BaalChatzaf Posted September 23, 2018 Share Posted September 23, 2018 In the current dust up between Judge Kavanaugh and the Crazy Lady, what do you think the final outcome will be? I have no idea how to estimate this situation. Live Long and Prosper \\// Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 23, 2018 Share Posted September 23, 2018 This is theater. Now a new lady is coming out. This crap will go until it peters out or is shut down. Grassley better watch himself, though. He is really pissing off the base. As a political football, if Jeff Flake and other Senators keep playing footsie with this, I believe President Trump will allow the theater to drag on until after the midterms. Then there will be a large majority in the Senate to confirm Kavanaugh. President Trump has the media and persuasion chops to cook the slew of Dem women who will pop up to claim Kavanaugh is a sexual predator at a steadily increasing temperature. Once he gets the base boiling mad and fit to be tied, it will be voting time. Really pissed off people turn out in droves to vote. I love it when people underestimate President Trump. So, basically, the Kavanaugh theater is win-win for Trump. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, it's a win. If the voting on Kavanaugh is delayed until after the midterms, it's a win. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 Crazy crazy lady crazies vote, especially the ones who get all crazy owl when sexual assault allegations are belittled as "crazy." Don't underestimate the ick factor of eleven eighty-year old men trying to ram a judicial choice home over the objections of "Crazy" people within and without their own freaking party and in the White House. Tonight is the night the White House deep state effectively cuts Kavanaugh loose. He was reportedly furious with the faction that ratted him out (his 'moot' performances were abysmal and evasive) at 1600. Rhymes with Bonka and Hair Red. With the latest Bizzaro World Q drops from the 'Crazy' side of the issue ... I don't think next week's Supreme Hoopla redounds to the GOP or Mr Thompson's benefit. Bob, here's a crazy idea -- tell the women in your life you agree with the guy in the video below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 Muh polls! From the establishment neocon wing of Fox, at that! Oh man... Trump is doomed now! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 12 hours ago, william.scherk said: Crazy crazy lady crazies vote, especially the ones who get all crazy owl when sexual assault allegations are belittled as "crazy." Bullshit. Narrative™. As MSK said, it's pure political theatre. The "crazy crazy lady crazies," who have declared Kavanaugh guilty in the absence of any evidence, and who are shrieking at the tops of their lungs, are conspicuously silent and tolerant, if not outright supportive, of Keith Ellison, despite the actual existence of evidence of his abusive behavior. Kavanaugh's accusers are dedicated activist leftists, "Resisters," and fanatical anti-Trumpers. Ellison's accuser, on the other hand, is not a right-winger, but a fellow leftist, yet other leftists are throwing her under the bus, and some are even accusing her of making false accusations due to political motives (which, being a leftist, she doesn't have). Leftist Ellison is accused of having verbally and physically abused his leftist ex-girlfriend, and the "crazy crazy lady crazies" and the rest of the left's response is to shit on her. Leftist power is massively more important to them than considering the evidence, listening to the victim, believing her, and empathizing with her, as leftists demand of others whenever a right-winger is accused of anything. They don't care in the slightest what Ellison has done. Leftist "crazy crazy lady crazies" don't give a flying fuck about anyone being belittled as "crazy" when the person being accused is a powerful leftist Muslim. They are joining in and labeling the accuser as "crazy." J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 The real political danger is a failed confirmation vote if some GOP Senators cave. That would likely piss off the base so much a lot of it stays home in November. Post election there should be several more GOP Senators. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said: The real political danger is a failed confirmation vote if some GOP Senators cave. That would likely piss off the base so much a lot of it stays home in November. Post election there should be several more GOP Senators. --Brant And it would also encourage even more use of the new weapon. That's what the left does. If they succeed in establishing a presumption of guilt of republicans who are accused of anything, and the resulting destruction of those republicans, then every republican will suddenly be accused by anti-Trumpers in their pasts of rapey behavior. And they'll keep on using the ploy until it stops working. Meanwhile, they'll actively support and vote for Keith Ellison, even if the alleged video surfaces of him dragging his ex off the bed and around the room and screaming "I fucking told you to take the trash out, bitch!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 24, 2018 Author Share Posted September 24, 2018 22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: So, basically, the Kavanaugh theater is win-win for Trump. