America - The Official Thread

[Sanji Himura]

I have been digesting the Kavanaugh situation for the better part of 2 days, and I feel that the fact that Senator Feinstein, by Senator Graham's statement, SAT on the accusations for 20 days while the FBI was investigating his past is absolutely disgusting. Was Doctor Ford raped? Possibly, but the ship to get any justice has long since sailed and she is using it as a political weapon.

Then there is this matter, why in the living He Double hockey sticks was Representative Lee from Houston giving Ford's lawyer an envelope? Could it be that she was pawning off advanced questions that the committee was going to ask, or is it payment for "services rendered"? Either way, it is VERY unethical.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I agree. I believed her testimony over Kavanaugh's (for what that's worth) but I feel that the Democrats have "handled" the timing of the crisis for political ends. As much as the Republicans are getting a public drubbing for their attitude to the accusations (rightly, imo) the Democrats have acted little, if any, better. We're now hearing that there are further accusers who've come out in public after Dr. Ford made her allegations. They should be listened too just as Dr. Ford was but I fear they've become victims of the same calculated Democrat strategy that's damaging her chance at being heard in a sympathetic, timely fashion.

I still feel that proper investigations/hearings should be held for all the accusations. For fairness Kavanaugh's selection process should continue but he shouldn't be allowed to take his seat until the outcome of those investigations is known, or at least until there's enough information for a sensible, non-partisan decision to be made. My feeling is that none of that will happen - he'll take his seat and this will be a subject those spoken of with regret when the next patriarchal crisis occurs in twenty years' time.

I think I'll decide when a more proper investigation is done, since there is nothing overwhelming one way or another to make me think he is beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty. It's easy to say she is a liar or he is guilty from where we stand, but in reality if he is innocent you've just condemned a person, and if she is telling the truth you've just condemned a woman seeking justice and trying to prevent a bad man obtaining more power. You've defined how bad the situation is all around.

 

[PocketZeven]

I mean I remember a lot of stuff around here and other places that people said and on what thread, but other people don't. I remember life events that my wife can't remember but I remember vividly. Some people honestly have a better memory of things, but it has been scientifically proven that over time the memory and recollected events may not have actually unfolded the way those people think, and they may remember something similar to the event but fill the gaps with things that didn't happen to complete the memory.

Does that mean that this didn't happen to Ford and she wasn't assaulted or worse, nope? Does it mean that she may have been wrong about who it was considering it's been 35 years, perhaps. The fact that people don't want to analyze lately and just take the "victim's" word from the gates rather than have a leveled measure is quite scary to me. I also don't think the dismissive behavior of the past where these situation went without investigation and women told to just pick up the pieces, is equally as wrong.

My issues with the situation is as @BobK said, in one regard where this seems to be a political use of a woman's suffering to achieve an agenda. At the other side of it, I also have an issue that there is a potential he could be innocent and a trial by media in play claims guilt forever. If he is guilty then he should face whatever possible, and I hope those who brought this forward help Ford achieve that and not use it as a political stance only.



So you seem to be leveling a thought that if she is for the most part calm, then why shouldn't he be? That seems silly to ask considering they're different people and will handle things different. He's being accused of sexual assault, at risk of losing his means of living because of it, and now potentially may see an investigation by federal authorities.

Seems quite daunting especially when you label it as a job interview, it's more than that at this point but then I remind myself how you tend to frame stuff to make a point.

After the comments made in this thread about the demeanor of both Kavanaugh and ford i did some research and found this chart below:

If you look at this chart without watching the hearings which person in would be more inclined to speak to truth and who is lying? Try to reach your conclusion as unbiased as possible. Now watch the hearing with this chart in mind, I can only conclude that Ford is more credible then Kavanaugh. I also noticed this behavior from kavanaugh during the early hearings where he refused to answer certain questions. The more I put myself in his shoes the more I think he is guilty.


In my 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry the people who work themselves up in a frenzy are very likely to be lying. People who remain calmly are more likely to be truthful. There are however exceptions, but I honestly can’t say without a doubt if kavanaugh is an exception or not.

Edit: spell correction

 

[TexRex]

So you seem to be leveling a thought that if she is for the most part calm, then why shouldn't he be? That seems silly to ask considering they're different people and will handle things different.

