Well hello there Justice Kavanaugh

[knapplc]

44 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Corroborating evidence is obviously evidence that backs up one’s claims and helps to prove that it is true. So in a sense, it is a form of a proof, as it helps to prove one’s claims.

 

The fact that after being asked repeatedly, you can only point to Ford and Kavanaugh knowing each other as corroboration of her claim that he attempted to rape her is pretty mind-blowing. 

 

There’s really nothing else? She doesn’t know where it was, when it was, whose house it was, how she got there, how she got home, or any other key details, and the people she claimed were there deny being there or having any idea what she’s talking about. She said she can’t fly in planes because she’s scared, but flies all the time. She claimed she has two front doors to her house so she’ll feel safe, but it turns out that’s a common dodge people use so they can rent part of their homes. 

 

Nothing she has said checks out.

 

But hey, she said she knew him back then and it appears she did. So when she says he tried to rape her, we should just go ahead and believe her...right?

 

DUMBEST....ARGUMENT...EVER....

 

You claimed there wasn't any corroborating evidence at all. I can quote that post again if you want. 

 

But there is corroborating evidence. And I don't have to provide any more than one bit to show you're wrong. Which I did, and you admitted to, so we can move on now.

 

Thanks for playing. 

[Ric Flair]

14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You claimed there wasn't any corroborating evidence at all. I can quote that post again if you want. 

 

But there is corroborating evidence. And I don't have to provide any more than one bit to show you're wrong. Which I did, and you admitted to, so we can move on now.

 

Thanks for playing. 

 

Does the fact she knew him tend to make it more likely that he sexually assaulted her?

 

I don’t think that corroborates anything. 

 

[Landlord]

^ is still definitely not a lawyer

[Moiraine]

21 minutes ago, Landlord said:

^ is still definitely not a lawyer

 

 

Reported

[RedDenver]

On 10/9/2018 at 6:07 PM, Ric Flair said:

 

Does the fact she knew him tend to make it more likely that he sexually assaulted her?

 

I don’t think that corroborates anything. 

 

Umm, what? The fact she knows him means that she would be much more likely to identify him. Being able to identify him is corroborating evidence.

[Ric Flair]

18 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Umm, what? The fact she knows him means that she would be much more likely to identify him. Being able to identify him is corroborating evidence.

 

Not necessarily. If she’s simply lying, then the fact she knew him doesn’t matter. 

 

If she’s mistaken because her identification is based on a faulty memory or even a reconstructed memory, the fact she knew him might actually likelihood she misidentified him. 

 

The starting point is Ford saying that Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her. When we talk about corroboration, we’re talking about independent evidence outside of her story that supports her account. In this case, there simply isn’t any. She can’t remember key details that would make it possible to verify her story. And the witnesses she insisted were there have made clear they have no memory of the party or idea what she’s talking about.

[Making Chimichangas]

Saw this on social media, and wow, how apt...

 

"The Brock Turners of America grow up to be the Brett Kavanaughs; who then let the Brock Turners get away with rape and every other violent crime because they don't want to "ruin" a rich, white male's future."

 

[ZRod]

What's lost in this discussion, because Ric is so good at the Gish Gallop, is that it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty of a crime in his youth. He is wholly unfit to hold the highest bench in the land, as he is a paranoid, conspiracy driven, immature partisan fraud. It's sad that it took such accusations tobunciver the truth. His arguments wouldn't have held up in any court, and asking others to be held to a higher standard than he held himself to is a moral and ethical delima.

[Danny Bateman]

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

What's lost in this discussion, because Ric is so good at the Gish Gallop, is that it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty of a crime in his youth. He is wholly unfit to hold the highest bench in the land, as he is a paranoid, conspiracy driven, immature partisan fraud. It's sad that it took such accusations tobunciver the truth. His arguments wouldn't have held up in any court, and asking others to be held to a higher standard than he held himself to is a moral and ethical delima.

 

He revealed his character to us irrespective of any accusations. Whether or not we believe him is up to each one of us.

 

Anybody else who went into a job interview like that wouldn't have gotten a call back, and it wouldn't have been a particularly difficult decision.

