> The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information.... which you seem to be keeping in a locked file cabinet in a disused lavatory in a basement where both the lights and stairs are out. I love the excuse though. "People stupidly voted against me, so we need to vote again!"
> Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that "vote until things go my way" is at best a waste of time and at worst a good way to help people cheat. How about this, everyone else can use your idea, but only when they don't like the way you vote. Deal or no deal?
> It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?
Well, they contain collusion with foreign spies (Steele, Deirpaksa & co.), every sort of records law evasion you could want (and intent to do so in the email with Colin Powell who explained how to get away with it, that it was against the law, and that the NSA was strongly against this), violations of handling of classified materials, quid pro quo (e.g. the "WaPo party"), among other things... but nobody's going to prosecute any of *that* so yeah, it kind of is relevant that some parties are just above the law.
But you know what? You find Trump did these things, then feel free to prosecute him. Because I'm not a filthy hypocrite like the people up thread explaining that it wasn't "really" bribery when Hillary did it, because she didn't do anything she felt was wrong.
> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".
Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!
I replied to most of this earlier, but I just want to elaborate a bit further:
I don't give a crap whether they have some super-secret disinfo campaign. It's speech. Counter it with more speech or admit that your ideas are too weak to stand up to memes of Jesus wrestling Satan. Yes, yes, there are dozens of other equally ridiculous memes in the bunch, please feel free to show me which ones threaten you, there are whole galleries of them online on, e.g. imgur. Remember to show me on the doll where the meme hurt you:)
Maybe they committed other random crimes in addition to this, feel free to prosecute that. I hope they're not just silly process crimes or posting pseudonymously or anonymously. I won't complain about prosecutions for real crimes, just when they make a federal case out of posting memes.
> I can't even reply to that because you're starting under the assumption that Russia's US-directed propaganda activities are limited to one meme that I never even saw before you pointed it out.
I read a ton of the memes, they don't get any better, they're generally nonsense. It's kinda on you to point out this super harmful stuff. Right now you're showing me *speech* on Twitter and such. I'm sorry, I think that everyone has a right to comment on world politics, even when they're wrong. Otherwise I'd want to ban you and I don't.
> OK, Freedom Fighter, who the fuck is saying "political speech should be banned?"
You just followed up to this by cheering the removal of random Twitter & Facebook accounts. Those are modern day public squares. I feel it should be like the phone company not being able to control what you say over the phone (hey, we could apply Net Neutrality there because they're another kind of mass communication network...).
You probably equate "ban" with the Government doing that, never mind that the Government simply has a foundation that points out accounts to private companies to ban them and that makes it awesome or something.
> And you're asserting that Russians did not do this?
Nope, I'm waiting to see what gets proven in court. I've yet to see any particular evidence.
I realize you're trying to carve out "government lead disinfo" sort of ban here (which is not a first amendment exception last I heard, though it's not well-tested as far as I know, either). My problem with that is that:
1) You therefore hate this speech based on subjective interpretations of their motives and content. 2) I doubt you would fairly apply this to, e.g. Al Jazeera or the BBC based on the opinions from item one.
I don't think it should survive strict scrutiny, but I don't control the judiciary, either.
> There is absolutely no point in ignoring the problem or acting like it does not exist.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that censorship (public or private) is the wrong way of dealing with speech.
Something something standing up for free speech requires defending the speech of idiots and such.
> Do you really believe that's what the Russian campaign was? Just a bunch of military intelligence folks voicing their opinions on American politics as Russian citizens? Just kind of having a debate about it? While making it clear that they are Russians, and that what they're saying was their opinion? Is that what you think they did? Why do you suppose identity theft charges were included?
As far as I know, it's for commenting on Twitter with fake names, like everyone else who wants to be anonymous. I'll let them prove that if it's more, but the idea that someone posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan under a fake name on Twitter is something to make a federal case out of because it undermines our democracy or whatever just makes me laugh.
> Are you even an American?
Yes. Are you? (Hey, you didn't actually answer my question on that, but oh well, I do actually know your history on the site and I was just joking.) You ever hear about those crazy militant types who wrote political stuff under the name Publius? Americans call them Founding Fathers.
> I'm asking because when one of our adversaries has a concerted and covert government-backed campaign specifically designed to interfere in our elections, undermine our democratic processes, and exploit divisions in our society,
By posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan on Twitter under fake names. I read the memes, did you? The idea that we can censor foreigners who discuss political topics does not sit well with me, especially when it's so selective. The BBC is a state-run news agency, but they're not going to be assigned all these nefarious motives, even if they, say, once pushed the war in Iraq before coming to regret that later. My point isn't to blame them for that, it's to point out that there's a double-standard where there's a federal case over Facebook & Twitter memes (to the point where the EU apparently wants to ban these!) but nobody cares if journalists actively support a foolish and unnecessary war.
> Kind of like how Putin said the Russian troops in Ukraine were just there on vacation, with all of their equipment, not in any official capacity.
Yeah, I don't buy that one. I'm explicitly saying that political *speech* shouldn't be banned. Violence & war are right out. I don't like how easily you shift from one to the other, either. Equating speech with violence has long been a censorship trope. I don't like *any* wars.
> I took that as a statement that the report did not provide any factual basis, not some challenge to me.
Sure, but in two more posts, you *still* haven't gone over anything from said report. Oh well.
> Right, it said he has contacts with Russian intelligence agents and we also know that he described himself as an "informal advisor" to the Kremlin. Seems like someone to keep an eye on if you're a counter-intelligence agent in the US.
If you're already an agent, why are they recruiting you? Of course he had contacts, he was an FBI employee who participated in an operation against them by feeding them a binder with a spy device, as I recall.
So that's why I keep taking you back to conduct in support of these alleged goals. Because no, I don't think you can make a federal case out of super-secret meme targeting, nor do I think you can shut down political speech--including that of foreigners and foreign governments--online. Otherwise I'd want to shut down the BBC, Al Jazeera, and other state-run media online, no? Why should I believe their motives are pure, again?
That also includes speech that's anonymous or pseudonymous. If someone goes by "John Smith" did they steal the identity of everyone else by that name? I don't think "identity theft" is well-defined unless it targets a specific, real, individual, it's clearly that individual (rather than just anyone of the same name), and it causes some real harm (fake loans, theft, etc.). Note that I'm not claiming the law a
> Got it, an explicitly and overtly partisan blogger is "concerned" that the report was "rigged" for political purposes and decided to write an article which just ends by asking a bunch of questions. I guess we're going to ignore the mountains of evidence collected by Facebook and Twitter which show the actual activities of multiple Russian IP addresses. I guess we'll also ignore the Russian nationals arrested or indicted for their activities regarding this, especially the one trying to infiltrate the NRA. I'll look forward to later in your post when you address my question of whether or not Russia tried to interefere with our elections at all.
