Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?
Poll
 | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 9 votes (75%) |
12 members have voted
Quote: TigerWuQuote: Keyser
They're both crimes, depending on intent.
And neither one is "tolerance."
What a stupid picture.
Regardless, let's be honest, here... Kavanaugh is a federal judge and Supreme Court nominee. His life is far from "ruined" if he doesn't get the SC or he loses his federal job. If that were to happen he could probably walk on to a teaching position at half the law schools in the country. He writes a couple of books, and boom, he's set for the rest of his life.
Yes possible book titles:
The haves and the Kavanaughs
The Calves and the Kavanaughs
Supreme court job: To have or Kavanaugh
How Hillary Clinton ruined my life
How the FBI ruined my life
How the girl I tried to rape ruined my life
When Senator Flake became a snowflake...and ruined my life
Any others guys
Quote: WizardMy opinion is both sides believe they are telling the truth.
No.
One of them is lying.
Who?
Quote: djatcwhat kinda odds can i get that kavanaugh becomes a supreme court judge?
really nobody is offering me odds? So everything thinks Ford is lying?
Quote: MrVNo.
One of them is lying.
Who?
I believe the odds are really really low Ford mistook two guys which is what one has to believe. So someone is definitely lying and not confused.
Quote: gamerfreakMixed gender bathrooms wouldn’t be a problem if we didn’t install these weird f’ing semi-private stalls.
Why do we need a weird 3 foot gap at the bottom so everyone can see your pants and bare ass legs?
Why is there a 3 inch peek-a-boo gap around the door?
I’ve heard that they don’t install stalls like that in Europe. It’s a normal freaking door that goes down to the floor and weird gap around the edges.
As a practical matter, it is easier to clean and keep clean.
The foot high gap to the floor lets you run a mop underneath them, and there are no edges or corners that are hard to reach into and clean properly.
The gaps around the door allow them to be cleaned and closed without drying, so you aren't touching two dark wet surfaces together when closed, a breeding ground for bacteria.
It also allows you to have fewer floor drains and exhaust fans.
I imagine it is also a lot less expensive and easier to install and replace.
Quote: djatcwhat kinda odds can i get that kavanaugh becomes a supreme court judge?
Careful. Someone will book your bet and then point out there are no Supreme Court judges.
They are Justices.
Quote: djatcreally nobody is offering me odds? So everything thinks Ford is lying?
I don't think she's lying but I also think he's going to get the job anyway.
So let's say my hypothetical account is what really happened. Let's say Judge and Kavanaugh had boffed (oops, that means farted) or banged a few willing 15 year olds previously in a consensual manner similar to the way this event started. How does it go for Kavanaugh if he testifies.... "We thought she wanted to have sex with us, she wasn't drunk, and when it became clear she didn't everything stopped. The other girls we had sex with were all ok with it."
If you now believe Kavanaugh, is that information enough to disqualify him from 36 years later being on the Supreme Court?
I find my account more believable than either of the accounts given by the accused and the accuser.
Quote: billryanCareful. Someone will book your bet and then point out there are no Supreme Court judges.
They are Justices.
ok smart guy what's a devil's triangle? (not being sarcastic I literally know nothing about beer pong games)
Quote: SOOPOOHow about this possibility? Ford as a 15 year old went to a small group drinking party with older boys, and went up to the bedroom. The older boys were used to the young drinking girls who went up to the bedroom interested in what drinking young girls do when they go to a bedroom with drinking older boys. At some point the young girl realized she made a mistake, and when the older boys realized this she scurried downstairs. Hard to believe if the older boys wanted to rape the younger girl they wouldn't have succeeded.
So let's say my hypothetical account is what really happened. Let's say Judge and Kavanaugh had boffed (oops, that means farted) or banged a few willing 15 year olds previously in a consensual manner similar to the way this event started. How does it go for Kavanaugh if he testifies.... "We thought she wanted to have sex with us, she wasn't drunk, and when it became clear she didn't everything stopped. The other girls we had sex with were all ok with it."
If you now believe Kavanaugh, is that information enough to disqualify him from 36 years later being on the Supreme Court?
I find my account more believable than either of the accounts given by the accused and the accuser.