This. This, this, this, this, this.

"He accused people of being out to get him, so he must be guilty." Bull. "He was on the verge of tears, so he must be innocent." Bull.

 

[PocketZeven]

This. This, this, this, this, this.

"He accused people of being out to get him, so he must be guilty." Bull. "He was on the verge of tears, so he must be innocent." Bull.

The inability to answer obvious question that you should know the answer to, does indicate that someone is not being honest.

 

[Sanji Himura]

In my 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry the people who work themselves up in a frenzy are very likely to be lying. People who remain calmly are more likely to be truthful.

The pattern doesn't really match here. Kavanaugh DID NOT know who his accuser was until SOMEONE outed her. He does have the right to face his accuser after all, and the process was tainted the very moment that Senator Feinstein decided to sit on the accusations rather than forwarding them to the committee.

 

[TexRex]

The inability to answer obvious question that you should know the answer to, does indicate that someone is not being honest

Or that one is overwhelmed by the situation.

In school, I was a terrible test taker. I could know the material through and through, but the test-taking dynamic caused me to clamp up and have difficulty recalling the information that I otherwise knew.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

After the comments made in this thread about the demeanor of both Kavanaugh and ford i did some research and found this chart below:
View attachment 769517

If you look at this chart without watching the hearings which person in would be more inclined to speak to truth and who is lying? Try to reach your conclusion as unbiased as possible. Now watch the hearing with this chart in mind, I can only conclude that Ford is more credible then Kavanaugh. I also noticed this behavior from kavanaugh during the early hearings where he refused to answer certain questions. The more I put myself in his shoes the more I think he is guilty.


In my 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry the people who work themselves up in a frenzy are very likely to be lying. People who remain calmly are more likely to be truthful. There are however exceptions, but I honestly can’t say without a doubt if kavanaugh is an exception or not.

Edit: spell correction

Why would I look at a chart that is quite strange in construction, and not look at the backing material used to make it?

In my many years of customer service and work I've seen people get into frenzy for various reasons and they're not lying but honestly mistaken and don't take being told so the best of ways. Doesn't mean they were lying at all and I've seen people be straight faced and lie. The body language analysis of things is very narrow, and is only a single facet to proving innocence or guilt. Again you may find it easy to say that he is most likely guilty, I rather a true investigation before I personally have a view point of condemning someone to said claim.

 

[McLaren]

After the comments made in this thread about the demeanor of both Kavanaugh and ford i did some research and found this chart below:

If you look at this chart without watching the hearings which person in would be more inclined to speak to truth and who is lying? Try to reach your conclusion as unbiased as possible. Now watch the hearing with this chart in mind, I can only conclude that Ford is more credible then Kavanaugh. I also noticed this behavior from kavanaugh during the early hearings where he refused to answer certain questions. The more I put myself in his shoes the more I think he is guilty.

Questions and transcript would have to be provided. Easy to make her out to be completely truthful compared to Kavanaugh if one didn't watch the hearings and doesn't know what was asked.

Same with the polygraph test she passed; it was 2 generic questions. It would have been interesting if more questions were asked, or if any yes/no questions with Kavanaugh referred to specifically.

Is any part of your written statement false? No.

Did you make any of it up? No.

That being said, Vox is not exactly the fairest of reputable sources. Men have never been safe from allegation; I cited 3 earlier in this thread alone, each from a different point in time where a man was accused and either died, was sentenced, or nearly sentenced under false allegation.

Whatever happens with Kavanaugh’s confirmation, men are no longer safe from the testimony of women. And they’re starting to get scared.

It's very easy these days to ruin anyone's life with such an allegation, well before one is either proven guilty or innocent. I've personally seen a fellow high school classmate have his entire football scholarship for a college revoked because of a rape allegation. It never went to court thankfully as the girl admitted she was upset he broke up with her, but the damage was done as far as his athletic career was concerned in college. He ended up moving shortly after because people still think he did something.

 

[PocketZeven]

Questions and transcript would have to be provided. Easy to make her out to be completely truthful compared to Kavanaugh if one didn't watch the hearings and doesn't know what was asked.

