Would it be easy if it had actually happened to you, rather than painting it as nothing but a bunch of third hand hearsay, like your clumsy attempt to discredit it?
You obviously made up your mind to disbelieve Ford's testimony before she opened her mouth, that is fine. You can attempt to justify that to your daughter however you think you can, if she spits in your face she would be completely justified.
Last edited by Scooter on Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
it is amazing that a man who plays so fast and loose with the truth, has been truth s greatest friend.
You are delusional. If it's all about Trump, and just a Democrat political plot, then why was there no such opposition to Neil Gorsuch's nomination?
Trump is a compulsive liar and a fraud; he always has been. Good luck hitching your wagon to that, because you're exactly the sucker he's been ripping off for decades.
sue--there a plenty of right wing leaning judges who do not have these problems with their past, and could be approved (and you correctly point to Gorsuch as one who was) but I think the committee wants to push through this nomination primarily because they want to have the republican party appear as unified before the election (they don't see it in the party's interest to split with Trump); their secondary concern is that they may lose their majority in the senate, but that is unlikely unless voters see them as being unreasonable. Hopefully, some of the centrist republicans will flip and indicate that they will vote against confirmation, in which case there will not be a vote at all, but we will see. Face it, I think a lot of repubs realize what an ass Trump is, but they just let him rant on and on and follow lockstep with his asinine policies.
BSG--put it aside or at least do a full investigation and fully vet him and the allegations. but don't count on it.
Thus far at least, this hearing has been an unmitigated disaster for the pro-Kavanaugh side...
Dr. Ford is coming across as very credible and sincere; not only in her demeanor in telling her story, but also in the way she is scrupulously paying attention to every detail of what she is being asked,and making corrections where appropriate...
Additionally, the gambit of going with the female prosecutor to do their questioning seems to be blowing up in their faces...
They wanted to avoid coming across as a bunch of bullies, but Ms. Mitchell's approach has been so non-confrontational and low key that she's so far at least not scored any points at all...
In fact the choppy format of going back and forth between her lawyerly questioning and the Democrats putting more and more into the record to build up Ford's credibility makes it tough to even follow where she's going with her questions...
Lord Jim wrote:In fact the choppy format of going back and forth between her lawyerly questioning and the Democrats putting more and more into the record to build up Ford's credibility makes it tough to even follow where she's going with her questions...
It looks like she is trying to identity inconsistencies and gaps in her various accounts, but you're right, not being able to continue a line of questioning as she would in a courtroom definitely breaks the momentum of whatever narrative she is trying to build.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Millions of people who fear flying are nonetheless required to do so regularly for work or in order to maintain familial connections or enjoy occasional vacations.
I have a significant fear of flying developed in adulthood and have to take tranquilizers and/or use alcohol or marijuana in order to get through the numerous flights I’ve taken in my life as a requirement of work and in order to see my family once or twice a decade while living across country. Despite using substances to tolerate my significant discomfort, on at least one occasion during an experience of brutal turbulence going in for a landing at Denver airport I almost lost my shit in a major way during a massive anxiety attack - I was removed to the back of the plane and strapped into one of the seats available for flight crew, and an air steward sat with me and held my hand until I got myself together after the plane had landed. I’m lucky they took that time with me, and I have a great deal of compassion when I see stories of people losing their shit on planes because most often it is probably directly related to anxiety over flying.
So fuck you for your assertion that someone who flies doesn’t really have a fear of flying; you are such an unbelievable moron and know so very little about so very much in life. POS!
Last edited by BoSoxGal on Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
well, she has been established as lying about her fear of flying......
No, what Mitchell established was that despite having an anxiety about flying Ford does in fact fly, perhaps several times a year for business and pleasure destinations...
A category into which millions of people fall...
If that's the best that can be done to undermine her credibility, it doesn't even qualify as weak tea...
One thing that is very clear, is that unless she has some unknown background as a highly trained super spy that has not been brought to light, or she's a complete psychopath, (for which there is no evidence) there is absolutely no way this lady could have beat a polygraph test...
Yet another area of questioning where Mitchell failed to land a glove; in fact after that exchange she looks even more credible regarding the polygraph...
Scooter wrote:After lots of flowery words about treating the witnesses fairly, Grassley proceeds to poison the well before Ford begins her testimony.