You say that he's partisan, but don't argue that he's wrong. There's actually quite a bit of investigation into that lady and it's not all what you make it seem. A few random ad spends on memes is all you've got? Show me on the doll where the meme hurt you. Also it is addressed--in that case Mueller tried to run from when he found out he'd actually have to prove it in court. Sorry, I explicitly said that I don't have a problem with people putting their thoughts out there on the web, even if they want to say things about our elections.
> Is that what I did? I "trumpeted" that? I thought I was focusing on the fact that Trump sided with Putin against the intelligence community and his own appointed DNI. I thought that was my focus, not the number of agencies. I'm glad you're here to tell me what my focus was though.
You're doing it *again* now, by painting it as all these people vs. Trump instead of political hack vs. Trump. Still haven't gotten into *any* of the meat of the report (again). Yes, that's another challenge.
> You said you have "repeatedly challenged" me to discuss the factual basis of the DNI's report. I am challenging you to paste the multiple times that you have challenged me to do that. Since you're all about challenging. Link to the comments in question, and paste the specific part you're referring to where you challenge me to provide a factual basis for the DNI's report.
You mean 17 organizations. But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone and the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument. Finally, I wonder what special expertise ODNI member organizations like the Coast Guard bring to that assessment. Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?
Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting, nor did it elaborate any sort of factual basis for those opinions. It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations involved--assuming they even remember that part correctly, of course...
(emphasis added) Guess that didn't register as a challenge with you though.
> What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't "bogus," first of all, there were legitimate concerns about Page's contacts with Russians
Carter Page was an FBI employee who had previously been involved in an FBI operation against Russia. The FISA warrant says both that he is a Russian agent and that he's a target for recruitment. Interestingly, he's also yet to be charged with anything after all this time and all we know, but they got a warrant to spy on anyone within two hops of him.
> So, I am challenging you to show why an investigation into Carter Page has anything to do with Trump's involvement with Russia. One option might be that Jason Miller and Donald Trump were lying about their relationshi
Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here as it covers most of the bases. More amazing are the points you did not argue over: you do not point to the report or any arguments or evidence from it. It's hard to do that for a document with a bunch of unsupported conclusory statements, though.
> But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.
That was *your* argument. You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something, I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report. You failed to do so and then created this smokescreen as if I was the one claiming this statistic was meaningful. If you admit that it's BS and don't want it attacked, then maybe it shouldn't be the only damned factoid about the report that you cite. Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.
You do not because you cannot. Heck, you didn't even bother to link to the ODNI report because apparently it's not even important, despite you being the one to put it into evidence. Then again, that would get us back to discussing the factual basis underlying the report and you'd run into trouble right at the start of the document when we see this -
Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.
I used to joke that my classified evidence can beat up your classified evidence, but I don't really have to any more. Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page.
Also, one of the leaked emails from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign. You can claim that Wikileaks is Russian if you want, but you would have to prove them *wrong* on this email to counter the argument. I alsso hope you don't want to play the game that some have of pretending the emails were manipulated, because they're not and I've long ago posted on Slashdot a copy of the DKIM keys that provide cryptographic non-repudiation.
> OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?
All countries are interfering with all other countries, more or less, I'm more interested in the specifics of actual wrongdoing. For example, Obama had Steele & Halper, both foreign spies, running a lot of interference.
I don't generally consider uncovering corruption or making political arguments to be 'wrongdoing' though, at least in the moral sense, nor do I consider anonymous or pseudonymous speech on the internet to be that either, as if each country had some right to regulate whether or not the rest of the world could even talk about them online. There are definitely process crimes that it can run afoul of--which is why the Podesta group was
> I think the larger issue is that it was the unanimous opinion of the 16 agencies in the intelligence community that Russia was actively attacking US democratic processes, and Trump, in public, while standing right next to Putin, after a private meeting that no one else was allowed to attend, said "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be." So Trump chose to not believe his own intelligence agencies, all 16 of them, and instead side with the Russian dictator.
You mean 17 organizations. But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone and the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument. Finally, I wonder what special expertise ODNI member organizations like the Coast Guard bring to that assessment. Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?
Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting, nor did it elaborate any sort of factual basis for those opinions. It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations involved--assuming they even remember that part correctly, of course...
She signed a statement saying, in part "But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology." As they say, "on the internet no one knows you're a dog." Your identity exists only insofar as you choose to define it. All the coders ever cared about was good code. Sure, that's somewhat subjective, but I don't think it's "bullying" to expect people to pull their weight in a project.
The CoC is bad because they want to (and I believe are already trying to) use it against people for what they do "off the job" so to speak. We'll see the mot & bailey used to defend it as something only bullies and trolls or whatever should worry about, then it'll get used in a purge of SJW wrongthink.
The usual way this works is that they isolate or harass someone vulnerable to take over the leadership, use that incident to intimidate anyone else, then install one of their own in the leadership. Over time, they then control the organization and use it to promote others like them. The irony is that they're supposedly against this, but it's somehow okay when it favors them.
This is a problem because it doesn't fix the claimed problem, it just changes the targets. Moreover, there is a right way to do this that would fix things and make them more fair, but they're against it. Go figure...
> Correct. Fortunately these diversity initiatives only exist in the mad ramblings of the far right, as admitted justification to further oppress people.
Tell that to Harvard, they're in court over that.
> Funny that the only mention I can find of this is on literal fake news sites. Not a single public record has any mention of this.
> It's well known that conservatives only allow others that believe math and science and reading comprehension are all liberal conspiracies.
Most relevant to this, here's Linus' daughter, signing the post-meritocracy manifesto. So instead of building the best Linux for the benefit of everyone, we should worry more about politics.
Here's a liberal trying to decolonize science so we can get rid of the racism, in which they're saying things like "through black magic" people can send lightning to strike someone and then asking "can you explain that scientifically?" Is this part of that magical liberal bias in reality?:)
In general, a lot of this nonsense traces back to the ideas of critical theory. There are groups who think that every wrong in the world traces back to bad power structures which they need to deconstruct and recreate to achieve fairness. It should tell you something when they're currently trying to deconstruct things like science and meritocracy, though...
The irony is that none of that is necessary and it's actively harmful to the supposed goals. It's true that bad luck, oppression, disasters, etc. unfairly keep some people down or prop others up. The right way to fix that would be to help all disadvantaged people equally. Insofar as certain groups have been historically kept down as such, this would disproportionately help them and right things over time. Instead, it's more fashionable to decide that help must be on the basis of group membership, which instead creates new competition among groups and animosity.