I have thought about this myself SOOPOO. In this era though, I just dont know if it is forgivable, at least in the media. There is alot the public can forgive if you own up and say "my bad'. Hello Obama came out and admitted he did blow...nobody cared, because he confessed and said he was a stupid youngster thing he did. IMO this would be a different scenario.
Quote: TigerWuI don't think she's lying but I also think he's going to get the job anyway.
I think you under estimate the persistence of the liberal left.
Quote: SOOPOOHow about this possibility? Ford as a 15 year old went to a small group drinking party with older boys, and went up to the bedroom. The older boys were used to the young drinking girls who went up to the bedroom interested in what drinking young girls do when they go to a bedroom with drinking older boys. At some point the young girl realized she made a mistake, and when the older boys realized this she scurried downstairs. Hard to believe if the older boys wanted to rape the younger girl they wouldn't have succeeded.
So let's say my hypothetical account is what really happened. Let's say Judge and Kavanaugh had boffed (oops, that means farted) or banged a few willing 15 year olds previously in a consensual manner similar to the way this event started. How does it go for Kavanaugh if he testifies.... "We thought she wanted to have sex with us, she wasn't drunk, and when it became clear she didn't everything stopped. The other girls we had sex with were all ok with it."
If you now believe Kavanaugh, is that information enough to disqualify him from 36 years later being on the Supreme Court?
I find my account more believable than either of the accounts given by the accused and the accuser.
I've thought of another possibility, and although it's not forcible rape, it would still get him a groping charge. It falls under the stupid things teens pretend they are going to do but really aren't going to do.
A perfect example involves several teens riding in a car. The guy in the backseat reaches up to the front seat and opens the door on the guy riding shotgun as the car makes a left turn. The guy riding shotgun thinks he is going to be thrown out, but the guy in the middle and the guy in the backseat are actually holding on to him.
It scares the shit out of the guy in the front seat and the others have a laugh at him. Although it is a stupid and dangerous prank there was actually no real intent to throw the guy out of the car. SO, I consider it possible there could be some version of two drunk guys acting they are going to do something which they actually were never going to do.
But even if this was a possibility, Kavenaugh has already denied anything ever happened at all, so I don't feel sorry for him if he has decided to just lie about everything and pretend he is a squeeky clean drunken sot.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkHello Obama came out and admitted he did blow...nobody cared, because he confessed and said he was a stupid youngster thing he did.
Nobody cares if you do a little blow as a youngster, but god help you if you put mustard on your hamburger.
Quote: SOOPOOHow about this possibility? Ford as a 15 year old went to a small group drinking party with older boys, and went up to the bedroom. The older boys were used to the young drinking girls who went up to the bedroom interested in what drinking young girls do when they go to a bedroom with drinking older boys. At some point the young girl realized she made a mistake, and when the older boys realized this she scurried downstairs. Hard to believe if the older boys wanted to rape the younger girl they wouldn't have succeeded.
So let's say my hypothetical account is what really happened. Let's say Judge and Kavanaugh had boffed (oops, that means farted) or banged a few willing 15 year olds previously in a consensual manner similar to the way this event started. How does it go for Kavanaugh if he testifies.... "We thought she wanted to have sex with us, she wasn't drunk, and when it became clear she didn't everything stopped. The other girls we had sex with were all ok with it."
If you now believe Kavanaugh, is that information enough to disqualify him from 36 years later being on the Supreme Court?
I find my account more believable than either of the accounts given by the accused and the accuser.
Assuming that Ford's account of the event is true, there is one thing (among others) that bothers me.
You have Ford at a party with her best friend Leland. Ford believes that she was about to be raped and might unintentionally be killed and then she leaves the house WITHOUT her best friend. She ABANDONS her friend and LEAVES her friend ALONE with guys who she believes could be rapists. She leaves her ALONE to possibly suffer the same fate.
She tells no one
Quote: TigerWuNobody cares if you do a little blow as a youngster, but god help you if you put mustard on your hamburger.
LOL, ok I dont get this euphemism. Please help.
Quote: CharmedQuarkI think you under estimate the persistence of the liberal left.
I don't question their persistence, I just don't think they have the hit points to continue this battle.
Kavanaugh will get confirmed next week, and everyone will go back to talking about the Russia Investigation and the Mid-terms.
