SpokenTruth said: Why is is that some people will believe that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of the back of a DC pizza parlor but won't believe a doctor who was sexually assaulted and passed a polygraph test?

Dude not a single witness she named confirmed her story, even her best friend who says she never been at a party with kavanaugh.

She can't remember how she got home despite it would take a full day to walk. It would been very difficult to get home.

She refuses to give her therapist notes to the judicary committe or to anyone which she used to get this story printed in Washington Post.

Kavanaugh calendar shows he never been at this kind of gathering/party. Some democrats has pointed out 1 July but this has been completely debunked.

The little information she gave about the therapist notes to the reporter Emma Brown who printed the story said 2 boys assaulted her and this happened in mid 80:s and in her late teens. She's now subtletly changed this to age 15 and early 80:s (Therapist notes said 4 boys assaulted her but she said the therapist got it wrong).

Her letter to Feinstein said there were 4 other people at the party and herself but she has changed this to 5 people (added her best friend) and herself.

The lie detector test she took was a joke.

Notice how her story has changed so her therapist notes no longer corroborates the story. Washington Post would never had printed it now.

SpokenTruth said: Trumpstyle said: Dude not a single witness she named confirmed her story, even her best friend who says she never been at a party with kavanaugh. She can't remember how she got home despite it would take a full day to walk. It would been very difficult to get home. She refuses to give her therapist notes to the judicary committe or to anyone which she used to get this story printed in Washington Post. Kavanaugh calendar shows he never been at this kind of gathering/party. Some democrats has pointed out 1 July but this has been completely debunked. The little information she gave about the therapist notes to the reporter Emma Brown who printed the story said 2 boys assaulted her and this happened in mid 80:s and in her late teens. She's now subtletly changed this to age 15 and early 80:s (Therapist notes said 4 boys assaulted her but she said the therapist got it wrong). Her letter to Feinstein said there were 4 other people at the party and herself but she has changed this to 5 people (added her best friend) and herself. The lie detector test she took was a joke. Notice how her story has changed so her therapist notes no longer corroborates the story. Washington Post would never had printed it now. When you say stuff like her lie detector test was a joke, it just makes my post stronger.  I'll also reiterate what I said to EricHiggin, "I tried elk meat once.  I don't remember exactly where or when but I know I've tried it.  Or because I can't remember when or where does that mean I must have never had elk?"  I'd like to know how my not recalling when and where I had elk means I never had elk.

Her lie detector is a joke, just like any lie detector.

1. She could believe it was the truth, even it wasn't. Memories are a funny thing, they are not all true.

2. Lie detectors can be beaten

3. Lie detectors are not admissible in court.

 

As for your example, that's not a good example. She made have been almost raped, just like you at elk meat. She may not remember the day, the place, but she won't forget almost getting raped. That is what you are saying right? Who is to say she is getting he person who almost raped her wrong.

You can't tell me you have never had a time where you were like "I swear you were there. We did this or that, ect" And meanwhile the person swears they weren't there. And in the end you might finally remember that they weren't there. I've had that before. Now imagine in that situation you didn't talk to the person who you swear was there, but a therapist and that therapist just continues to cement into your memory that they were there. Now no matter how much your friend will vehemently deny being there, you won't believe them cause your mind/memory ahs been reinforced so much by a therapist.

Oh and lets not forget that according to post above yours that what she is saying now is contradicting what she told her therapist back then.

SpokenTruth said: irstupid said: Her lie detector is a joke, just like any lie detector. 1. She could believe it was the truth, even it wasn't. Memories are a funny thing, they are not all true. 2. Lie detectors can be beaten 3. Lie detectors are not admissible in court.   As for your example, that's not a good example. She made have been almost raped, just like you at elk meat. She may not remember the day, the place, but she won't forget almost getting raped. That is what you are saying right? Who is to say she is getting he person who almost raped her wrong. You can't tell me you have never had a time where you were like "I swear you were there. We did this or that, ect" And meanwhile the person swears they weren't there. And in the end you might finally remember that they weren't there. I've had that before. Now imagine in that situation you didn't talk to the person who you swear was there, but a therapist and that therapist just continues to cement into your memory that they were there. Now no matter how much your friend will vehemently deny being there, you won't believe them cause your mind/memory ahs been reinforced so much by a therapist. Oh and lets not forget that according to post above yours that what she is saying now is contradicting what she told her therapist back then. It validates that she isn't making the story up with the intent of purely smearing him as the Republicans are claiming. As for my example, you missed the point.  The issues are about not remembering where and when.  The issue isn't about not remembering her attacker.  That said, you don't forget an attacker.  Your non-traumatic example doesn't work.  Trying to recall if someone was at the mall with you 30 years ago is tough.  Trying to recall who sexually assaulted you 30 years ago is not.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/03/21/when-the-innocent-go-to-prison-how-many-guilty-go-free

Didn't think this thread could be more toxic. But ya'll provin' me wrong.