> > This is visible, for example, in the difference between the affairs of Bill Clinton and Trump's tryst with Stormy Daniels. Now in terms of morality, both deeds are of course gravely sinful, despite being mutual (notwithstanding the illicit power dynamic in the case of Bill, though Hillary still refuses to acknowledge it).
Paula Jones didn't consent. She won a lawsuit against Bill. Bill was convicted of perjury during said lawsuit, which triggered impeachment. He settled all the cases after losing.
This is exactly right. For the few documents I actually infrequently need to print, I have a brother color laser printer I got off of Amazon for ~$300. It's bulky, but the toner isn't going anywhere, it connects via wifi, and doubles as a copier/scanner.
In the event I need photos printed and they have to look nice, I'll just use Costco/Walgreens/CVS, they probably have better printers than I would have anyway.
It's a legal term for a crime. It has a legal definition. Some people think it means something else.
Then they arrive in court and they find out that the courts only recognize the legal definition. It's always interesting to me watch people who can't keep track of the difference between how the world is and how they wish it to be grappling with reality.
> Fact is, those people producing a letter after the fact, means...nothing to the merits of the claim, but your citing such a letter, as if it meant something when it has zero legitimate value,
I know you're just an NPC and all your lines are on repeat. I don't care. The fact is that he can get people who know things to back him and even her best friend doesn't know a damned thing about the alleged incident. This, along with the fact that none of the timelines for the story actually work out--the Safeway she made central to her Senate testimony wasn't even *there* in 1982 and Kavanaugh wasn't in town afterwards--shows how this entire story falls apart.
> LOL, nope, Ford's friend does not corroborate any such denial, she sent a letter expressly rejecting that misrepresentation. And yes, I consider their denial an expected outcome because they don't have the responsibility to admit their drinking parties included conduct that was inappropriate.
I saw that. I also saw how she ended up being pressured into that. The fact that she can't help pin down where & when this happened, even after being "reminded" about it is telling. The biggest thanks has to go to Avenatti, though. When he added on the wild allegations for free media exposure, he really helped to lampshade this. It was hilarious watching him deny being pranked by 4-chan. I wonder if the rumors that he flipped are actually true? I mean, he really does seem like the type of sleaze who only cares about money...
> Go watch the video again, the C-span version is on Youtube. Pay attention to how he doesn't respond to questioned accurately, pay attention to his demeanor and temperament.
I did. He's pissed off that this was a well-prepared lie. This wasn't some random off-the-cuff allegation, this was, in fact, calculated revenge with most of the MSM on board. Though it was amazing to see some "news" departments run stories about this with what appeared to be lawyer-driven rewrites to avoid defamation lawsuits later, given that they kept writing stories about not being able to corroborate anything whatsoever about the story.
This is part of why she'd like to drop the matter now. I'm not convinced they will let her do that, though. Ideally, all the records she refused to hand over will be seized and she will be charged with perjury. It's funny you raise this point, there was a great body language expert reading Ford, pointing out how she was being manipulative.
You don't get to attack someone with a fake hit job like this and then disqualify them for being mad about it. I can see why you would not want a pissed-off judge on the court, but that's a problem of your own making. I'm not going to disqualify everyone you piss off. I will laugh when the same standard is used against you, though. There's some chance they might go after her for perjury. That will be *very* entertaining. I'd love to see them appeal it to the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas could write the majority opinion...
> Now you're trying to bring that up? Man, you really do like to undercut your own arguments for some reason. Here's a hint: They have to deal with it. It's a fact of life.
Let's be clear about the context of this quote: you're excusing death threats here. True threats are one of a very few actual exceptions to free speech. Yes, I realize that it's par for the course against leftists. I saw/r/LateStageCapitalism talking about this as the time to be violent and decrying pacifists in their midst. I saw/r/ChaposTrapHouse talking about "baseball" -- that is, wanting more events like when some unhinged person went to the Congressional Republican's baseball game and tried to murder them.
Thank you for being clear that you will violently murder anyone you disagree with for that crime. It helps make our choices clear. Conversely, I have no intention of hurting anyone that does not first threaten me with violence. And no, I don't mean that BS where words are "vio
You need to read the rest of the law because it explicitly contradicts your point:
"This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States." (emphasis added)
Hint: if a non-lawyer has a theory about how a common police tactic is actually illegal and you can't find any lawyers arguing it, you're probably wrong. I'll just leave this guide about entrapment here, because it's the next bit of law people are likely to get laughably wrong.
> The problem I have with you is your apologia for Kavanaugh can't be believed. All your citation of a post-dated letter means is what? That you think a claim produced after a fact is legitimate evidence? That's laughable.
So do you believe a 2012 note from counseling despite the door happening in 2008? Or maybe you believe Urban Dictionary? Fact is, that's something those people actually know--they would have actually played the game with him. It's not like this "oh, I heard her allegations only *26* years after the fact" nonsense.
> Same goes with all your claims about these witnesses. Contrary to your assertions, none of them have denied the events, what they have denied is knowledge of them. In fact, that woman you claimed "disconfirmed" something wrote a letter to disagree with the misrepresentations that were made about her statements refuting the assault. Funny that too.
Kav & his friend most certainly did directly deny it. You might expect that, but it's interesting that neither one said "oh, we were at the party but it didn't happen" and instead said "there was no party"--something corroborated by Ford's best friend.
> Besides, and this may shock you, I know it totally perplexed the guy at Wal-Mart today, I don't care for a single thing Ford said. I care about how Kavanaugh reacted, and I slightly care about how you've reacted in the sense that I enjoy the joke you're making of yourself.
Actually I get that--the facts never mattered here and you're just trolling me. But here's the shocker: I don't care either. I will still let people know the truth, I can always just pretend I'm talking to the wall. We all know that the most damning allegation against him to most people has always been that he's a Republican.
> Your inability to understand how memory works, for example, does not serve you well at all. Nor your citing a recent letter. Nor somebody trying to edit Wikipedia. Even your focus on Ford is just bad for you, as there is no trial or lawsuit, it is about being confirmed to the Supreme Court. Anything else? A joke.
I do know how memory works--including how unreliable it is and even why it's unreliable. The fact that her memories *changed* and kept changing in response to newly discovered facts that things *couldn't* have happened the way she originally alleged is what shows how she deserves to be charge with perjury.
> So Kavanaugh? Discredited by his own failure to admit his drinking behavior as well as his intemperate response and cries of victimhood. He just lacks the moral fortitude and mental equanimity to be on the Supreme Court.