That's my prediction.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkLOL, ok I dont get this euphemism. Please help.
It's just a joke that Obama got flack for putting mustard on a hamburger one time.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkWait, I put mustard on my burger too? Whats the problem with this?
Obama went to some sort Diner and the news cameras were filming him, and he asked if they had something like Grey Poupon or Dijon mustard.
Sean Hannity and other conservative outlets were obsessed with it for some reason
Quote: VCUSkyhawkWait, I put mustard on my burger too? Whats the problem with this?
Thanks for being honest. You will pave the way for others shamed into silence.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkWait, I put mustard on my burger too? Whats the problem with this?
It is literally disgusting. As far as the “big 3” condiments go, I only use mayonnaise and ketchup on my burgs.
Quote: RSIt is literally disgusting. As far as the “big 3” condiments go, I only use mayonnaise and ketchup on my burgs.
But do you put it on Hot Dogs, and if so then why the snub towards burgers. Man all this talk is making me hungry for a nice juicy burger.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI will say dijoun on a burger is a bit odd, but hey to each their own. Why was this a news story???
Because Obama had very few real scandals during his Presidency, so the right wing media had to invent things to criticize him about when they ran out of talking points.
He also got criticized for wearing a tan suit one time and saluting a Marine while holding a coffee cup or something. There were a handful of other stupid criticisms like that at various points.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkWait, I put mustard on my burger too? Whats the problem with this?
Jefferson Davis is generally credited with first putting mustard on a burger. After WW1, mustard use in the U.S. dropped due to its connection with the poison gas that crippled and killed thousands of America's sons. Add in that Judas allegedly hung himself from a mustard tree and you should be able to connect the dots.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkI dont want that to be the case, but I honestly dont care either. From my limited discussions in the political forum, most can guess I am a libertarian who leans a fair amount conservative. However, as a person who doesnt care for Trump, I have alienated the likes of AZ. As somebody who backs a traditional conservative I have alienated people like ams and BBB. Its all good. Like I said in another thread, it doesn't stop me from liking non political things they say and I would hope they would do me the same.
Where do you get the idea you have alienated me? I don't think I've said anything to suggest it.
There ARE people who have alienated me on this site, it's true. They cross the line from argument to trolling, mocking, or haranguing people they disagree with.
But you are willing to have a conversation with some honesty and facts, and put forward your viewpoint with some thought and reason. I can enjoy that type of conversation, and learn from it, even if I disagree with your viewpoint or conclusions.
That used to be how it worked. Could be again. Just depends on why a person is here.
Anonymity hides a multitude of sins, so a lot of otherwise pleasant people seem to use a forum like this to be unpleasant. I'm a Popeye, myself (I Yam Whut I Yam), but it's a release of anger or energy for others.
Anyway, you seem to be genuine, so no alienation. Would you be surprised to know that I'm good friends with several of the most vociferous conservatives on here? True dat.
Quote: djatccatsup on hot dogs dont @ me
Well, yeah. Gotta have a little hot dog with your catsup. Makes it chewy.
Quote: djatccatsup on hot dogs dont @ me
I either eat my hot dogs plain or with ketchup.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhere do you get the idea you have alienated me? I don't think I've said anything to suggest it.
There ARE people who have alienated me on this site, it's true. They cross the line from argument to trolling, mocking, or haranguing people they disagree with.
But you are willing to have a conversation with some honesty and facts, and put forward your viewpoint with some thought and reason. I can enjoy that type of conversation, and learn from it, even if I disagree with your viewpoint or conclusions.
That used to be how it worked. Could be again. Just depends on why a person is here.
Anonymity hides a multitude of sins, so a lot of otherwise pleasant people seem to use a forum like this to be unpleasant. I'm a Popeye, myself (I Yam Whut I Yam), but it's a release of anger or energy for others.
Anyway, you seem to be genuine, so no alienation. Would you be surprised to know that I'm good friends with several of the most vociferous conservatives on here? True dat.
I apologize for the assumption Babs. I know we are definitely ideological opposites, but I have generally found you to be a fair mod. Modding aint easy.
Quote: RSLotsa unbiased opinions out there, lol.
I was laughing my a** off when they asked about a page she wrote, if it was true. She could have simply said “yes”. Instead, she read it all, slowly, then began rattling off the definition of “bystander” and other crap.