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, it's a win. If the voting on Kavanaugh is delayed until after the midterms, it's a win. Michael Interesting conclusion. You are far more optimistic than I am concerning Judge K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted September 24, 2018 Author Share Posted September 24, 2018 If the Democrat lefties get away with this Lying Bastards maneuver couldn't the Republicans do the same to them if the power in Congress is shifted? What one can do, two can also do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted September 24, 2018 Share Posted September 24, 2018 41 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said: If the Democrat lefties get away with this Lying Bastards maneuver couldn't the Republicans do the same to them if the power in Congress is shifted? What one can do, two can also do. Criminal to counter criminal? No, they just need the balls to stand up to this crap. --Brant the Reps have the power but the situation is marginal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KorbenDallas Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 Kavanaugh appeared on Foxnews with his wife in an exclusive interview, here is a video of it: One thing about all the witnesses that the first accuser has.... none of them recall it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 Seems to me the left figures it worked so well with Bill Cosby that they are trying it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 17 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Criminal to counter criminal? No, they just need the balls to stand up to this crap. --Brant the Reps have the power but the situation is marginal Republicans should be doing exactly what Keith Ellison and his supporters are doing, while constantly pointing out that they're doing exactly what Ellison and his supporters are doing. They should borrow Ellison's methods of dealing with the accusations, and specifically state that they are borrowing his methods because the left and its media apparently find those methods perfectly acceptable. People on the right should also demand, in every interview, and in every sentence that they speak or write, that the left and its media must treat them exactly the same way that they treat Ellison and his supporters. Turn every question and accusation into an examination of Ellison and leftist hypocrisy. "Are your asking the same question of Ellison and his supporters? Where may I see your or your news organization's confronting Ellison and his supporters in the same way that you're confronting me and mine? Where is the same concern for and trust of his alleged victims? Why aren't you following your rules about believing women? Why aren't you taking Ellison's accuser seriously?" Etc., etc. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 Jimmy Kimmel has an idea if the crazy lady doesn't work and they lose. Jimmy Kimmel Suggests Cutting Brett Kavanaugh’s Penis Off If He’s Confirmed The exact quote: Quote So Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, OK? Well, in return we get to cut that pesky penis of his off in front of everyone. That's about as lame as it gets qua comedy. A fart joke would have been better than that. It's time for Kimmel to go back to comedy school. Amputation is a difficult topic for yuk yuks, even if it is an attempt at a dick joke. Sorry, Kimmel. The rule never changes. A comedian needs people to laugh with him, not at him for being lame. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 48 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jimmy Kimmel has an idea if the crazy lady doesn't work and they lose. Jimmy Kimmel Suggests Cutting Brett Kavanaugh’s Penis Off If He’s Confirmed The exact quote: That's about as lame as it gets qua comedy. A fart joke would have been better than that. It's time for Kimmel to go back to comedy school. Amputation is a difficult topic for yuk yuks, even if it is an attempt at a dick joke. Sorry, Kimmel. The rule never changes. A comedian needs people to laugh with him, not at him for being lame. Michael Yeah, well, they're fascists. They're in favor of violence. They love it. That's what the left is. They often try to hide it, but it's what they've always advocated. They'd prefer to just vote to have the government perform their threats of violence for them, but when they lose power and no longer have the government acting as their proxy, they'll inevitably resort to initiating force and threats of force themselves. It's who they are at their cores. J https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/24/ted-cruz-protested-dc-restaurant/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 (edited) Bill Cosby was convicted of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman. He awaits sentencing. I don't remember the trial as being "The Left v Cosby," but hey. For those who haven't made up their minds that Kavanaugh is Snow White and accuser Ford is Maleficent, consider the points made by Elizabeth Loftus, in discussion with CNN's Anderson Cooper ... Now, meanwhile, Ford's attorney has released a statement saying, a rush to a hearing is unnecessary. The attorney also believes its quote "unfair" unquote, to have a hearing with just her client and Judge Kavanaugh and believes multiple witnesses should be included in the proceeding. [20:35:10] If a hearing does happen on Monday or at a later date even its going to center mostly of course around memory. What each person testifies to. What they remember. It's going to be focusing on something that allegedly happen or didn't happen more than 30 years ago. I want to talk about that with CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Shan Wu and also