavanaugh's social circle included. Kavanaugh admitted that these were his high school pals.

 

Still, it is possible she is misremembering her attacker. Its equally possible she's absolutely correct in her belief. That's why an honest investigation ought to have taken place. It's also why an honest investigation ought to have taken place with the other accusers because if Kavanaugh and his friends were guilty of a pattern of misbehavior then it increases the likelihood that DeBlasey Ford's memory is correct (although it wouldn't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt).

[Hersh]

11 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Sasse votes yes to confirm, he will secure his lifetime membership into the Hall of Frauds. Current President of the society Marco Rubio is waiting to embrace and administer the oath.

[twa]

10 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

When Sasse votes yes to confirm, he will secure his lifetime membership into the Hall of Frauds. Current President of the society Marco Rubio is waiting to embrace and administer the oath.

 

I doubt he will but a Dem will to save themselves.

[HoustonSkin]

23 minutes ago, Nerm said:

 

None of this is to cast doubt on Dr. Ford or to suggest BK did not assault her.  Just trying to point out that memories for either of them can be distorted over time.

 

But it does seem to allow for the possibility that BK could have been the victim of mistaken identity.

 

If you go by the assumption that all BK accusers are accurate and truthful, then confirming BK would be absurd.

 

If you feel that maybe BK is mistakenly identified by Ford and that the other accusers may not be telling the truth, then you could allow for BK to get emotional defending himself and your decision to confirm or deny him is suddenly not so obvious.

 

Dems have purposely tried to delay the nomination, if not outright blow it up.  Reps have tried to get through the 11th hour claims and investigation as quickly as possible.  I don't see how one is any better than the other on that.

 

The anti BK hysteria is really just partisan BS disguised as real concern.  And the hysteria itself, and not any real proof is ultimately why BK's confirmation is generating so much hate.  That and just the mere fact that the dbag in chief was the one who nominated him.

 

It would be great if we could apply the same scrutiny to every nomination (presidential nominations and party nominations) going forward.  Investigate all of them, and assume all accusations are accurate and truthful.  I'm sure that would be a great approach.

 

But hey, we all have our opinions I guess.

 

[bearrock]

50 minutes ago, Nerm said:

I was actually able to identify one of my own false memories.  I'm a Cowboys fan, 

 

Thank you for your interesting post and the contribution to this discussion, but if you could follow me, we're gonna have to burn you at the stakes now.  Oh by the way, Cowboys never won any Superbowls.  Those are your false memories.  Don't bother looking it up.  Google is lying to you.

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, HoustonSkin said:

The anti BK hysteria is really just partisan BS disguised as real concern.  And the hysteria itself, and not any real proof is ultimately why BK's confirmation is generating so much hate.  

No.  Also “hysteria”?  Really?

[Hersh]

31 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I doubt he will but a Dem will to save themselves.

 

You think Sasse is a no vote? 

15 minutes ago, HoustonSkin said:

 

But it does seem to allow for the possibility that BK could have been the victim of mistaken identity.

 

If you go by the assumption that all BK accusers are accurate and truthful, then confirming BK would be absurd.

 

If you feel that maybe BK is mistakenly identified by Ford and that the other accusers may not be telling the truth, then you could allow for BK to get emotional defending himself and your decision to confirm or deny him is suddenly not so obvious.

 

Dems have purposely tried to delay the nomination, if not outright blow it up.  Reps have tried to get through the 11th hour claims and investigation as quickly as possible.  I don't see how one is any better than the other on that.

 

The anti BK hysteria is really just partisan BS disguised as real concern.  And the hysteria itself, and not any real proof is ultimately why BK's confirmation is generating so much hate.  That and just the mere fact that the dbag in chief was the one who nominated him.

 

It would be great if we could apply the same scrutiny to every nomination (presidential nominations and party nominations) going forward.  Investigate all of them, and assume all accusations are accurate and truthful.  I'm sure that would be a great approach.

 

But hey, we all have our opinions I guess.

 

 

Actually, it’s not an opinion that BK lied on Thursday to the Senate Judiciary Committee 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Fergasun]

@HoustonSkin
All BK had to say was, "Look, I drunk beer in HS, I drunk beer in college. I did some stupid things that I regret. I never sexually assaulted Mr. Ford."