Obama did cocaine and made President. Tell us another one about how liking beer disqualifies you from higher office, please, it's hilarious. Making death threats against his family isn't a good reason to be upset to you? A crazy person tried to kill Trump & Mattis the other day too by mailing ricin, I wonder if you even heard about that. Yeah, it'd never work (they scan for that), but logic never was your guys' strong suit, was it?
> That just makes him sound like an idiot who doesn't want the American people to have the truth, no matter who it hurts.
Here's some truth that hurts: by the end of the weekend you will be able to call him Associate Justice Kavanaugh. You lose.
Ginsberg is most likely the next one to replace. She's too old to hold on much longer and this nonsense has hurt vulnerable Democrats in the polls. Based on her age, she has roughly a double-digit percentage chance to die each year. If Trump gets a second term, you'll probably be looking at 7-2 splits for a generation.
One more thing, here's a letter signed by several classmates explaining the "Devil's Triangle" game that became so infamous. It's funny how he can find people to corroborate his statements and explain this stuff while absolutely none of the people she placed at the party, including her life-long friend, knows anything about it.
And that includes her--she remembers so much trivial stuff, but all the important facts, that if actually corroborated would prove her story, are fuzzy. Funny how that works. It's also funny how the story changes every time facts come out that it couldn't have happened the way she remembered it before. You can see it on her own damned note from the polygraph test, where she crossed out some words that had become inconvenient because Brett wasn't *there* in the mid-80s, only to find out that the Safeway wasn't there in 1982.
Given that the very few details she claims to remember are clearly false, how are we supposed to believe any part of this story?
> Because none of that applies to the friend who had no traumatic encounter and no knowledge of this Kavanaugh person. > For her, it was apparently just another party.
Where her friend mysteriously disappeared, despite having to go past her to get to the door and having no way to arrange a ride home?
> That people who are apologists for Kavanaugh are making it out as if Keyser refuted the claim, that she denied aby incident, discredits them, and by extension Kavanaugh.
She doesn't even remember how many people where there, ALL of the named persons disconfirm the story, and the Safeway she made central to her Senate testimony didn't exist until 4 years later according to public records. She has a history of changing her story every time evidence disconfirms it. The door she went to counseling in 2012 to get was built back in 2008. There are giant holes in every single part of the story she does remember, so the fact that your central witness can't remember anything about the alleged assault while Bret can tell you exactly where he was for the entire summer of 1982 simply underscores the fact that this is pure nonsense.
> You, of course, don't see the problem with your own actions.
You stole my words. I get that you don't like him, but to be unable to see through the obvious pattern of lies just makes me feel sorry for you. Are you always this easily manipulated or is it just hate blindness?
> You can also, as amply demonstrated by yourself, falsely claim that any witnesses at all(let alone every one of them) refute and deny claims even as what they really said is that they don't remember any specific incidents
So why doesn't Ford's life long friend remember the party where her friend was almost raped, where she had to flee down a short, narrow stairwell, and where she had no way home, due to cell phones not existing yet?
âoeSimply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,â Howard Walsh, an attorney for Keyser, wrote.
Somehow, no one but Ford remembers this party at all. Somehow her friend didn't notice her missing from a gathering of 4-6 people (depending on when Ford was asked), despite her having to flee from two drunks and out the door. Ford did not know how she got to this party, who introduced her to the gathering, or how she got home.
Remember how she kept pushing for the dates that Kav's friend worked at the grocery store to pin things down? Pity it wasn't built until 1986, when Kav was no longer there. How did she meet Kav's friend there shortly after a party in 1982? Oh, and the second front door they went to counseling over? It was built in 2008 according to public records, not 2012, when they were fighting over it. It also doesn''t provide an escape route, just a second access for people who were renting the place. The notes don't mention Kav at all, either. The polygraph? I love how she changed the date on her account on the paper, doesn't know when it happened, or who paid for it.
The lady who questioned her goes into great detail as to why there's nothing to substantiate the account.
Oh, and the ice thing? Try reading the actual police report. I doubt it says what you think it does. But yes, feel free to regurgitate second-hand allegations without looking at primary sources, like the various property records, maps, etc. that show how her story keeps changing in response to people discovering it couldn't have happened the way it was remembered earlier. But yes, please tell me how speculation regarding various nonsense words that were more recently defined on Urban Dictionary (which also did not exist in 1982) is somehow "proof" of something, because you got caught in a lie when trying to attack a man who lives a life orderly enough to have calendars from 1982.
> Interestingly, "charlatan" is also the word for people who want to be believed on the basis of a single out of context factoid.
A claim can be refuted by counter-examples.
> You are in effect arguing that because one woman was able to teach at a university in the 1200s the argument "it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics" is completely invalidated. A single exception does not invalidate anything: note "women" is plural, and Bettisia Gozzadini was not a physicist. The OP's goalposts remain unmoved.
That only gets you up to 1390, at best, and that's for women who *teach* there. Presumably, many more were educated long before that, unless you believe that every woman who graduated became a professor there.
> Moving your goalposts a bit, we find that the first recorded female professor of physics was Laura Bassi in the 1700s, also (interestingly) at the University of Bologna.
That doesn't help the OP's claims any, but whatever.
> So no, one exception does not invalidate a general rule
That's like saying the statement "there are no even primes" isn't invalidated just because 2 exists.
Anyhow, the argument would be that women have been getting education for a very long time, not that there were no barriers in getting there. Everyone has faced lots of barriers, but women have gotten educations for a long time. Right now, they're doing better than men in university, in fact. So I'm not sure how you can claim that allegations of historical oppression are stopping women today from studying physics and you don't appear to be any too clear on that either, given that you did nothing to connect the dots. I had to refute that because it was pretty much the only claim made by OP, but you had the opportunity to do more.
Then again, I should credit you, you gave the best argument so far. That's a very low bar to clear over those who haven't given anything really, but it's a start. Think through your beliefs a bit more and we can talk again.
Slashdot Mirror
> The first vote was tainted by flawed information, lies essentially, presented to the distracted public. It barely won. Yes, a new referendum is a good idea, one based on new, rock-solid (and very economically sobering) information. ... which you seem to be keeping in a locked file cabinet in a disused lavatory in a basement where both the lights and stairs are out. I love the excuse though. "People stupidly voted against me, so we need to vote again!"
> Don't be retarded. If your defense is you had a vote, another vote should not be a threat.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that "vote until things go my way" is at best a waste of time and at worst a good way to help people cheat. How about this, everyone else can use your idea, but only when they don't like the way you vote. Deal or no deal?