Elizabeth Loftus, a cognitive psychologist and memory researcher who's a professor at the University of California Irvine. Professor Loftus, when you look at the claim that Professor Ford has made, if you were involved in an investigation, what more would you want to know? I mean how reliable is a memory from 1982? ELIZABETH LOFTUS, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE: First of all, there is a lot of decay that happens in memory over that very, very long time. That certainly doesn't mean that she isn't remembering something awful that happened to her. The real question in this case that I have is, not whether this happened so much. But who actually did it. Because everything I've seen in the discussions of this case, one of the things I want to know is when did she attach the name Brett Kavanaugh to the episode that she is recounting from when she was 15 years old. And I wish somebody would ask that question because I think the answer to that question is pretty crucial. COOPER: Are you saying that -- that just not clear in the public record or that in a memory that old, in a traumatic incident, somebody can attach somebody's name who was not involved? LOFTUS: Well, first of all, not only are there lots and lots of cases of delayed memory of sexual abuse or sexual assault. But there are also a whole other category of cases of eyewitness testimony where people have tried to identify the face of a perpetrator and they make mistakes. And the major cause of wrongful convictions in -- and let's say, the DNA wrongful conviction cases is faulty eyewitness identification. So I think somebody who ought to be investigating this case and find out, not only did this happen, which it may well have happened, but who actually did it. COOPER: Shan, as a former prosecutor of sex crimes again, this wouldn't appear to be a criminal matter so many years later, but even as a political matter even just part of a background check, how much weight would you give on Dr. Ford's memory? SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It would all depend on what kind of corroboration there is. And certainly, I think Dr. Loftus and I in agreement that you have to have very good questioning. And actually, it kind of begs the question, that's why we need an investigation in this case is we haven't had those questions asked by professional investigators. So I think we agree on that. I think while we disagree is the notion of taking memory fallibility in a vacuum. Because good investigator doesn't take a memory just in a vacuum. That's an academic theory and of course people's memories may be faulty. Of course an investigator might be a bad investigator and ask leading questions. The point is, what kind of corroboration is there in a case? This whole notion we hear about with he said, she said, that's really kind of fiction Anderson. In actual sex offenses, it's never just he said, she said. Somebody else knows something. There could have been someone present, like in this case, there's a third person in the room. Someone saw them before the event, someone saw them after the event. It's never just these are the only two people and we just have to weigh one person's word against the other. It's all in the corroboration. And that's where the problem is with the idea of the false memory problems. Is that is all what kind of corroboration you have? And if you don't have any corroboration, then your not going to have a good case. COOPER: Professor Loftus, to that notion though, corroboration, I mean it's again, its 1982. So it is unlikely there's physical corroboration. You know, there's obviously, you know, finger prints, other physical evidence. So you're probably relying on other people's memories. Which again raises the question about the fallibility of memory, no? LOFTUS: Well, there could be some kind of other evidence. I don't know whether she kept a diary, whether she wrote in a diary, whether she produced the name of the person, the two people who she says assaulted her anywhere. Whether she -- your right, if she told someone and your question that person, there is another issue of memory here. And, you know, I very much appreciate the former prosecutor, you know, agreeing with me on some points and I agree with how many some as well. [20:40:06] But I have seen cases where there's virtually nothing other than people's memories and there is no corroboration. And they are very, very difficult cases. COOPER: Shan, if you were advising Professor Ford on how to deal with the judiciary committee this week, would you tell her anything different than her current lawyer seems to be advising which is not to rush into this? And again, we don't know if the lawyers are just saying that publicly and that's, you know, that's their upfront position and as a fallback they will agree to have their client testify even if there is an investigation? We don't know. WU: Well, I would strongly advise her and her legal team make the point that we need other expert testimony. We need expert testimony about the effects of trauma on sexual assault survivors, because that explains and effects when people disclose with younger victims, they often disclose in kind of interval. Something somewhat mild first and then more detailed later. And there's obviously science and data to support why that happens in human psychology and that's really important for the senators to have so they can make an informed type questioning. Not just be talking without understanding with the sciences behind it. And frankly, some of them