SpokenTruth said: Trumpstyle said: Dude not a single witness she named confirmed her story, even her best friend who says she never been at a party with kavanaugh. She can't remember how she got home despite it would take a full day to walk. It would been very difficult to get home. She refuses to give her therapist notes to the judicary committe or to anyone which she used to get this story printed in Washington Post. Kavanaugh calendar shows he never been at this kind of gathering/party. Some democrats has pointed out 1 July but this has been completely debunked. The little information she gave about the therapist notes to the reporter Emma Brown who printed the story said 2 boys assaulted her and this happened in mid 80:s and in her late teens. She's now subtletly changed this to age 15 and early 80:s (Therapist notes said 4 boys assaulted her but she said the therapist got it wrong). Her letter to Feinstein said there were 4 other people at the party and herself but she has changed this to 5 people (added her best friend) and herself. The lie detector test she took was a joke. Notice how her story has changed so her therapist notes no longer corroborates the story. Washington Post would never had printed it now. When you say stuff like her lie detector test was a joke, it just makes my post stronger.  I'll also reiterate what I said to EricHiggin, "I tried elk meat once.  I don't remember exactly where or when but I know I've tried it.  Or because I can't remember when or where does that mean I must have never had elk?"  I'd like to know how my not recalling when and where I had elk means I never had elk.

It looked like a joke to me, she wrote a note and got 2 questions about it. The note had several redactions and some edits to it. But I'm not an expert on these things and I'm not gonna argue if she beat it or how reliable it is.

You should know though that your favorite hero Roy Moore also beat a lie detector test and claims his innocent.

Trumpstyle said: SpokenTruth said: Why is is that some people will believe that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of the back of a DC pizza parlor but won't believe a doctor who was sexually assaulted and passed a polygraph test? Dude not a single witness she named confirmed her story, even her best friend who says she never been at a party with kavanaugh. She can't remember how she got home despite it would take a full day to walk. It would been very difficult to get home. She refuses to give her therapist notes to the judicary committe or to anyone which she used to get this story printed in Washington Post. Kavanaugh calendar shows he never been at this kind of gathering/party. Some democrats has pointed out 1 July but this has been completely debunked. The little information she gave about the therapist notes to the reporter Emma Brown who printed the story said 2 boys assaulted her and this happened in mid 80:s and in her late teens. She's now subtletly changed this to age 15 and early 80:s (Therapist notes said 4 boys assaulted her but she said the therapist got it wrong). Her letter to Feinstein said there were 4 other people at the party and herself but she has changed this to 5 people (added her best friend) and herself. The lie detector test she took was a joke. Notice how her story has changed so her therapist notes no longer corroborates the story. Washington Post would never had printed it now.

How could any of her witnesses confirm it? They weren't in the room my guy.

Leland says she has no memory of being at a party with Kavanaugh. That's not surprising since if she had only been at one gathering with him 30 years ago she would have no reason to remember some random dude. 

A calendar doesn't controvert anything. It was provided in an effort to show no corroboration with Ford's testimony. But it's obviously an incomplete glimpse into Kavanaugh's life during that time.

I agree, notes have to be part of the investigation. I suspect the FBI will obtain them but they will not be exposed to the public.

The number of people there seems largely inconsequential between 5 and 6. "Small" gathering is sufficient, and changes none of the material facts surrounding the sexual assault.

Ronster316 said: Wow, considering that VGC is 90% liberal, i'm shocked that the poll is as close as it is.

A lot of gamers are libertarians rather than liberals. Moreover, men are overrepresented here, and we tend to see things in terms of how we would like to be treated if we were wrongly accused whereas women see things in terms of how terrible it would be to have been abused and later not believed. (That's crude generalisation but it probably explains why the poll is more generous to Kavanagh than you might expect from a more demographically balanced sample group.)

Ronster316 said: wow, considering that VGC is 90% liberal, i'm shocked that the poll is as close as it is.. seems to me that more and more people are waking up to the DemonRATS lying shady tactics. DemonRATS will stop at nothing to regain power, no matter how deluded their lies are, they are clearly more than happy to destroy any persons reputation, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST.

Always calling the other side the big baddies wont help us either, only if we can communicate respectively we might find common ground with people that think differently.

2.)  But even if we're going with the most basic "gotcha!" here and just taking AP's scant quotes on the subject, the principle I'm talking about still holds up: someone not willing to take a "lie detector" test, which has been categorically shown to have scant scientific evidence in its favor, should not be any determiner as to whether or not Kav gets on SCOTUS.  Even the College Humor guy has expatiated on this topic so it's not like many people suspect you're going to catch Kav red-handed like this is Meet The Parents.

 

No - I agree with you - I also understand that they aren't admissible - however he *as a judge* argued they are relevant. That matters because his legal opinion is on record and in a judgment. As a member of the SC he may be (may is a strong word - but appropriate here) be a swing vote to allow their use for trial. The hypocrisy (in my opinion) is in issuing a legal opinion that they have validity, while hiding behind the legal defense that they are not permissible. Given he has actually made *legal rulings* on them - that is valid.