I thought both were pretty similar as far as avoiding answering as well as actually answering questions.
She was asked to review copies of things she had previously written, most months ago, when she was not under oath, before they became part of her sworn testimony and subject to felony charges. She would have been a fool - no, a FOOL - not to have reviewed what they handed her for accuracy, ambiguity, or in light of whatever new information came out since they were written.
They were, in fact, almost completely DISsimilar in how often they answered the question they were actually asked. Someone's already done a study on it.
Look at the chart at the bottom. That was done from the transcript by Bloomberg.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart
Quote: MrVOne of them is lying.
How do you know?
I'm quite sure it happened. But I don't think he's lying. He doesn't remember.
How come no one else remembers it either? So far, everyone has refuted her claims, including her own friend who she admits to abandoning in a rape house. Then afterward, she even made nice with his friend at the supermarket.Quote: beachbumbabsI said this before, and I still think it's most likely. Kavanaugh doesn't know what happens when he's too drunk to know what he's like.
I'm quite sure it happened. But I don't think he's lying. He doesn't remember.
She either went to very few parties and should remember this event (since it was seared into her memory) or she went to a sh*t ton of parties before and after and is now confused what one she may have been assaulted at and who it was that may have assaulted her.
Quote: AxelWolfWhen I was in high school, parties(or whatever you want to call it) were rememberable. What, she was like 15, how many of them could have she have possibly been to? I can danm sure remember how I got to and from parties and mostly what happened.
She either went to very few parties and should remember this event (since it was seared into her memory) or she went to a sh*t ton of parties before and after and is now confused what one she may have been assaulted at and who it was that may have assaulted her.
It's pretty funny how two people can hear the same information and come to completely different conclusions about it.
There are at least 6 people who have confirmed one way or another that he was a different person, wild and abusive, when drunk, and acted in ways consistent with what she said.
At what age?Quote: beachbumbabsIt's pretty funny how two people can hear the same information and come to completely different conclusions about it.
There are at least 6 people who have confirmed one way or another that he was a different person, wild and abusive, when drunk, and acted in ways consistent with what she said.
I bet you would find it a rare thing for kids to get violent when they get drunk. Like how much alcohol could he handle at that age?
Can you link me to the 6 people who claimed he assaulted girls when he was drunk? And don't link me to that one chick who just avoided the punch while just standing by knowing all the other girls were getting gang raped all the time. She is either a big fat liar or a very despicable person.
Quote: beachbumbabsShe was asked to review copies of things she had previously written, most months ago, when she was not under oath, before they became part of her sworn testimony and subject to felony charges. She would have been a fool - no, a FOOL - not to have reviewed what they handed her for accuracy, ambiguity, or in light of whatever new information came out since they were written.
They were, in fact, almost completely DISsimilar in how often they answered the question they were actually asked. Someone's already done a study on it.
Look at the chart at the bottom. That was done from the transcript by Bloomberg.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart
I'm not saying the transcript is biased or whatever and I highly doubt any even half legit source would fake anything.
I'm saying the interpretation is a crock of s***. We all damn well know there are too many red entries on Kavanaugh's chart and too few on Ford's.
Quote: KavMITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?
KAVANAUGH: I — passed out would be — no, but I’ve gone to sleep, but — but I’ve never blacked out. That’s the — that’s the — the allegation, and that — that — that’s wrong.
That was in red. How is that not answering the question? The question was if he had ever passed out -- Kav clarified it as in he's gone to sleep after drinking (duh), but never blacked out. I don't even know what "passing out" would mean, like you're just chilling partying and all of a sudden you pass out, as if you've had a heat stroke or something? Does that even happen?
Quote: KavMITCHELL: What do you consider to be too many beers?
KAVANAUGH: I don’t know. You know, we — whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.
Also in red.
Wtf? That's not really an answerable question, unless you wanna state the obvious and just say "a thousand", but that would've gotten red'd, too.
Quote: KavMITCHELL: Did you ever tell — did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn’t remember during a time that you had been drinking?
KAVANAUGH: No, the — the — we drank beer, and you know, so — so did, I think, the vast majority of — of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and — and still do. So whatever, you know.
In red.
His answer to the question: No. What else is he supposed to say?