might benefit some training on how to ask good questions. COOPER: Yes, that's a good point. Shan Wu, thank you very much, Elizabeth Loftus as well. Good discussion. Appreciate it. LOFTUS: My pleasure. Cosby has just been sentenced; three to ten years in state prison. Edited September 25, 2018 by william.scherk "Deliberative Reasoning is Second Nature to Randians." Oh really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Bill Cosby was convicted of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman. He awaits sentencing. I don't remember the trial as being Democrats v Cosby, but hey. What are you trying to say, Billy? If someone doesn't go along with the view of guilty until proven innocent regarding Kavanaugh, then they therefore must believe that any and all accusations of sexual assault are untrue and politically motivated? Seriously, is that the ploy that you're trying to pull here? Heh. 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: For those who haven't made up their minds that Kavanaugh is Snow White and accuser Ford is Maleficent... WTF? So, you really are taking the position that to maintain a presumption of innocence of the accused is icky bad. Doing so is choosing Kavanaugh's side and equating him with Snow White while also judging Ford to be Maleficent? That's your notion of fairness and rational jurisprudence? 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: ...consider the points made by Elizabeth Loftus, in discussion with CNN's Anderson Cooper ... Now, meanwhile, Ford's attorney has released a statement saying, a rush to a hearing is unnecessary. The attorney also believes its quote "unfair" unquote, to have a hearing with just her client and Judge Kavanaugh and believes multiple witnesses should be included in the proceeding. [20:35:10] If a hearing does happen on Monday or at a later date even its going to center mostly of course around memory. What each person testifies to. What they remember. It's going to be focusing on something that allegedly happen or didn't happen more than 30 years ago. I want to talk about that with CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Shan Wu and also Elizabeth Loftus, a cognitive psychologist and memory researcher who's a professor at the University of California Irvine. Professor Loftus, when you look at the claim that Professor Ford has made, if you were involved in an investigation, what more would you want to know? I mean how reliable is a memory from 1982? ELIZABETH LOFTUS, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE: First of all, there is a lot of decay that happens in memory over that very, very long time. That certainly doesn't mean that she isn't remembering something awful that happened to her. The real question in this case that I have is, not whether this happened so much. But who actually did it. Because everything I've seen in the discussions of this case, one of the things I want to know is when did she attach the name Brett Kavanaugh to the episode that she is recounting from when she was 15 years old. And I wish somebody would ask that question because I think the answer to that question is pretty crucial. COOPER: Are you saying that -- that just not clear in the public record or that in a memory that old, in a traumatic incident, somebody can attach somebody's name who was not involved? LOFTUS: Well, first of all, not only are there lots and lots of cases of delayed memory of sexual abuse or sexual assault. But there are also a whole other category of cases of eyewitness testimony where people have tried to identify the face of a perpetrator and they make mistakes. And the major cause of wrongful convictions in -- and let's say, the DNA wrongful conviction cases is faulty eyewitness identification. So I think somebody who ought to be investigating this case and find out, not only did this happen, which it may well have happened, but who actually did it. COOPER: Shan, as a former prosecutor of sex crimes again, this wouldn't appear to be a criminal matter so many years later, but even as a political matter even just part of a background check, how much weight would you give on Dr. Ford's memory? SHAN WU, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It would all depend on what kind of corroboration there is. And certainly, I think Dr. Loftus and I in agreement that you have to have very good questioning. And actually, it kind of begs the question, that's why we need an investigation in this case is we haven't had those questions asked by professional investigators. So I think we agree on that. I think while we disagree is the notion of taking memory fallibility in a vacuum. Because good investigator doesn't take a memory just in a vacuum. That's an academic theory and of course people's memories may be faulty. Of course an investigator might be a bad investigator and ask leading questions. The point is, what kind of corroboration is there in a case? This whole notion we hear about with he said, she said, that's really kind of fiction Anderson. In actual sex offenses, it's never just he said, she said. Somebody else knows something. There could have been someone present, like in this case, there's a third person in the room. Someone saw them before the event, someone saw them after the event. It's never just these are the only two people and we just have to weigh one person's word against the other. It's all in the corroboration. And that's where the problem is with the idea of the false memory problems. Is that is all what kind of corroboration you have? And if