> It's 2019 and "but her emails" is still going strong. Is this going to be the campaign slogan for 2020?
Well, they contain collusion with foreign spies (Steele, Deirpaksa & co.), every sort of records law evasion you could want (and intent to do so in the email with Colin Powell who explained how to get away with it, that it was against the law, and that the NSA was strongly against this), violations of handling of classified materials, quid pro quo (e.g. the "WaPo party"), among other things... but nobody's going to prosecute any of *that* so yeah, it kind of is relevant that some parties are just above the law.
But you know what? You find Trump did these things, then feel free to prosecute him. Because I'm not a filthy hypocrite like the people up thread explaining that it wasn't "really" bribery when Hillary did it, because she didn't do anything she felt was wrong.
> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".
Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!
I don't get the feeling that they were only complaining about the n=80 sample size, so I'm just going to leave this over here.
One more to add to your list:
Have you ever been sold fake eggs before?
I replied to most of this earlier, but I just want to elaborate a bit further:
I don't give a crap whether they have some super-secret disinfo campaign. It's speech. Counter it with more speech or admit that your ideas are too weak to stand up to memes of Jesus wrestling Satan. Yes, yes, there are dozens of other equally ridiculous memes in the bunch, please feel free to show me which ones threaten you, there are whole galleries of them online on, e.g. imgur. Remember to show me on the doll where the meme hurt you :)
Maybe they committed other random crimes in addition to this, feel free to prosecute that. I hope they're not just silly process crimes or posting pseudonymously or anonymously. I won't complain about prosecutions for real crimes, just when they make a federal case out of posting memes.
> I can't even reply to that because you're starting under the assumption that Russia's US-directed propaganda activities are limited to one meme that I never even saw before you pointed it out.
I read a ton of the memes, they don't get any better, they're generally nonsense. It's kinda on you to point out this super harmful stuff. Right now you're showing me *speech* on Twitter and such. I'm sorry, I think that everyone has a right to comment on world politics, even when they're wrong. Otherwise I'd want to ban you and I don't.
> OK, Freedom Fighter, who the fuck is saying "political speech should be banned?"
You just followed up to this by cheering the removal of random Twitter & Facebook accounts. Those are modern day public squares. I feel it should be like the phone company not being able to control what you say over the phone (hey, we could apply Net Neutrality there because they're another kind of mass communication network...).
You probably equate "ban" with the Government doing that, never mind that the Government simply has a foundation that points out accounts to private companies to ban them and that makes it awesome or something.
> And you're asserting that Russians did not do this?
Nope, I'm waiting to see what gets proven in court. I've yet to see any particular evidence.
I realize you're trying to carve out "government lead disinfo" sort of ban here (which is not a first amendment exception last I heard, though it's not well-tested as far as I know, either). My problem with that is that:
1) You therefore hate this speech based on subjective interpretations of their motives and content.
2) I doubt you would fairly apply this to, e.g. Al Jazeera or the BBC based on the opinions from item one.
I don't think it should survive strict scrutiny, but I don't control the judiciary, either.
> There is absolutely no point in ignoring the problem or acting like it does not exist.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that censorship (public or private) is the wrong way of dealing with speech.
Something something standing up for free speech requires defending the speech of idiots and such.
> Do you really believe that's what the Russian campaign was? Just a bunch of military intelligence folks voicing their opinions on American politics as Russian citizens? Just kind of having a debate about it? While making it clear that they are Russians, and that what they're saying was their opinion? Is that what you think they did? Why do you suppose identity theft charges were included?
As far as I know, it's for commenting on Twitter with fake names, like everyone else who wants to be anonymous. I'll let them prove that if it's more, but the idea that someone posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan under a fake name on Twitter is something to make a federal case out of because it undermines our democracy or whatever just makes me laugh.
> Are you even an American?
Yes. Are you? (Hey, you didn't actually answer my question on that, but oh well, I do actually know your history on the site and I was just joking.) You ever hear about those crazy militant types who wrote political stuff under the name Publius? Americans call them Founding Fathers.
> I'm asking because when one of our adversaries has a concerted and covert government-backed campaign specifically designed to interfere in our elections, undermine our democratic processes, and exploit divisions in our society,
By posting Jesus arm wrestling Satan on Twitter under fake names. I read the memes, did you? The idea that we can censor foreigners who discuss political topics does not sit well with me, especially when it's so selective. The BBC is a state-run news agency, but they're not going to be assigned all these nefarious motives, even if they, say, once pushed the war in Iraq before coming to regret that later. My point isn't to blame them for that, it's to point out that there's a double-standard where there's a federal case over Facebook & Twitter memes (to the point where the EU apparently wants to ban these!) but nobody cares if journalists actively support a foolish and unnecessary war.
> Kind of like how Putin said the Russian troops in Ukraine were just there on vacation, with all of their equipment, not in any official capacity.
Yeah, I don't buy that one. I'm explicitly saying that political *speech* shouldn't be banned. Violence & war are right out. I don't like how easily you shift from one to the other, either. Equating speech with violence has long been a censorship trope. I don't like *any* wars.
> I took that as a statement that the report did not provide any factual basis, not some challenge to me.
Sure, but in two more posts, you *still* haven't gone over anything from said report. Oh well.
> Right, it said he has contacts with Russian intelligence agents and we also know that he described himself as an "informal advisor" to the Kremlin. Seems like someone to keep an eye on if you're a counter-intelligence agent in the US.
If you're already an agent, why are they recruiting you? Of course he had contacts, he was an FBI employee who participated in an operation against them by feeding them a binder with a spy device, as I recall.
So that's why I keep taking you back to conduct in support of these alleged goals. Because no, I don't think you can make a federal case out of super-secret meme targeting, nor do I think you can shut down political speech--including that of foreigners and foreign governments--online. Otherwise I'd want to shut down the BBC, Al Jazeera, and other state-run media online, no? Why should I believe their motives are pure, again?
That also includes speech that's anonymous or pseudonymous. If someone goes by "John Smith" did they steal the identity of everyone else by that name? I don't think "identity theft" is well-defined unless it targets a specific, real, individual, it's clearly that individual (rather than just anyone of the same name), and it causes some real harm (fake loans, theft, etc.). Note that I'm not claiming the law a
> Got it, an explicitly and overtly partisan blogger is "concerned" that the report was "rigged" for political purposes and decided to write an article which just ends by asking a bunch of questions. I guess we're going to ignore the mountains of evidence collected by Facebook and Twitter which show the actual activities of multiple Russian IP addresses. I guess we'll also ignore the Russian nationals arrested or indicted for their activities regarding this, especially the one trying to infiltrate the NRA. I'll look forward to later in your post when you address my question of whether or not Russia tried to interefere with our elections at all.
