• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

Page 72 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
pcgeek11 said:
The only part that really bothers me is that Many have the opinion that he is already guilty based on a very thin accusation. This is wrong.

For those that are of the mind that he is guilty based on what we know at this time, I hope that they get accused of sexual assault by a woman and have to go through this.

How could you possibly "know she is probably right" based on the thin evidence that is only her accusation.
Click to expand...
Now consider the motive for her actions, which have led directly to threats against her life and the lives of those in her family.

What is worth that risk ON TOP of the part where lying to the FBI is a felony and she's asking to talk to them.

Weigh it all, man. Then pull out your Occam's razor.
 
blackangst1 said:
Still supports what I said.

Where's the science that says memories stay accurate over time?
Click to expand...
Great goalpost position.

You understand if you're right about this specific detail it doesn't actually affect the reality of this situation and you're making lots of illogical leaps, right?
 
jackstar7 said:
Great goalpost position.

You understand if you're right about this specific detail it doesn't actually affect the reality of this situation and you're making lots of illogical leaps, right?
Click to expand...
I know you don't want to but I suggest you read the links I posted. That will answer your question.
 
pcgeek11 said:
I don't think that "hearing about it contemporaneously" is valid as evidence.
Click to expand...
You are simply blind. Hearing about something contemporaneously is always suggestive of validity, but not proof of it. This is simply the logical result of the fact, say that a fireball passes over Kansas is more likely to validate one person’s claim to have seen it if others say the same thing. Your absurd cult behavior makes it impossible for you to understand the simplest logic.
 
Republicans are also discussing trying to find female outside lawyer(s) to conduct the questioning for them because...you know. This assumes a hearing happens.
 
blackangst1 said:
Like this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337233/

Traumatic or not memories can change quite a bit over time.
Click to expand...
You and that makes every memory that goes against cult thinking automatically invalid. How stupid do you have to be to think that because any one memory may be somewhat tainted that every memory is, especially the ones you don’t want to hear. Why is it you are not asking why Kavanaugh has conveniently forgotten he tried to rape a girl while he was drunk off his ass?
 
Moonbeam said:
You and that makes every memory that goes against cult thinking automatically invalid. How stupid do you have to be to think that because any one memory may be somewhat tainted that every memory is, especially the ones you don’t want to hear. Why is it you are not asking why Kavanaugh has conveniently forgotten he tried to rape a girl while he was drunk off his ass?
Click to expand...
Moonie, I'm sorry you've been pushed back to this. I greatly appreciate your nuanced and compassionate takes on things.

Judging by your posts it seems like compassion has been exhausted for these purposely obtuse folks. They did it to themselves, but they did it to you, too, and it makes me loathe them a little more that they could darken your light.
 
jackstar7 said:
Ooh! I know. It's because they have no idea how to treat women with respect!
Click to expand...

As a concept I think some of them understand but in practice the possibility of one or more titanic fuck ups (live for the nation to see) is extraordinarily high.

That said I don't know that many of the Democratic men on the committee will take the risk either however they have four female members to fall back on instead. If I was up there I'd probably yield my time to Kamala Harris.
 
Some big supporter of Kavanaugh just blamed the attempted rape on one of his classmates. There is an insane twitter thread making the case.

Holy defamation suit!
 
Last edited:
Moonbeam said:
You and that makes every memory that goes against cult thinking automatically invalid. How stupid do you have to be to think that because any one memory may be somewhat tainted that every memory is, especially the ones you don’t want to hear. Why is it you are not asking why Kavanaugh has conveniently forgotten he tried to rape a girl while he was drunk off his ass?
Click to expand...
Because the only evidence there is that this happened is Ford's statement. Meanwhile there have been many statements as to Kavanaugh's integrity. My conclusion is logical, but open to change... Should there be something other than one person's statement.
 
blackangst1 said:
I have no logical failures. I believe her memory is faulty and I provided science to back up my opinion. Is that confusing for you?
Click to expand...
Not confusing at all. You have a narrative to maintain and you'll fight will all of your ego-identity to preserve it, and reject all the evidence that would threaten it.

Pretty simple really.
 
blackangst1 said:
Because the only evidence there is that this happened is Ford's statement. Meanwhile there have been many statements as to Kavanaugh's integrity. My conclusion is logical, but open to change... Should there be something other than one person's statement.
Click to expand...
You keep saying statement (singular), as though that's the only thing we know about. Why is that?
 
Ok. Just throw the whole federal judiciary nominating process on the garbage heap of history and come up with something new. This shit is insane.

Maybe require a supermajority to actually install anybody so we, theoretically, end up with political moderates across the board. A term instead of lifetime appointments sound good too.
 
blackangst1 said:
Because the only evidence there is that this happened is Ford's statement. Meanwhile there have been many statements as to Kavanaugh's integrity. My conclusion is logical, but open to change... Should there be something other than one person's statement.
Click to expand...

Integrity? Kavanaugh’s previous testimony to the senate at his last confirmation hearing is, at the absolutely most charitable, misleading. The most likely answer is that he deliberately lied.

If anything the integrity issue works against Kavanaugh, not for him. Honestly the prior likely perjury should have disqualified him without this accusation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/

Try reading that and conclude that you should believe a word that comes out of his mouth.
 
Looks like Kavanaugh has a history of objectifying women. I did wonder why his clerks were all so attractive. Lawyers are actually not any more attractive than normal americans... yet kavanaugh seems to pick em.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua

'No accident' Brett Kavanaugh's female law clerks 'looked like models', Yale professor told students

A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.
Click to expand...
 
fskimospy said:
Of course it is. Why wouldn’t it be?
Click to expand...


Did you ever hear the term "rumor mill" used. Just because you heard something from somebody means nothing. Neither in a court or as evidence that something happened.

There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also:

From the Oxford Dictionary

Hearsay - Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Did you ever hear the term "rumor mill" used. Just because you heard something from somebody means nothing. Neither in a court or as evidence that something happened.

There is a reason for hearsay rules in court and it should apply in this case also:

From the Oxford Dictionary

Hearsay - Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
Click to expand...
Is this a court?

Yes or No
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top