you don't have any corroboration, then your not going to have a good case. COOPER: Professor Loftus, to that notion though, corroboration, I mean it's again, its 1982. So it is unlikely there's physical corroboration. You know, there's obviously, you know, finger prints, other physical evidence. So you're probably relying on other people's memories. Which again raises the question about the fallibility of memory, no? LOFTUS: Well, there could be some kind of other evidence. I don't know whether she kept a diary, whether she wrote in a diary, whether she produced the name of the person, the two people who she says assaulted her anywhere. Whether she -- your right, if she told someone and your question that person, there is another issue of memory here. And, you know, I very much appreciate the former prosecutor, you know, agreeing with me on some points and I agree with how many some as well. [20:40:06] But I have seen cases where there's virtually nothing other than people's memories and there is no corroboration. And they are very, very difficult cases. COOPER: Shan, if you were advising Professor Ford on how to deal with the judiciary committee this week, would you tell her anything different than her current lawyer seems to be advising which is not to rush into this? And again, we don't know if the lawyers are just saying that publicly and that's, you know, that's their upfront position and as a fallback they will agree to have their client testify even if there is an investigation? We don't know. WU: Well, I would strongly advise her and her legal team make the point that we need other expert testimony. We need expert testimony about the effects of trauma on sexual assault survivors, because that explains and effects when people disclose with younger victims, they often disclose in kind of interval. Something somewhat mild first and then more detailed later. And there's obviously science and data to support why that happens in human psychology and that's really important for the senators to have so they can make an informed type questioning. Not just be talking without understanding with the sciences behind it. And frankly, some of them might benefit some training on how to ask good questions. COOPER: Yes, that's a good point. Shan Wu, thank you very much, Elizabeth Loftus as well. Good discussion. Appreciate it. LOFTUS: My pleasure. Why? Why should we consider her points? Do her comments contain evidence? Do they remove all reasonable doubt? 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: Cosby has just been sentenced; three to ten years in state prison. Sentenced? What's "sentenced" mean? There aren't any "sentences" in the style of "justice" that you're supporting, but only public smearing and loss of reputation. I mean, in the above, aren't you advocating skipping the idea of silly old notions such as trials and evidence and the right to face one's accuser and cross-examine her? Stuff like that is mean, and takes the side of the person whom you don't want to win. It's much better to just hear accusations, and then have feelings about which side to believe, and then take opinion polls, no? J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 Btw, Billy, what do you think of the Keith Ellison predicament? Do you think he's Snow fucking White or something? Why do you love him so much? Huh? Why do you hate his accuser and think that she's a lying whore? Huh? Why? J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 Gotta love Ann: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 18 minutes ago, william.scherk said: Gotta love Ann: She's got a spine, that's for sure. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Jimmy Kimmel has an idea if the crazy lady doesn't work and they lose. Jimmy Kimmel Suggests Cutting Brett Kavanaugh’s Penis Off If He’s Confirmed The exact quote: That's about as lame as it gets qua comedy. A fart joke would have been better than that. It's time for Kimmel to go back to comedy school. Amputation is a difficult topic for yuk yuks, even if it is an attempt at a dick joke. Sorry, Kimmel. The rule never changes. A comedian needs people to laugh with him, not at him for being lame. Michael Lorena Bobbit was a muh russian! Her real name was Lorena kucherkokov . She has a half sister named Onya Bakyabich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 (edited) Two views of the Kavanaugh Us versus Them Olympics, sure to dominate the world's airwaves, tubes and sewers in a couple of days. The 'Ram This Through' view: The 'Grrrl Power' view: [Added by WSS]Just in: Edited September 25, 2018 by william.scherk A tip from the fake news ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 It looks like Dr. Christine Blasey Ford will testify. Or not. At any rate, she says her big worry is having her safety assured. But come on... She's got the wrong government person for that worry. She should thank her lucky stars she isn't testifying against Hillary Clinton. Then I agree she would be right to worry... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 All this shit for nothing. And the Dem insiders are still hell-bent on going down with the ship, believing the Dems will vote in lockstep after Thursday. From Politico: Red-state Democrats refuse to come out against Kavanaugh Good. If that holds, and I don't see why it will not, we can let Flake flake off. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 I notice no one has stepped forward claiming to have had sex with Hillary...ewe? 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