Quote: KavLEAHY: Does this reflect what you are? Does this yearbook reflect your…
KAVANAUGH: I…
LEAHY: … focus on academics and your respect for women? That’s easy. Yes or no. You don’t have to filibuster the answer. Does it reflect your focus on academics…
(CROSSTALK)
KAVANAUGH: I already said the yearbook — in my opening statement. The yearbook, obviously…
GRASSLEY: Judge? Just wait a minute. He’s asked the question. I’ll give you time to answer it.
KAVANAUGH: The — the yearbook, as I said in my opening statement, was something where the students and editors made a decision to treat some of it as farce and some of as exaggeration, some of it celebrating things that don’t reflect the things that were really the central part of our school.
Yes, we went to parties, though. Yes, of course, we went to parties and the yearbook page describes that and kind of makes fun of it. And as a — you know, if we want to sit here and talk about whether a Supreme Court nomination should be based on a high school yearbook page, I think that’s taken us to a new level of absurdity.
LEAHY: Ms. Mitchell? Well, we got a filibuster but not a single answer.
Also in red.
For those who can't interpret something being said -- he's saying the students and editors made a decision to treat some of it as farce and some of as exaggeration.
Quote: KavDURBIN: I — I’ll just say this: If you, Judge Kavanaugh, turned to Don McGahn and to this committee and say, “For the sake of my reputation, my family name, and to get to the bottom of the truth of this, I am not going to stay — be an obstacle to an FBI investigation,” I would hope that all the members of the committee would join me in saying, “We’re going to abide by your witch — wishes, and we will have that investigation.”
KAVANAUGH: I — I welcome whatever the committee wants to do, because I’m telling the truth.
Same, red.
Can't answer a question if there's ..... no question. What's Kavanaugh to do when "asked" this "question"?
Quote: KavWHITEHOUSE: I’m good.
One of the reasons, Mr. Kavanaugh, that we are looking at the yearbook is that it is relatively consistent in time with the events at issue here and because it appears to be your words. Is it, in fact, your words on your yearbook page?
KAVANAUGH: We — we submitted things to the editors and I believe they took them. I don’t know if they changed things or not, but.
Red.
Uhhhh......what? That is a non-answer????
Quote: FordFEINSTEIN: Can you tell us, is there any other way this has affected your life?
FORD: The primary impact was in the initial four years after the event.
If this was Kavanaugh, it would have been in red.
Quote: FordLEAHY: And you were the object of the laughter?
FORD: I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friend — two friends having a really good time with one another.
If this was Kavanaugh, it would've been in red. She didn't answer the question "directly". Question was if she was the object of the laughter and her answer was she was underneath one boy while the two laughed.
Quote: FordMITCHELL: … door was closed when you heard this, is that correct?
FORD: I could hear them very clearly hitting the walls…
Well, was the door closed or not?
So yeah, just because the transcript is from bloomberg -- well, the problem isn't where the transcript is from, but the interpretation of an answered question vs un-answered. Vox could have at least attempted to hide their bias by just being stricter on Kav and looser on Ford, but instead, they gave Ford a complete pass and marked down Kav for any tiny infraction or even for nothing at all.
Either Vox should be strict on both of them and given them many "reds" each (I disagree with this approach, since it's unfair to both) OR should have been more relaxed with both and realized Kavanaugh's answer to the question if he's ever passed out from drinking is perfectly acceptable as far as answering a question.
But hey, it's Vox, FFS (or should I say, FFFFFFFS?), what can you expect from a site that's almost as terrible as buzzfeed?
Quote: RSI'd say it's definitely plausible she had her "one" beer, some s*** happened, everything became a blur, and she forgot key details and all that.
Or maybe Kavanaugh and Judge were too blind drunk to remember what they did.
A guest on Fox, said Ford recovered her memory through questionable regression psychotherapy, where the therapist either hypnotizes or talks the patient back to the source of their trauma.
Implanting False Memories
The truth could lie in her therapist’s notes.
Or asking how fast the maniac driver was going compared to the widowed grandmother.
