I suspect they are, yes.
I’d think that it’s basically psudo-science either way. I also don’t think she lied, regardless, but not based on the polygraph results. Of course, I don’t think that her thinking that what she said is absolutely truthful means what everyone here assumes it means, as I’ve said before. I am starting to come around to the idea that it probably does, however, and that there is enough smoke here that Kavanaugh should definitely be set aside and the next candidate trotted out. Also, I’m totally good with that FBI investigation going forward.
She is doing what she was instructed to do, which is give Republican cover to,vote Kavanugh up.
It’s a fairly classic cross and pretty damn effective.
This is a very bad take.
I have to ask: What do you really think McConnell do in this situation?
There is a reason why the Rs are so desparate to confirm at any cost. If you don’t see that as blood in the water you are going to lose in your politics whatever you are trying to accomplish. You are going to be someones lunch.
The point is that each judge who is brought up and shot down takes time in which the american public is getting closer and closer to: Better understandings of their government, and being heard in the next election cycle. Saying it doesn’t matter because they will do the same thing anyway is defeatist, preauthoritarian thinking.
If and when K is shot down, why do you think that’s the same world that it was before he did? You never step into the same river twice. It’s later chronologically, it forces the Rs into making decisions and adjustments that they always make at the cost of their own integrity, and diginity. You don’t want to give up the ship, or run away and hide now.
You do realize the midterms are in a few weeks?
This is so.
In a way, it’s like this guy who allegedly came forward to claim he was the one who assaulted Ford. Apply the same standards to his statement as to Ford’s. He has nothing to gain by it, will no doubt come in for harassment and possible death threats, just like what was said about Ford. Even more - he is confessing to a crime, so he has more to lose.
Does he have any witnesses to back him up? Not AFAIK. Did he ever name any names publicly before July 2018, as Ford says she did? (Yes, she did.)
Cite. Is his account true, or false? Is it credible?
The point and the outcome of the hearing is not to establish “false” or “true”. For Democrats, it is to defeat the nomination if possible, and if not possible, to stall until after the mid-terms in hopes of gaining advantage or, in the long-shot of regaining the Senate, to argue that the nomination should be dropped until after they get control. For Republicans, they want the nomination to go thru, also for partisan purposes, and also to fight against the idea that unsubstantiated allegations should be enough to end a nomination.
That’s why this kind of thing is so laughable.
There is such a thing as projection.
Regards,
Shodan
Donald reportedly is furious at how credible Ford is. Will he withdraw the nomination before Kav makes an ass of both of them?
Do you have a cite for Kavanaugh saying that polygraph results should be used as evidence in trials?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
Who are you talking about when you say “this guy”?
The Democrats are making a meal of this. They seem to be talking at Prof Ford rather than talking to her. They need to protect her from cross. The only one who did so is the female Senator with the short hair, name starts with a “K”.
Shodan, let’s just get you on the record about something: all else being equal, are anonymous claims more or less credible than ones made on the record?
Cite?
So according to recent polls going into this 40% of voters (including more than a third of each Democrats and Republicans and 40% of Independents) are not sure who is telling the truth. So how does this play with those voters (assuming they watch at all)?
No question those who already have thoughts will see conformation for their thoughts and little to push them away. My guess is that those without an opinion so far will watch little other than highlighted clips of this thing and while Mitchell’s line does poor enough in real time, as sound clips it will likely play less well. A long approach at trying to minimize the importance of polygraph testing as proof seems to be of little utility in that sale nor to the targeted Senators who matter. Meanwhile Ford’s opening will play strong to those people.
We will see how Kavanaugh does but I predict lots of blinking which does not show well.
I took the time to lay out, in detail, why I thought Ford was believable. If you have substantive arguments feel free to make them. If all you have is snark, keep it to yourself.
This does not prove or disprove Ford’s allegations, but it is interesting background information:
I believe it. And I’m sure that he had to be informed how credible she is, as he could never figure it out on his own. In Trump’s myopic and narcisstic world, facts have never mattered, the only thing that matters is getting his own way.
Given the choice between two right-wing Supreme Court justices, I’ll take the one who isn’t a rapist, thanks.
Here:
Ah, the old “the victim was a slut” gambit. And at the age of 15, too. Good to see your side keeping it classy.
Just keep in mind that the purpose in cross examination is to elicit things which can be used for your own case theory. In real life people stick to their stories on cross, they don’t have tearful breakdowns admiting to lies. Certainly they have material if they need cover for wavering Senators of the GOP persuasion.