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

[redskins59]

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.

[Cooked Crack]

20 minutes ago, twa said:

It not being a investigation?

 

[redskins59]

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.

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, redskins59 said:

 

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.

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. 

[DogofWar1]

Polygraphs are totally bull****, unless administered by a trained professional in a controlled setting.

 

And then they're only mostly bull****.

[twa]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

She doesn't want a police one(who have jurisdiction) enough to file a complaint yet feels entitled to a FBI one w/o even telling her story to the committee?

[Popeman38]

2 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

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.

It is a HUGE ask for someone to do a polygraph for the court of public opinion. Even if he passes, there are a TON of people who will respond that he is like Trump and believes his lies. He can’t win. “When did you stop beating your wife, judge?”

[visionary]

 

[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.

[Cooked Crack]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

She doesn't want a police one(who have jurisdiction) enough to file a complaint yet feels entitled to a FBI one w/o even telling her story to the committee?

So you've now moved on from her not wanting an investigation?

Edited September 19, 2018 by Cooked Crack

[redskins59]

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

It is a HUGE ask for someone to do a polygraph for the court of public opinion. Even if he passes, there are a TON of people who will respond that he is like Trump and believes his lies. He can’t win. “When did you stop beating your wife, judge?”

 

Of course liberals will still not believe him, but it will be enough for Republicans and maybe some moderate democrats to vote for him.  

[twa]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

So you've now moved on from her not wanting an investigation?

 

Are you blind?

 

 

[Popeman38]

Yeah, why would the FBI investigate? Wouldn’t this fall under the jusrisdiction of the local law enforcement agency responsible for Bathesda? 

[Riggo-toni]

3 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

It didn't work for you, but it works the majority of the time.

No it doesn't. Nor are they anything remotely close to how they are portrayed onscreen. Two of the most honest people I know have both failed them.  In fact, most people fail the first time.  The agenda of lie detectors is not to detect lies, but rather to extract confessions from people who believe they are being caught. Polygraphs are about as accurate as a 10 day weather forecast. If I were accused of a crime of which I knew I was innocent, I still would refuse to take one.

[Kilmer17]

The goalposts are being moved again? Shocking. 

 

Just call the question and approve him already.  

[SkinsHokieFan]

I loathe the pseudo science of polygraphs. 

 

No reason there cant be an investigation to what happened in the ‘80s. 

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Yeah, why would the FBI investigate? Wouldn’t this fall under the jusrisdiction of the local law enforcement agency responsible for Bathesda? 

Of course.  But calling for fbi means more delay.  Which is really what’s going on

[Cooked Crack]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

Are you blind?

?

 

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Yeah, why would the FBI investigate? Wouldn’t this fall under the jusrisdiction of the local law enforcement agency responsible for Bathesda? 

The Senate could investigate, they've got investigators. They probably looking for someone to investigate just to get to the facts. Otherwise it's only his word and hers. I don't see this resulting in any criminal actions.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Cooked Crack

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, redskins59 said:

Of course liberals will still not believe him, but it will be enough for Republicans and maybe some moderate democrats to vote for him.  

No it won’t. This is the reason no democrats will vote for him. Regardless of the outcome. 

 

Did her her attorney not say Ford cannot recall when or where the alleged assault took place? How does the accused account for that? How can the accused provide an alibi? How can anyone defend themselves from those vague details?

 

Look, I am torn on this. There is a chance that Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh. I have a daughter, and can’t imagine having to go through this with her. I don’t want Ford to be dragged through the mud on this. But the way this was handled by Feinstein, and now demanding a “full FBI investigation before any testimony” smacks of political games.  

[PleaseBlitz]

11 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Polygraphs are totally bull****, unless administered by a trained professional in a controlled setting.

 

And then they're only mostly bull****.

 

This. 

 

I would never agree to take a polygraph, even if I knew I was 100% innocent, in a real investigation. 

 

This isnt a real investigation though. This is a circus designed to see if 50 Republicans can approve a lifetime appointment to one of the most important posts in our country to a person credibly accused of rape and still get reelected.  

[Cooked Crack]

 

[redskins59]

7 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

No it doesn't. Nor are they anything remotely close to how they are portrayed onscreen. Two of the most honest people I know have both failed them.  In fact, most people fail the first time.  The agenda of lie detectors is not to detect lies, but rather to extract confessions from people who believe they are being caught. Polygraphs are about as accurate as a 10 day weather forecast. If I were accused of a crime of which I knew I was innocent, I still would refuse to take one.

 

They are accurate enough.  I am reading that they can be 90% accurate.  And critics say it is 70% accurate.  Which is good enough for me.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92847&page=1

 

 

[twa]

You might remember they objected to staff calls as well....so the table probably ain't the real problem.

 

If she believes her own story then take it to the police or testify to the committee.

 

 

[redskins59]

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

No it won’t. This is the reason no democrats will vote for him. Regardless of the outcome. 

 

Did her her attorney not say Ford cannot recall when or where the alleged assault took place? How does the accused account for that? How can the accused provide an alibi? How can anyone defend themselves from those vague details?

 

Look, I am torn on this. There is a chance that Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh. I have a daughter, and can’t imagine having to go through this with her. I don’t want Ford to be dragged through the mud on this. But the way this was handled by Feinstein, and now demanding a “full FBI investigation before any testimony” smacks of political games.  

 

It was at a party of some kind.  The confusing part was whether 2 or 4 people were involved.

When I was 12 years old, I broke my hand.  I remember my cousin, who was responsible for it.  But I don't remember all other people around me.  

I would say that since this was like 30 years ago, she is not going to remember everything.  She remembers Kavanaugh, as well as Mark Judge.  Now, why would she take Mark Judge's name?  I think she remembers this part vividly.

[Cooked Crack]