Kinda related (and idk about any veracity of this, but I'm willing to go with it) to that is questioning people who knew someone in the past. For instance, say John Doe is a serial killer. You ask 10 of his high school friends what John was like in school, and they'll probably give regular answers, he was a regular dude, etc. etc. But if those people know or have heard John Doe is a serial killer or accused of that, then they'll probably say stuff like 'there was something off about him' and all that kinda stuff that we pretty much always hear from criminals' past friends.
I contend that people who knew now-known-good people from high school, would describe them as better than they were in HS, while those who knew now-known-bad-guys from HS, would describe them as worse than they really were. The reality is, for everyone I knew in high school, I could come up for reasons for it to "make sense" that they're now a murderer, drug-addict, rapist, or whatever else.....just as it'd "make sense" that they're now a stepping stone of their community doing community service, donating time and money to homeless shelters and whatnot, etc.
One of my friends from high school, in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned into a druggy and drinks himself into oblivion every night.....or if he's the kinda guy that has 1 drink a week, since I have memories from high school that would support each of those outcomes.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh's high school and college peers, when/if questioned, would say things about him that make him look like a rapist / sexual misconducter, alcoholic, and all that ---- not because those descriptions are necessarily accurate, but because they fit the "new" or perceived persona of Kavanaugh.
Quote: RSHalfway through reading that -- it reminded me of something, which is basically how a question is asked can influence the answer and thus, how they perceived the event. Asking how fast a car was going when it smashed into a parked car may lead to people "remembering" the car going faster...compared to asking how fast it was going when it bumped a parked car.
Or asking how fast the maniac driver was going compared to the widowed grandmother.
Kinda related (and idk about any veracity of this, but I'm willing to go with it) to that is questioning people who knew someone in the past. For instance, say John Doe is a serial killer. You ask 10 of his high school friends what John was like in school, and they'll probably give regular answers, he was a regular dude, etc. etc. But if those people know or have heard John Doe is a serial killer or accused of that, then they'll probably say stuff like 'there was something off about him' and all that kinda stuff that we pretty much always hear from criminals' past friends.
I contend that people who knew now-known-good people from high school, would describe them as better than they were in HS, while those who knew now-known-bad-guys from HS, would describe them as worse than they really were. The reality is, for everyone I knew in high school, I could come up for reasons for it to "make sense" that they're now a murderer, drug-addict, rapist, or whatever else.....just as it'd "make sense" that they're now a stepping stone of their community doing community service, donating time and money to homeless shelters and whatnot, etc.
One of my friends from high school, in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned into a druggy and drinks himself into oblivion every night.....or if he's the kinda guy that has 1 drink a week, since I have memories from high school that would support each of those outcomes.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh's high school and college peers, when/if questioned, would say things about him that make him look like a rapist / sexual misconducter, alcoholic, and all that ---- not because those descriptions are necessarily accurate, but because they fit the "new" or perceived pversona of Kavanaugh.
RS, that was incredibly insightful
Are you a psychologist? :)
Quote: NathanQuote: RSHalfway through reading that -- it reminded me of something, which is basically how a question is asked can influence the answer and thus, how they perceived the event. Asking how fast a car was going when it smashed into a parked car may lead to people "remembering" the car going faster...compared to asking how fast it was going when it bumped a parked car.
Or asking how fast the maniac driver was going compared to the widowed grandmother.
Kinda related (and idk about any veracity of this, but I'm willing to go with it) to that is questioning people who knew someone in the past. For instance, say John Doe is a serial killer. You ask 10 of his high school friends what John was like in school, and they'll probably give regular answers, he was a regular dude, etc. etc. But if those people know or have heard John Doe is a serial killer or accused of that, then they'll probably say stuff like 'there was something off about him' and all that kinda stuff that we pretty much always hear from criminals' past friends.
I contend that people who knew now-known-good people from high school, would describe them as better than they were in HS, while those who knew now-known-bad-guys from HS, would describe them as worse than they really were. The reality is, for everyone I knew in high school, I could come up for reasons for it to "make sense" that they're now a murderer, drug-addict, rapist, or whatever else.....just as it'd "make sense" that they're now a stepping stone of their community doing community service, donating time and money to homeless shelters and whatnot, etc.
One of my friends from high school, in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned into a druggy and drinks himself into oblivion every night.....or if he's the kinda guy that has 1 drink a week, since I have memories from high school that would support each of those outcomes.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh's high school and college peers, when/if questioned, would say things about him that make him look like a rapist / sexual misconducter, alcoholic, and all that ---- not because those descriptions are necessarily accurate, but because they fit the "new" or perceived pversona of Kavanaugh.