Been watching it all morning. I was astonished by that: if he is in the role of referee he should have kept it to housekeeping rules. To make the summary before the facts are presented is idiotic. But then again maybe not, given what we now know about much of the audience these days.
So far (and I realize we are seeing only the Ford case) she is coming across as immensely believable. She's human. I wonder if Kavanaugh is watching. Should he be allowed to? (I assume yes but this is not a criminal case.)
Not watching Fox; but CNN are reporting that even they (Fox) are calling this a disaster for the pro-Kavanaugh side.
I've been making a point of watching the analysis on FOX News during the breaks under the assumption that their pundits would be inclined to interpret the proceedings in the most charitable light for Kavanaugh, and their commentators are unanimous in their assessment that the hearing is going very badly for the nominee...
That Ford is coming across as extremely credible, and Mitchell hasn't put even a dent in that credibility...
In fact I just saw the hardcore Trump supporter former judge Anthony Napolitano say that he thought Mitchell's questioning was actually making Ford look even more credible.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
she had been on the edge of tears all day...., but no actual tears....
she has a doctorate in psychology.....
and seems to have extensive knowledge of the minds chemical processes
her polygraph administrator apparently said that he asked her only two questions....
she said that she told her whole life story....
they polygraph was administered after her grandma s funeral, and before a hurried flight to new Hampshire, in a hotel conference room outside BWI airport
her granny s funeral, a poly graph and a flight...., in quick succession
stressful things all
even as a layman I know that polygraphs are not anything near reliable when the questioned person is in an emotional state.
plus they don t have the full report from the polygraph
she does not strike me as reliable or honest, she strikes me as a strong woman playing a weak role on TV
Whoever claims that the polygraph administrator said he asked her only two questions is lying. There isn't any polygraph that is ever administered that way. Every polygraph begins with a raft of routine questions aimed at establishing a baseline response. Then the questions that form the basis of the inquiry are asked in several different ways in order to gauge the response.
And if you are actually listening to the testimony rather than taking your cues from Don Jr.'s tweets (which is where you parroted your "she was caught lying about being afraid of flying" line from), you would have heard Ford's lawyer say they wanted the polygraph administrator to testify and the chair refused. So no way that Ford is lying about being asked a barrage of questions.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
After reading your assessments wes, I don't know if you could beat a polygraph test, but I sure as hell wouldn't fancy your chances beating a drug test...
Actually the polygraph provider was on AC360 last night and he described the testing process (@ 2 hours in length) and it IS true that he only asked her two questions to be measured for deception by the machine.
However, that occurred after a very lengthy conversation prior wherein he asked her numerous questions, explained the polygraph, and went over her statement that she has signed as representing the truth of her recollection of the sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh.
Please understand that many lay people don’t know how polygraphs actually work, because they’ve been miseducated by TV and films depicting the process erroneously and in a very much abbreviated fashion. Additionally, there is more than one protocol utilized in the profession.
The guy who gave Ford her test uses the DOD protocol utilized by the federal government (which despite the court/legal standard uses polygraphs extensively related to management of employees) and he asserts there was no deception whatsoever in her responses, the two questions being 1) was her statement her entire honest recollection, 2) was any part of her statement fabricated.
You can watch the interview on YouTube or CNN page.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
Gee wes, wouldn't you think you could ask her to take another polygraph test if you were worried about accuracy and wanted to get to the truth? But no, there's no time for that; we have to have the committee vote tomorrow. No time to care about the truth. That's what happens when politicians don't do their jobs.
Gee wes, you say that like those are two contradictory things, when in point of fact they generally go hand-in-hand...(They certainly do in your case)
Fox News personality Andrew Napolitano—best known to viewers of the Donald Trump-friendly cable outlet as “The Judge,” in deference to his long-ago stretch on the Superior Court bench in New Jersey—is emerging as one of the 45th president’s more influential, if unconventional, ex-officio advisers.
The latest example of the judge’s curious sway with Trump occurred earlier this month, when Napolitano’s Jan. 11 appearance on the president’s favorite television show, Fox & Friends, prompted Trump to post a tweet parroting the judge’s vehement opposition to legislation renewing FISA—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—and expanding government powers to conduct warrantless mass surveillance of U.S. citizens, and to use the takings for criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
