Juanita seems to know when and where this happened.
Democrats Destroying the Most Important Principles of Justice in the USA
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Juanita seems to know when and where this happened.
With Clinton you had three women, with rape experiences relatively fresh in their minds, and they could recall all the details, and they were not only dismissed but they were attacked by Mrs. Womens' Rights Crooked Hillary.
With Ford you had one dimwit who could not remember a single thing from an alleged 30 year old incident, and the entire leftwing mob came to her defense.
The hypocrisy is off the charts
What's your point?
That's true.
And that's not true.
So, at least you're balanced in one sense.
The fact is you got your facts wrong and I corrected you. Just as you got my position wrong.
Easily. You go out on a double date with your girl and her best friend and the best friend's fellow. You don't know the fellow. You don't double again. Thirty years pass or more.
I said at the outset that I found both parties testimony credible. Either one could be a liar. She could have an implanted memory and he could be telling the truth. She could be lying and he could be telling the truth. She could be telling the truth and he might not recall it. Or he could be lying.
Now his other testimony undid the level field for me, but I didn't ultimately decide it on that point.
How could it be? What I mean is you have a room with three people in it, allegedly. Two of those three are absolutely not going to corroborate it and no reasonable person would expect them to given they'd open themselves to civil and criminal liability if they did. A few other people were at the party, decades prior, lost among a similar sea of experiences with no particular reason to distinguish or even place it in their long term memory.
I don't know what sort of confirmation would be possible. It was always going to be a he said/she said, with the onus then going to the testimony and demonstrable character in relation to the narratives.
It's one reason my sea change on his nomination wasn't about either of their direct on the point.
Never happened. One person said he wasn't there and the others said they didn't remember.
I've repeatedly noted that my opinion of his fitness went, as it did with a few inclined to support him prior, to his demeanor and rhetoric, prepared in advance of its offering.
But then, you've been shown to see things that weren't there, so I'm unsurprised.
Nothing happened to it. Is it your contention that that should be the end game in a sexual assault situation, assuming it happened as stated?
That's what decades can do to a trauma. You pass through Iowa on a trip and one field is afire among a sea of fields. Decades pass. You may well recall the fire and little else. You may recall the mile marker but not the road, etc.
I've spoken to this prior. You know that's not really helping you establish anything. Her testimony and memory is consistent with what you'd reasonably expect given the facts as related.
You can't appear to remember my direct answer on these points or her friends testimony in much closer proximity.
Okay, one more time then. Decades ago I was hurt while skiing, because an inexperienced driver of the boat over throttled and nearly pulled my arms were damaged. I can recall the blue stripe along the side of that boat, the pain of the injury, a few people who were there. I can't tell you where it happened. I can't tell you whose boat it was, how I got there, or how I got home. That's just the mind for you and I have a comparatively exceptional memory.
Right. And I remember that stripe.
No, her best friend, who believes Ford, simply has no memory of a party that happened decades ago, and had no reason to.
They aren't strange or my ideas. They're consistent with my experience of witness testimony, both near and far in terms of proximity to a traumatic event. They're also consistent with how scientists understand memory.
Take Phillip Zolads, associate professor of psychology at Ohio Northern University, who studies the impact of stress on the mind, “What we can be sure of, the characteristics of her memories — what she’s reporting — are consistent with what we’ve seen in science.” Trumps Attacks...Mischaracterize How Memory Works, Experts Say, Time Magazine, 10/10/2018
Like you'd pass a memory test on that one. :chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Ford's testimony was credible if you can overlook the fact that there was exactly ZERO evidence to collaborate it.
She forgot all the details about where and when it happened. She forgot how she got to the party and how she left. But she remembered that she only had one drink.
If you can't see the ruse it is because you don't want to see the truth.
Although Ford was accusing Cavanaugh of a crime he does not enjoy the presumption of innocence, according to your ideas.
Her testimony is evidence. And it's credible evidence. It's just not sufficient to move a criminal charge.
No, she didn't. And I've spoken to her memory, cited to some authority. Her testimony was consistent with what it should be if she's telling the truth. It's just not enough for us to be certain that she is.