Instead what he did was so over-the-top denial over not only Dr. Ford but the drinking. His defense of, "I couldn't have ever run into Dr. Ford" then, "This could only have happened on the weekend... look at these calendars." Was nuts. I think his friends are covering this up, it might even go as far back to his first judgeship. I wouldn't think so if he wasn't hiding his HS years, and college years.

The FBI could have directly asked him about it...

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, HoustonSkin said:

 

But it does seem to allow for the possibility that BK could have been the victim of mistaken identity.

 

If you go by the assumption that all BK accusers are accurate and truthful, then confirming BK would be absurd.

 

If you feel that maybe BK is mistakenly identified by Ford and that the other accusers may not be telling the truth, then you could allow for BK to get emotional defending himself and your decision to confirm or deny him is suddenly not so obvious.

 

Dems have purposely tried to delay the nomination, if not outright blow it up.  Reps have tried to get through the 11th hour claims and investigation as quickly as possible.  I don't see how one is any better than the other on that.

 

The anti BK hysteria is really just partisan BS disguised as real concern.  And the hysteria itself, and not any real proof is ultimately why BK's confirmation is generating so much hate.  That and just the mere fact that the dbag in chief was the one who nominated him.

 

It would be great if we could apply the same scrutiny to every nomination (presidential nominations and party nominations) going forward.  Investigate all of them, and assume all accusations are accurate and truthful.  I'm sure that would be a great approach.

 

But hey, we all have our opinions I guess.

 

 

I'm not going to disagree that there is a good bit of partisianship here, but I think you have misdiagnosed the much of the issue here.  I think most people understand that Ford could have an incorrect memory and be wrong.  People will say they believe Ford, but I haven't heard anybody say there is no chance that she's wrong.  Even my wife who is pretty far left doesn't contend for sure that Ford can't be wrong. 

 

I think much of the hysteria is related to a few things:

 

1.  The treatment and behavior of Kavanugh vs. Ford in the hearing.  Ford getting questioned by a sex crime prosecutor and apparently trying her best to answer the questions in a straight forward manner vs. the Republican Senators tossing her aside as soon as she started asking BK difficult questions.  And then allowing BK to use the rules (5 minutes per a questioner) to evade and obfuscate answers to hard questions from there.

 

2.  BK's apparent lies/incorrect statements with no apparent consequences (his history of drinking, things related to boffing, the Devil's triangle, the Renate alumni, (where his attorney put out a statement saying one thing (that it was a reference to them having kissed) that she then disagreed with, and then he didn't seem to support during his testimony)), BK claiming that the other parties that Ford names at the party refuted her claim (vs. simply saying they didn't remember such an event, there's a difference between, I don't remember, and it didn't happen), etc.

 

3.  Coupled with that he was appointed by Trump with Trump's history and his actions yesterday.  And I don't think women's responses to Trump are really partisan.  They aren't responding to Trump in the manner they do because he's a Republican, but because he has a history of statements that suggest that he doesn't respect women.  Unless we want to say that you can grab women by the **** is a Republican thing now, it isn't really partisan.

 

As has been pointed out, this same situation didn't play out over Gorsuch who was another Supreme Court nominee.  There's no real reason to believe that there would be greater parisian hype with respect to Kavanugh vs. Gorsuch.

[Nerm]

50 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Thank you for your interesting post and the contribution to this discussion, but if you could follow me, we're gonna have to burn you at the stakes now.  Oh by the way, Cowboys never won any Superbowls.  Those are your false memories.  Don't bother looking it up.  Google is lying to you.

 

 

Now that you mention it, my wife tells me I'm having false memories anytime I bring up things she has said in previous arguments with me.  Maybe I have a problem...

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, Nerm said:

I was actually able to identify one of my own false memories.  I'm a Cowboys fan, and I clearly remember my excitement when it became clear that Dallas was going to beat the 49ers in the 1992 NFC championship game.

You were never a fan of any team. You’re a genetically engineered weapon designed for sex. The only reason you think you were a Cowboys fan is because those are the memories I implanted.