tshile Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: Deborah Ramirez? Citation needed. It’s the article in the thread on this page. Go read it. Edit: previous page, obviously. Well should be obvious who knows with you Edited September 16, 2019 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Did anyone ask Squi, Handsy Hank, and Gang Bang Greg what happened that night? Did anyone check Kav's calendar? His calendar says he was at choir practice and helping old women cross the street that week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 Whether or not she remembers the incident seems a bit of a red herring. The importance of it is not whether she remembers it, but that it adds to a pattern of behavior if it happened. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 30 minutes ago, nonniey said: Oh it's worse than that I know. Was just throwing something g quick out there. Funny how people who read news and repost it around the internet all day seem to miss certain news stories 😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 Has an actual retraction to the NYT story happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 1 minute ago, visionary said: Whether or not she remembers the incident seems a bit of a red herring. The importance of it is not whether she remembers it, but that it adds to a pattern of behavior if it happened. The guys a scum bag can still laugh at The NY Times for lacking integrity and how the whole game of “updates” and retractions works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 19 minutes ago, visionary said: Whether or not she remembers the incident seems a bit of a red herring. The importance of it is not whether she remembers it, but that it adds to a pattern of behavior if it happened. If it happened? If he murdered a busload of children that would be bad too. Is it a pattern if one dubious accusation is followed by later dubious accusations. If I accused you of being a pedophile but had no evidence or worse sketchy evidence that is disproved and later a buddy of mine accuses you with different sketchy evidence does this form a pattern? Well actually yes it is forming a pattern - but the pattern is on his accusers. 24 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Has an actual retraction to the NYT story happened? A correction has. Frankly it looks like a monetary motive on the part of the reporters - they want to sell their book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, nonniey said: If it happened? If he murdered a busload of children that would be bad too. Is it a pattern if one dubious accusation is followed by later dubious accusations. If I accused you of being a pedophile but had no evidence or worse sketchy evidence that is disproved and later a buddy of mine accuses you with different sketchy evidence does this form a pattern? Well actually yes it is forming a pattern - but the pattern is on his accusers. A correction has. Frankly it looks like a monetary motive on the part of the reporters - they want to sell their book. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here based on your own ideas and inaccurate framing of the situation. Edited September 16, 2019 by visionary 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, nonniey said: A correction has. Frankly it looks like a monetary motive on the part of the reporters - they want to sell their book. You sure it was a correction? Or was it an update (with additional clarifying information) to an existing article? I'd suspect it was the latter and simply put, something that happens at every major newspaper in this reporting breaking news is $s era. Edited September 16, 2019 by The Evil Genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 13 minutes ago, visionary said: You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here based on your own ideas and inaccurate framing of the situation. And what is it you’ve been doing? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: You sure it was a correction? Or was it an update (with additional clarifying information) to an existing article? I'd suspect it was the latter and simply put, something that happens at every major newspaper in this reporting breaking news is $s era. Is a revision a correction? Seems so. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/09/16/us/ap-us-supreme-court-kavanaugh-times.html Edited September 16, 2019 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) So the Times is saying it’s not immediately clear why the Times left out important information? Youd think the Times, if it cared, would ask itself why it did that. Edit: oh it’s the AP being posted on their website. That makes sense Edited September 16, 2019 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simmsy Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 I've always said that this guy did the things he was accused of, never thought he was a rapist. As far as I'm concerned, he's a drunken douchebag...no place on the SCOTUS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 I think there are several issues in play here. One is the process question: Did the FBI conduct as thorough an investigation as possible under the circumstances? I'm seeing a lot of allegations suggesting that they did not. At the very least, they apparently did not interview all the witnesses, including one referred to them by Senator Coons' office. It begs the question why. Another question is did the NY Times do a crappy job reporting? This seems unquestionably to be true. How do you omit that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and informed through third party that she has no recollection? Last, but most important question seems to be did Kavanaugh lie to Congress? I think the new information that Times omitted certainly calls that allegation into question. But then again there are scenarios where the victim herself could not recall and still have this be true. You could also conceivably have the event be true but Kavanaugh has no recollection and thus didn't lie to Congress. I still want to see who the FBI interviewed, who they didn't interview, and explanation as to why they didn't. That the NY Times fubar'd this story seems beyond question at this point though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 Kavanaugh from the beginning seems like at the least a wealthy entitled douchebag that grew up in an environment that tells young men the world is theirs to do with it what they please. At worst he attempted to rape a woman. I'll admit I don't have enough info to make a clear judgement on the Ford accusations, however there is enough smoke in the guy's past that Trump probably should have moved onto to another candidate that would have been just as conservative and self-serving of Trump's bidding as the next guy, but because Trump is Trump, he stuck with Kavanaugh. You don't have to be a criminal to be unfit for a seat on the Supreme Court. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bearrock said: Another question is did the NY Times do a crappy job reporting? This seems unquestionably to be true. How do you omit that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and informed through third party that she has no recollection? This was a bad job by the NYT on this. But I think we should be careful not to make too much of this claim, considering the situation involved. It's also possible she doesn't want the attention or harassment this might bring on her and it's very common for victims to minimize what happened in their mind so as to not have to deal with it. Edited September 16, 2019 by visionary 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Cooked Crack said: Deborah Ramirez? Citation needed. Was the friend at the party? It's a different woman than Deobrah Ramirez and the Times never stated that she is the one making the allegations. The only thing the Times left out was that the other woman doesn't have a recollection of the event, but several others who were at the party remember it. The initial story that Debbie Ramirez has additional people backing her story and that several people recall a similar incident with a different woman at a different party hasn't changed. A circle jerk going on in this thread from people who supposedly read the article and want to pile onto reporting that seems to not have fudged anything substantial regarding the story. The Times never alleged that a new woman directly accused Kavanaugh, just that other people remembered him getting drunk, pulling out his wang and thrusting it into a girl at a different party, Edited September 16, 2019 by No Excuses 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, No Excuses said: A circle jerk going on in this thread from people who supposedly read the article and want to pile onto reporting that seems to not have fudged anything substantial regarding the story. The Times never alleged that a new woman directly accused Kavanaugh, just that other people remembered him getting drunk, pulling out his wang and thrusting it into a girl at a different party, But isn't it relevant to the story that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed for the book and stated through third party that she has no recollection of the event. There are plausible reasons why someone may say that, someone of which includes the allegations still being true, but it certainly seems like irresponsible reporting to omit that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, bearrock said: But isn't it relevant to the story that the alleged victim declined to be interviewed for the book and stated through third party that she has no recollection of the event. There are plausible reasons why someone may say that, someone of which includes the allegations still being true, but it certainly seems like irresponsible reporting to omit that fact. It’s bad editing which is typical for NYTs op-Ed section at this point. The book, which the op-Ed was based on apparently didn’t omit this so it seems more like bad editorial practice rather than poor journalism. It would be a big blunder I think if the news portion of the paper got this wrong, but getting bent over an op-Ed that talks about a book..meh. Edited September 16, 2019 by No Excuses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 Was Stier drunk? If no, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 22 minutes ago, twa said: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Would have posted here yesterday but the Kavanaugh still a scumbag talks were going on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Sucks that the actual story is being buried because the NYT was sloppy in their handling of things, but that is really their fault. They need to be better about they word articles. In 2019, they should know that semantics will be used to make their sloppiness in reporting the bigger story than the actual story. If anything, all this new information is bringing to light what most people knew in the first place, which was the FBI probe or "investigation" into Kavanaugh was a sham and designed, not to actually find anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now