You say that he's partisan, but don't argue that he's wrong. There's actually quite a bit of investigation into that lady and it's not all what you make it seem. A few random ad spends on memes is all you've got? Show me on the doll where the meme hurt you. Also it is addressed--in that case Mueller tried to run from when he found out he'd actually have to prove it in court. Sorry, I explicitly said that I don't have a problem with people putting their thoughts out there on the web, even if they want to say things about our elections.
> Is that what I did? I "trumpeted" that? I thought I was focusing on the fact that Trump sided with Putin against the intelligence community and his own appointed DNI. I thought that was my focus, not the number of agencies. I'm glad you're here to tell me what my focus was though.
You're doing it *again* now, by painting it as all these people vs. Trump instead of political hack vs. Trump. Still haven't gotten into *any* of the meat of the report (again). Yes, that's another challenge.
> You said you have "repeatedly challenged" me to discuss the factual basis of the DNI's report. I am challenging you to paste the multiple times that you have challenged me to do that. Since you're all about challenging. Link to the comments in question, and paste the specific part you're referring to where you challenge me to provide a factual basis for the DNI's report.
I'll just quote up thread: https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12806349&cid=57533677
(emphasis added) Guess that didn't register as a challenge with you though.
> What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't "bogus," first of all, there were legitimate concerns about Page's contacts with Russians
Carter Page was an FBI employee who had previously been involved in an FBI operation against Russia. The FISA warrant says both that he is a Russian agent and that he's a target for recruitment. Interestingly, he's also yet to be charged with anything after all this time and all we know, but they got a warrant to spy on anyone within two hops of him.
> So, I am challenging you to show why an investigation into Carter Page has anything to do with Trump's involvement with Russia. One option might be that Jason Miller and Donald Trump were lying about their relationshi
Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here as it covers most of the bases. More amazing are the points you did not argue over: you do not point to the report or any arguments or evidence from it. It's hard to do that for a document with a bunch of unsupported conclusory statements, though.
> But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.
That was *your* argument. You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something, I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report. You failed to do so and then created this smokescreen as if I was the one claiming this statistic was meaningful. If you admit that it's BS and don't want it attacked, then maybe it shouldn't be the only damned factoid about the report that you cite. Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.
You do not because you cannot. Heck, you didn't even bother to link to the ODNI report because apparently it's not even important, despite you being the one to put it into evidence. Then again, that would get us back to discussing the factual basis underlying the report and you'd run into trouble right at the start of the document when we see this -
I used to joke that my classified evidence can beat up your classified evidence, but I don't really have to any more. Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page.
Also, one of the leaked emails from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign. You can claim that Wikileaks is Russian if you want, but you would have to prove them *wrong* on this email to counter the argument. I alsso hope you don't want to play the game that some have of pretending the emails were manipulated, because they're not and I've long ago posted on Slashdot a copy of the DKIM keys that provide cryptographic non-repudiation.
> OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?
All countries are interfering with all other countries, more or less, I'm more interested in the specifics of actual wrongdoing. For example, Obama had Steele & Halper, both foreign spies, running a lot of interference.
I don't generally consider uncovering corruption or making political arguments to be 'wrongdoing' though, at least in the moral sense, nor do I consider anonymous or pseudonymous speech on the internet to be that either, as if each country had some right to regulate whether or not the rest of the world could even talk about them online. There are definitely process crimes that it can run afoul of--which is why the Podesta group was
> I think the larger issue is that it was the unanimous opinion of the 16 agencies in the intelligence community that Russia was actively attacking US democratic processes, and Trump, in public, while standing right next to Putin, after a private meeting that no one else was allowed to attend, said "President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be." So Trump chose to not believe his own intelligence agencies, all 16 of them, and instead side with the Russian dictator.
You mean 17 organizations. But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone and the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument. Finally, I wonder what special expertise ODNI member organizations like the Coast Guard bring to that assessment. Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?
Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting, nor did it elaborate any sort of factual basis for those opinions. It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations involved--assuming they even remember that part correctly, of course...
She signed a statement saying, in part "But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology." As they say, "on the internet no one knows you're a dog." Your identity exists only insofar as you choose to define it. All the coders ever cared about was good code. Sure, that's somewhat subjective, but I don't think it's "bullying" to expect people to pull their weight in a project.
The CoC is bad because they want to (and I believe are already trying to) use it against people for what they do "off the job" so to speak. We'll see the mot & bailey used to defend it as something only bullies and trolls or whatever should worry about, then it'll get used in a purge of SJW wrongthink.
The usual way this works is that they isolate or harass someone vulnerable to take over the leadership, use that incident to intimidate anyone else, then install one of their own in the leadership. Over time, they then control the organization and use it to promote others like them. The irony is that they're supposedly against this, but it's somehow okay when it favors them.
This is a problem because it doesn't fix the claimed problem, it just changes the targets. Moreover, there is a right way to do this that would fix things and make them more fair, but they're against it. Go figure...
Neither Juanita Broderick nor Paula Jones consented.
Paula Jones won a lawsuit against Bill which he settled after appealing it first to prove that, as well.
> Correct. Fortunately these diversity initiatives only exist in the mad ramblings of the far right, as admitted justification to further oppress people.
Tell that to Harvard, they're in court over that.
> Funny that the only mention I can find of this is on literal fake news sites. Not a single public record has any mention of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/15/harvard-sued-discrimination-against-asian-americans
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/15/620368377/harvard-accused-of-racial-balancing-lawsuit-says-asian-americans-treated-unfairl
If you want to call those "literal fake news sites," it's a free country ... :)
Guess I'd better use DuckDuckGo to dig up public records for this and an earlier lawsuit:
http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SFFA-v.-Harvard-Complaint.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-981
> It's well known that conservatives only allow others that believe math and science and reading comprehension are all liberal conspiracies.
Most relevant to this, here's Linus' daughter, signing the post-meritocracy manifesto. So instead of building the best Linux for the benefit of everyone, we should worry more about politics.
Here's a liberal trying to decolonize science so we can get rid of the racism, in which they're saying things like "through black magic" people can send lightning to strike someone and then asking "can you explain that scientifically?" Is this part of that magical liberal bias in reality? :)
CNN has declared that "math is racist" (archive).
In general, a lot of this nonsense traces back to the ideas of critical theory. There are groups who think that every wrong in the world traces back to bad power structures which they need to deconstruct and recreate to achieve fairness. It should tell you something when they're currently trying to deconstruct things like science and meritocracy, though...