It's literally like you aren't reading anything I write.
I remember a blue stripe on a boat. I don't remember how I got there or how I got home. That's just how memory often works, especially over time.
Change ruse to truth and you should be talking to yourself. I don't know the truth. Neither do you.
Why do you keep repeating what I've answered instead of responding to the answer?
Declared by you prior and answered/explained in detail by me prior. Maybe the problem here is your memory. :think:
"...If you can't see the ruse it is because you don't want to see the truth..."
There it is. What makes an obviously intelligent person absolutely deny Truth. That is the frightening aspect of how intelligent people succumb to evil; they can justify gay marriage or abortion or any number of evil things.
'We Are Not Civil': Vandals Smash Windows, Spray Paint Doors of NYC GOP Office
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/...ized-note-left-behind-saying-we-are-not-civil
On Thursday night, the New York City office for the state's Republican Party was vandalized, complete with a message threatening violence against the GOP.
The Metropolitan Republican Club's windows were smashed, its locks were broken and its doors were spray painted with anarchy symbols.
A note left behind at the building read that the attack was putting the Republican Party "on notice."
"Our attack is merely a beginning. We are not passive, we are not civil, and we will not apologize," it stated.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The FBI didn't think so but what do they know?
Do you deny that Ford accused Cavanaugh of a crime?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Following the lead of Hillary and many of the leaders of the Party of lawlessness!
The same party who hates the Constitution of the USA because they actually have deluded themselves into believing that they know better than the Founders!
I wrote: Her testimony is evidence. And it's credible evidence.
Speaking of actual writing, here's a link to an interesting article in the New Yorker about that lightning fast, pretend follow up investigation that lasted until mid week before the farce was concluded: link. It's enlightening.
Quote the FBI report where it says that.
Speaking of actual writing, here's a link to an interesting article in the New Yorker about that lightning fast, pretend follow up investigation that lasted until mid week before the farce was concluded: link. It's enlightening.
Do you admit that the proceeding before the Judiciary Committee wasn't a criminal one?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
"....and we're too cowardly to do this sort of thing in the daylight, in public, with our faces uncovered...."
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Seems to me this is the very definition of terrorism
A perfect opportunity for the right to paint the left as the party of terrorism
Only three weeks to go! :banana:
I agree, but not about what that "it" is.
What makes you confuse your willingness to believe a thing with truth?
I'd say the answer isn't complicated. It's in the angry, contorted faces left and right. It's bias finding opportunity in ambiguity. It's the need to advance a narrative trumping the actual, demonstrable truth of a thing. Because there's nothing a zealot abhors more than ambiguity.
Withholding judgement on a thing I cannot know isn't succumbing to evil. You're simply succumbing to your bias.
It's called Motivated Thinking.
There's "Can believe" and "Must believe".
Kavenaughs detractors will settle for Can Believe. As long as they Can Believe he did something that's good enough for them to say he's unfit. Whereas his supporters will not wane unless they are confronted with Must Believe evidence, like a stain on a dress.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The report wasn't disclosed but those who leaked what it said reported that there was no evidence to support her accusations. Even a Democrat agreed and voted to confirm Kavanaugh.
If the FBI did find evidence that supported Ford's accusation then it is certain that would have been leaked by the Democrats.
I'm not surprised that you are not aware of these thing since you prove over and over that you can't recognize the obvious.
Do you always answer a question with a question?
Do you admit that Ford accused Kavanaugh of a crime?
Seems reasonable, though I'd remind you there is a camp that opposed his eventual confirmation for other reasons than a position on the singular consideration. AMR is in that camp and so am I.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:thumb:
Had to Google that - I assume you're referring to "motivated reasoning"
I'm surprised I've never run across the concept before
Elections have consequences. At least he didn't nominate Giuliani or Ivanka.
Off the quote, but true enough.
Also unrelated, this election is peculiarly linked to the senate hearing. Trump was elected by fewer votes than were cast for his opponent and the senators voting the nomination out of committee represented fewer Americans than those voting against it.
Doesn't alter the outcome, of course.
Or a Russian lawyer...so there's that.