[Making Chimichangas]

6 minutes ago, ZRod said:

What's lost in this discussion, because Ric is so good at the Gish Gallop, is that it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty of a crime in his youth. He is wholly unfit to hold the highest bench in the land, as he is a paranoid, conspiracy driven, immature partisan fraud.  It's sad that it took such accusations tobunciver the truth. His arguments wouldn't have held up in any court, and asking others to be held to a higher standard than he held himself to is a moral and ethical delima.

 

The bolded...what a concise description.

[ZRod]

6 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

He revealed his character to us irrespective of any accusations. Whether or not we believe him is up to each one of us.

 

Anybody else who went into a job interview like that wouldn't have gotten a call back, and it wouldn't have been a particularly difficult decision.

As you know I kept a pretty open mind, and didn't have much of an issue with the nomination. But the way he acted during the Ford hearings was absolutely disgusting and unbecoming. Regardless of the merits of the accusations, no government officials should conduct themselves in that manor.

[Danny Bateman]

2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

As you know I kept a pretty open mind, and didn't have much of an issue with the nomination. But the way he acted during the Ford hearings was absolutely disgusting and unbecoming. Regardless of the merits of the accusations, no government officials should conduct themselves in that manor.

 

I agree and I applaud you for changing your opinion strictly on principle. Good for you.

 

People actually acting out of principle makes me think our politics aren't totally doomed after all. 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Not necessarily. If she’s simply lying, then the fact she knew him doesn’t matter. 

 

If she’s mistaken because her identification is based on a faulty memory or even a reconstructed memory, the fact she knew him might actually likelihood she misidentified him. 

 

The starting point is Ford saying that Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her. When we talk about corroboration, we’re talking about independent evidence outside of her story that supports her account. In this case, there simply isn’t any. She can’t remember key details that would make it possible to verify her story. And the witnesses she insisted were there have made clear they have no memory of the party or idea what she’s talking about.

You don't understand corroborating means. Ford knew Kavanaugh from high school, which means that she would be able to identify him. That's corroborating evidence because when she identified him as her assailant, nobody would wonder if she could pick Kavanaugh out of a lineup. It's not proof or even strong evidence, but it is corroborating. And it's independent evidence because Ford knowing Kavanaugh has nothing to do with her story.

 

If you really went to law school, then you'd already know these things.

[Ric Flair]

13 hours ago, ZRod said:

What's lost in this discussion, because Ric is so good at the Gish Gallop, is that it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty of a crime in his youth. He is wholly unfit to hold the highest bench in the land, as he is a paranoid, conspiracy driven, immature partisan fraud. It's sad that it took such accusations tobunciver the truth. His arguments wouldn't have held up in any court, and asking others to be held to a higher standard than he held himself to is a moral and ethical delima.

 

He was accused of being a sexual predator and gang rapist. Those allegations were made by Democrats as part of an evil and cynical plan to derail his nomination and hold the seat open until Democrats could fill it.

 

Democrats still haven’t come to terms with the fact THEY LOST the 2016 election. They are having trouble accepting that DONALD J. TRUMP IS THEIR PRESIDENT TOO. They can’t reconcile themselves to the fact that HIS ELECTION WAS LEGITIMATE. 

 

Kavanaugh called them on their ridiculous BS and evil smear campaign. Good for him.

 

And then KAVANAUGH WON TOO!

 

No wonder the idiots in their vagina hats are losing their damn minds.

[Ric Flair]

13 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You don't understand corroborating means. Ford knew Kavanaugh from high school, which means that she would be able to identify him. That's corroborating evidence because when she identified him as her assailant, nobody would wonder if she could pick Kavanaugh out of a lineup. It's not proof or even strong evidence, but it is corroborating. And it's independent evidence because Ford knowing Kavanaugh has nothing to do with her story.

 

If you really went to law school, then you'd already know these things.

 

It depends on your definition of corroborating. If she’s lying, nuts, or simply misremembering, the fact she knew him in high school would make her far more likely to falsely claim it was him.

 

You’re arguing that the fact she knew him makes it less likely she would misidentify him and mistakenly pick him out of a lineup. But that’s simply not true based on the research on how memory works, particularly when reconstructed decades later.