The irony is that none of that is necessary and it's actively harmful to the supposed goals. It's true that bad luck, oppression, disasters, etc. unfairly keep some people down or prop others up. The right way to fix that would be to help all disadvantaged people equally. Insofar as certain groups have been historically kept down as such, this would disproportionately help them and right things over time. Instead, it's more fashionable to decide that help must be on the basis of group membership, which instead creates new competition among groups and animosity.
What about Juanita Broderick & Paula Jones?
I didn't see Monica's name in what you replied to, you just kinda assumed that because she's the only name people know.
> > This is visible, for example, in the difference between the affairs of Bill Clinton and Trump's tryst with Stormy Daniels. Now in terms of morality, both deeds are of course gravely sinful, despite being mutual (notwithstanding the illicit power dynamic in the case of Bill, though Hillary still refuses to acknowledge it).
Paula Jones didn't consent. She won a lawsuit against Bill. Bill was convicted of perjury during said lawsuit, which triggered impeachment. He settled all the cases after losing.
This is exactly right. For the few documents I actually infrequently need to print, I have a brother color laser printer I got off of Amazon for ~$300. It's bulky, but the toner isn't going anywhere, it connects via wifi, and doubles as a copier/scanner.
In the event I need photos printed and they have to look nice, I'll just use Costco/Walgreens/CVS, they probably have better printers than I would have anyway.
> Entrapment is still entrapment, legal or not.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's a legal term for a crime. It has a legal definition. Some people think it means something else.
Then they arrive in court and they find out that the courts only recognize the legal definition. It's always interesting to me watch people who can't keep track of the difference between how the world is and how they wish it to be grappling with reality.
> Fact is, those people producing a letter after the fact, means...nothing to the merits of the claim, but your citing such a letter, as if it meant something when it has zero legitimate value,
I know you're just an NPC and all your lines are on repeat. I don't care. The fact is that he can get people who know things to back him and even her best friend doesn't know a damned thing about the alleged incident. This, along with the fact that none of the timelines for the story actually work out--the Safeway she made central to her Senate testimony wasn't even *there* in 1982 and Kavanaugh wasn't in town afterwards--shows how this entire story falls apart.
> LOL, nope, Ford's friend does not corroborate any such denial, she sent a letter expressly rejecting that misrepresentation. And yes, I consider their denial an expected outcome because they don't have the responsibility to admit their drinking parties included conduct that was inappropriate.
I saw that. I also saw how she ended up being pressured into that. The fact that she can't help pin down where & when this happened, even after being "reminded" about it is telling. The biggest thanks has to go to Avenatti, though. When he added on the wild allegations for free media exposure, he really helped to lampshade this. It was hilarious watching him deny being pranked by 4-chan. I wonder if the rumors that he flipped are actually true? I mean, he really does seem like the type of sleaze who only cares about money...
> Go watch the video again, the C-span version is on Youtube. Pay attention to how he doesn't respond to questioned accurately, pay attention to his demeanor and temperament.
I did. He's pissed off that this was a well-prepared lie. This wasn't some random off-the-cuff allegation, this was, in fact, calculated revenge with most of the MSM on board. Though it was amazing to see some "news" departments run stories about this with what appeared to be lawyer-driven rewrites to avoid defamation lawsuits later, given that they kept writing stories about not being able to corroborate anything whatsoever about the story.
This is part of why she'd like to drop the matter now. I'm not convinced they will let her do that, though. Ideally, all the records she refused to hand over will be seized and she will be charged with perjury. It's funny you raise this point, there was a great body language expert reading Ford, pointing out how she was being manipulative.
You don't get to attack someone with a fake hit job like this and then disqualify them for being mad about it. I can see why you would not want a pissed-off judge on the court, but that's a problem of your own making. I'm not going to disqualify everyone you piss off. I will laugh when the same standard is used against you, though. There's some chance they might go after her for perjury. That will be *very* entertaining. I'd love to see them appeal it to the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas could write the majority opinion...
> Now you're trying to bring that up? Man, you really do like to undercut your own arguments for some reason. Here's a hint: They have to deal with it. It's a fact of life.
Let's be clear about the context of this quote: you're excusing death threats here. True threats are one of a very few actual exceptions to free speech. Yes, I realize that it's par for the course against leftists. I saw /r/LateStageCapitalism talking about this as the time to be violent and decrying pacifists in their midst. I saw /r/ChaposTrapHouse talking about "baseball" -- that is, wanting more events like when some unhinged person went to the Congressional Republican's baseball game and tried to murder them.
Thank you for being clear that you will violently murder anyone you disagree with for that crime. It helps make our choices clear. Conversely, I have no intention of hurting anyone that does not first threaten me with violence. And no, I don't mean that BS where words are "vio
You need to read the rest of the law because it explicitly contradicts your point:
"This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States." (emphasis added)
Hint: if a non-lawyer has a theory about how a common police tactic is actually illegal and you can't find any lawyers arguing it, you're probably wrong. I'll just leave this guide about entrapment here, because it's the next bit of law people are likely to get laughably wrong.
> The problem I have with you is your apologia for Kavanaugh can't be believed. All your citation of a post-dated letter means is what? That you think a claim produced after a fact is legitimate evidence? That's laughable.
So do you believe a 2012 note from counseling despite the door happening in 2008? Or maybe you believe Urban Dictionary? Fact is, that's something those people actually know--they would have actually played the game with him. It's not like this "oh, I heard her allegations only *26* years after the fact" nonsense.
> Same goes with all your claims about these witnesses. Contrary to your assertions, none of them have denied the events, what they have denied is knowledge of them. In fact, that woman you claimed "disconfirmed" something wrote a letter to disagree with the misrepresentations that were made about her statements refuting the assault. Funny that too.
Kav & his friend most certainly did directly deny it. You might expect that, but it's interesting that neither one said "oh, we were at the party but it didn't happen" and instead said "there was no party"--something corroborated by Ford's best friend.
> Besides, and this may shock you, I know it totally perplexed the guy at Wal-Mart today, I don't care for a single thing Ford said. I care about how Kavanaugh reacted, and I slightly care about how you've reacted in the sense that I enjoy the joke you're making of yourself.
Actually I get that--the facts never mattered here and you're just trolling me. But here's the shocker: I don't care either. I will still let people know the truth, I can always just pretend I'm talking to the wall. We all know that the most damning allegation against him to most people has always been that he's a Republican.