RS, that was incredibly insightful
Are you a psychologist? :)
No hes a republican
Quote: darkozQuote: NathanQuote: RSHalfway through reading that -- it reminded me of something, which is basically how a question is asked can influence the answer and thus, how they perceived the event. Asking how fast a car was going when it smashed into a parked car may lead to people "remembering" the car going faster...compared to asking how fast it was going when it bumped a parked car.
Or asking how fast the maniac driver was going compared to the widowed grandmother.
Kinda related (and idk about any veracity of this, but I'm willing to go with it) to that is questioning people who knew someone in the past. For instance, say John Doe is a serial killer. You ask 10 of his high school friends what John was like in school, and they'll probably give regular answers, he was a regular dude, etc. etc. But if those people know or have heard John Doe is a serial killer or accused of that, then they'll probably say stuff like 'there was something off about him' and all that kinda stuff that we pretty much always hear from criminals' past friends.
I contend that people who knew now-known-good people from high school, would describe them as better than they were in HS, while those who knew now-known-bad-guys from HS, would describe them as worse than they really were. The reality is, for everyone I knew in high school, I could come up for reasons for it to "make sense" that they're now a murderer, drug-addict, rapist, or whatever else.....just as it'd "make sense" that they're now a stepping stone of their community doing community service, donating time and money to homeless shelters and whatnot, etc.
One of my friends from high school, in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned into a druggy and drinks himself into oblivion every night.....or if he's the kinda guy that has 1 drink a week, since I have memories from high school that would support each of those outcomes.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh's high school and college peers, when/if questioned, would say things about him that make him look like a rapist / sexual misconducter, alcoholic, and all that ---- not because those descriptions are necessarily accurate, but because they fit the "new" or perceived pversona of Kavanaugh.
RS, that was incredibly insightful
Are you a psychologist? :)
No hes a republican
LMAO! :D
Quote: RSI'm not saying the transcript is biased or whatever and I highly doubt any even half legit source would fake anything.
I'm saying the interpretation is a crock of s***. We all damn well know there are too many red entries on Kavanaugh's chart and too few on Ford's.
That was in red. How is that not answering the question? The question was if he had ever passed out -- Kav clarified it as in he's gone to sleep after drinking (duh), but never blacked out. I don't even know what "passing out" would mean, like you're just chilling partying and all of a sudden you pass out, as if you've had a heat stroke or something? Does that even happen?
Also in red.
Wtf? That's not really an answerable question, unless you wanna state the obvious and just say "a thousand", but that would've gotten red'd, too.
In red.
His answer to the question: No. What else is he supposed to say?
Also in red.
For those who can't interpret something being said -- he's saying the students and editors made a decision to treat some of it as farce and some of as exaggeration.
Same, red.
Can't answer a question if there's ..... no question. What's Kavanaugh to do when "asked" this "question"?
Red.
Uhhhh......what? That is a non-answer????
If this was Kavanaugh, it would have been in red.
If this was Kavanaugh, it would've been in red. She didn't answer the question "directly". Question was if she was the object of the laughter and her answer was she was underneath one boy while the two laughed.
Well, was the door closed or not?
So yeah, just because the transcript is from bloomberg -- well, the problem isn't where the transcript is from, but the interpretation of an answered question vs un-answered. Vox could have at least attempted to hide their bias by just being stricter on Kav and looser on Ford, but instead, they gave Ford a complete pass and marked down Kav for any tiny infraction or even for nothing at all.
Either Vox should be strict on both of them and given them many "reds" each (I disagree with this approach, since it's unfair to both) OR should have been more relaxed with both and realized Kavanaugh's answer to the question if he's ever passed out from drinking is perfectly acceptable as far as answering a question.
But hey, it's Vox, FFS (or should I say, FFFFFFFS?), what can you expect from a site that's almost as terrible as buzzfeed?
Way to dig into the meat of it RS. I assumed it was BS. It is from VOX after all.