> Your inability to understand how memory works, for example, does not serve you well at all. Nor your citing a recent letter. Nor somebody trying to edit Wikipedia. Even your focus on Ford is just bad for you, as there is no trial or lawsuit, it is about being confirmed to the Supreme Court. Anything else? A joke.
I do know how memory works--including how unreliable it is and even why it's unreliable. The fact that her memories *changed* and kept changing in response to newly discovered facts that things *couldn't* have happened the way she originally alleged is what shows how she deserves to be charge with perjury.
> So Kavanaugh? Discredited by his own failure to admit his drinking behavior as well as his intemperate response and cries of victimhood. He just lacks the moral fortitude and mental equanimity to be on the Supreme Court.
Obama did cocaine and made President. Tell us another one about how liking beer disqualifies you from higher office, please, it's hilarious. Making death threats against his family isn't a good reason to be upset to you? A crazy person tried to kill Trump & Mattis the other day too by mailing ricin, I wonder if you even heard about that. Yeah, it'd never work (they scan for that), but logic never was your guys' strong suit, was it?
> That just makes him sound like an idiot who doesn't want the American people to have the truth, no matter who it hurts.
Here's some truth that hurts: by the end of the weekend you will be able to call him Associate Justice Kavanaugh. You lose.
Ginsberg is most likely the next one to replace. She's too old to hold on much longer and this nonsense has hurt vulnerable Democrats in the polls. Based on her age, she has roughly a double-digit percentage chance to die each year. If Trump gets a second term, you'll probably be looking at 7-2 splits for a generation.
Where is reality's liberal bias now?
One more thing, here's a letter signed by several classmates explaining the "Devil's Triangle" game that became so infamous. It's funny how he can find people to corroborate his statements and explain this stuff while absolutely none of the people she placed at the party, including her life-long friend, knows anything about it.
And that includes her--she remembers so much trivial stuff, but all the important facts, that if actually corroborated would prove her story, are fuzzy. Funny how that works. It's also funny how the story changes every time facts come out that it couldn't have happened the way she remembered it before. You can see it on her own damned note from the polygraph test, where she crossed out some words that had become inconvenient because Brett wasn't *there* in the mid-80s, only to find out that the Safeway wasn't there in 1982.
Given that the very few details she claims to remember are clearly false, how are we supposed to believe any part of this story?
> Because none of that applies to the friend who had no traumatic encounter and no knowledge of this Kavanaugh person.
> For her, it was apparently just another party.
Where her friend mysteriously disappeared, despite having to go past her to get to the door and having no way to arrange a ride home?
> That people who are apologists for Kavanaugh are making it out as if Keyser refuted the claim, that she denied aby incident, discredits them, and by extension Kavanaugh.
She doesn't even remember how many people where there, ALL of the named persons disconfirm the story, and the Safeway she made central to her Senate testimony didn't exist until 4 years later according to public records. She has a history of changing her story every time evidence disconfirms it. The door she went to counseling in 2012 to get was built back in 2008. There are giant holes in every single part of the story she does remember, so the fact that your central witness can't remember anything about the alleged assault while Bret can tell you exactly where he was for the entire summer of 1982 simply underscores the fact that this is pure nonsense.
> You, of course, don't see the problem with your own actions.
You stole my words. I get that you don't like him, but to be unable to see through the obvious pattern of lies just makes me feel sorry for you. Are you always this easily manipulated or is it just hate blindness?
> You can also, as amply demonstrated by yourself, falsely claim that any witnesses at all(let alone every one of them) refute and deny claims even as what they really said is that they don't remember any specific incidents
So why doesn't Ford's life long friend remember the party where her friend was almost raped, where she had to flee down a short, narrow stairwell, and where she had no way home, due to cell phones not existing yet?
âoeSimply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,â Howard Walsh, an attorney for Keyser, wrote.
Somehow, no one but Ford remembers this party at all. Somehow her friend didn't notice her missing from a gathering of 4-6 people (depending on when Ford was asked), despite her having to flee from two drunks and out the door. Ford did not know how she got to this party, who introduced her to the gathering, or how she got home.
Remember how she kept pushing for the dates that Kav's friend worked at the grocery store to pin things down? Pity it wasn't built until 1986, when Kav was no longer there. How did she meet Kav's friend there shortly after a party in 1982? Oh, and the second front door they went to counseling over? It was built in 2008 according to public records, not 2012, when they were fighting over it. It also doesn''t provide an escape route, just a second access for people who were renting the place. The notes don't mention Kav at all, either. The polygraph? I love how she changed the date on her account on the paper, doesn't know when it happened, or who paid for it.
The lady who questioned her goes into great detail as to why there's nothing to substantiate the account.
Oh, and the ice thing? Try reading the actual police report. I doubt it says what you think it does. But yes, feel free to regurgitate second-hand allegations without looking at primary sources, like the various property records, maps, etc. that show how her story keeps changing in response to people discovering it couldn't have happened the way it was remembered earlier. But yes, please tell me how speculation regarding various nonsense words that were more recently defined on Urban Dictionary (which also did not exist in 1982) is somehow "proof" of something, because you got caught in a lie when trying to attack a man who lives a life orderly enough to have calendars from 1982.
> Interestingly, "charlatan" is also the word for people who want to be believed on the basis of a single out of context factoid.
A claim can be refuted by counter-examples.
> You are in effect arguing that because one woman was able to teach at a university in the 1200s the argument "it's not been that long since women could actually attend a university and get a degree in physics" is completely invalidated. A single exception does not invalidate anything: note "women" is plural, and Bettisia Gozzadini was not a physicist. The OP's goalposts remain unmoved.
That only gets you up to 1390, at best, and that's for women who *teach* there. Presumably, many more were educated long before that, unless you believe that every woman who graduated became a professor there.
> Moving your goalposts a bit, we find that the first recorded female professor of physics was Laura Bassi in the 1700s, also (interestingly) at the University of Bologna.
That doesn't help the OP's claims any, but whatever.
> So no, one exception does not invalidate a general rule
That's like saying the statement "there are no even primes" isn't invalidated just because 2 exists.
Anyhow, the argument would be that women have been getting education for a very long time, not that there were no barriers in getting there. Everyone has faced lots of barriers, but women have gotten educations for a long time. Right now, they're doing better than men in university, in fact. So I'm not sure how you can claim that allegations of historical oppression are stopping women today from studying physics and you don't appear to be any too clear on that either, given that you did nothing to connect the dots. I had to refute that because it was pretty much the only claim made by OP, but you had the opportunity to do more.
Then again, I should credit you, you gave the best argument so far. That's a very low bar to clear over those who haven't given anything really, but it's a start. Think through your beliefs a bit more and we can talk again.