Quote: Nathanand only came forward when he was in up for a seat at The Supreme Court
Why is that hard to believe? I know a couple people from high school that I've never spoken about who did some sketchy things, that if I suddenly saw them on the news up for a supreme court justice, I definitely would spill the beans on their sorry ass even if it was 50 years later as long as I know it to be true.
Police brutality was not something that was unknown but when youtube videos of so many officers gunning people in the back or shooting with hands up came out people began to believe the accusers more
Thats one reason these types of incidents remain difficult to report besides the natural shame in admitting and having to relive that your body was defiled
EDIT: that also pertains to other aspects of modern technology. For example rape kits in the 80,s had no DNA science yet so it was not the type of "we gotcha" people enjoy today. It was possible to not really know who did it with any certainty
Quote: 777I think for national security reason, some CIA, FBI, NSA positions require polygraph test. Also some sensitive positions in financial sectors also require polygraph test.
https://www.google.com/search?q=polygraph+test+for+employment&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&oq=polygraph+test+for+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j69i60j0l4.10305j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Anyone with knowledge on the polygraph test requirement please chime in ...
I've had two polys and seven background investigations (BI), all relating to security clearances. All clearances require a BI but many (e.g. SECRET) do not require a poly. The polygraph test as administered by the Dept of Defense when I took it in the mid 90s was a 3-part procedure. I doubt it would have changed much but after 20 years it's possible.
- Step 1 is filling out a questionnaire. This covered everywhere you had lived since birth, employment history (including why you had left each job), financial stuff, foreign travel, criminal activities you had not been arrested for (e.g., smoking pot), etc.
- Step 2 was an interview in which you get asked follow-up questions based on what they find in your answers to the questionnaire. These will get very specific. For example, if you indicated in Step 1 that you traveled to France in 1981 they will likely ask not only for the specific dates but also for where you stayed, who you talked to, how was the trip paid for, etc.
- Step 3 is when you get hooked up to the actual machine. The main thing to understands is that the only questions asked are those with yes/no answers. If, for example, you tell them in the interview that you paid for the trip to France entirely with money you made playing poker with your frat brothers, one question will be "Did you pay for your 1981 trip to France entirely with money you made playing poker with your frat brothers?".
Quote: gamerfreak
One can reliably beat the polygraph by clenching their sphincter muscles when answering the calibration questions, and again when telling the truth but not when lying during the normal test.
My only experience has been as testee, not tester. I do know that the device is very sensitive and measures multiple biometrics. I suspect that that it may be easier to "beat the machine" than to "beat the process'. By that I mean that if any single measurement is higher or lower than the norm, the examiner will treat it as suspicious and flag it for further investigation. In other words, they would rather have a lot of false negatives (i.e., failing somebody telling the truth) than a few false positives. In my case I failed my 1st poly resulting in a 2nd re-test a few weeks later which I passed. I didn't lie at any time in the 1st test. The issue was the way a question had been phrased. They wanted to confirm my answer regarding the last time I had smoked pot, which I had told them in the interview was July of 1989 (about 5 years prior to when I took the test). The problem was that while I was certain about the year, I was not 100% certain about the month. In the 2nd test the question was prefixed with the words "To the best of your recollection..." and I passed with no problems. The bottom line here is that, unless she is much more deceitful than she appears to be, if Foster passed her test it means she was 100% certain about her answers.
Since Kavanaugh repeatedly pointed to the six background investigations that he had passed as evidence he had done nothing wrong, I might as well explain how those work too. Like the poly, the starting point is again a questionnaire you fill out. They want to know where you lived, worked, and went to school but the time span varies. The higher the clearance the farther back you have to go. One key part of the this is that you must provide a list of "people who knew you well" for the time span covered. These are folks who, along with your current and past neighbors, will get interviewed. This is one part of the process that can easily be gamed. You only need to provide a few names so long as the required time period is covered. I left off the names of all my close friends who had been in rehab or prison and only gave them the names of close friends who already had high-level clearances and knew how the game was played. None would have volunteered any information that would have set off an alarm. I have no doubt Kavanaugh did the same. The bottom line here is that unless the FBI already has suspicions about some aspect of a person's life, a BI interview wont turn up anything other than a past neighbor complaining that you did't keep your dog on a leash or that you played music too loud late at night.
Quote: WizardHow do you know?
Because there are two completely different stories. Not even close