Same with the polygraph test she passed; it was 2 generic questions. It would have been interesting if more questions were asked, or if any yes/no questions with Kavanaugh referred to specifically.

That being said, Vox is not exactly the fairest of reputable sources. Men have never been safe from allegation; I cited 3 earlier in this thread alone, each from a different point in time where a man was accused and either died, was sentenced, or nearly sentenced under false allegation.


It's very easy these days to ruin anyone's life with such an allegation, well before one is either proven guilty or innocent. I've personally seen a fellow high school classmate have his entire football scholarship for a college revoked because of a rape allegation. It never went to court thankfully as the girl admitted she was upset he broke up with her, but the damage was done as far as his athletic career was concerned in college. He ended up moving shortly after because people still think he did something.

I think in polygraph tests they ask some more questions to get a baseline. I understand the concecuenses of false accusation, but these past few years I haven’t come across any high profile cases where the the accusation turned out false. Remember that dr Ford has a good job, a family and has absolutely nothing to gain from this. She already discussed the incident in therapy long before Kavanaugh was nominated. So I don’t see how you can compare this with the example you mentioned. In my circle of friends i also had friends falsely accused of assault. And come to think of it the accuser was fired up and quite aggressive while the accused kept his cool. In frustration she admitted guilt under pressure of the possibility of it actually going to court.

 

[Imari]

A supreme judge needs to be impartial, not partisan.

You'd think so, but that ship sailed in American politics some time ago. There is demonstrably no problem with partisan appointments to the Supreme Court in the US, it's sort of expected.

Of course polygraphs are not 100% reliable, but I would do one nonetheless.

Polygraphs are pseudoscience. They tell you nothing. You're as likely to get information supporting the wrong conclusion as the right one, so why do it if you're just going to have to ignore the information?

I think in polygraph tests they ask some more questions to get a baseline.

Seriously, polygraphs are junk. Stop believing what they tell you in movies. Since you like Vox, here:

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/5999119/polygraphs-lie-detectors-do-they-work

That being said, Vox is not exactly the fairest of reputable sources.

To my knowledge Vox seems to do fairly well in the factual parts of their reporting, but they do have very, very strong biases on how they present it. The information is usually there for review and interpretation, but I'm always very wary of simply accepting their view of the situation.

 

[PocketZeven]

You'd think so, but that ship sailed in American politics some time ago. There is demonstrably no problem with partisan appointments to the Supreme Court in the US, it's sort of expected.



Polygraphs are pseudoscience. They tell you nothing. You're as likely to get information supporting the wrong conclusion as the right one, so why do it if you're just going to have to ignore the information?



Seriously, polygraphs are junk. Stop believing what they tell you in movies. Since you like Vox, here:

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/5999119/polygraphs-lie-detectors-do-they-work



To my knowledge Vox seems to do fairly well in the factual parts of their reporting, but they do have very, very strong biases on how they present it. The information is usually there for review and interpretation, but I'm always very wary of simply accepting their view of the situation.

I am aware it is pseudo science, yet in the public eye it has some sense of reliability and the us law enforcement agencies are the largest users of the test and still use it to this day.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/insider-threats/article24752116.html#.UiIeOn9fuSp

It isn’t the definite proof for anything, but now it is the time to find as much evidence there is to proof or disprove it happened like the accuser is claiming.

 

[Northstar]

Polygraphs are pseudoscience. They tell you nothing.

Are you telling me Jeremy Kyle and Maury have been fibbing us this whole time?

Seriously, polygraphs are junk.

That they are, in fact there's only 4 states where a polygraph can be used as evidence in court and even than only if all parties agree to it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I am aware it is pseudo science, yet in the public eye it has some sense of reliability and the us law enforcement agencies are the largest users of the test and still use it to this day.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/insider-threats/article24752116.html#.UiIeOn9fuSp

It isn’t the definite proof for anything, but now it is the time to find as much evidence there is to proof or disprove it happened like the accuser is claiming.

If you agree it's pseudo science and you understand that terminology then you wouldn't be saying "finding evidence by any means is paramount to this investigation, even if it means using pseudo science."

I'm paraphrasing your post obviously, but the point is still direct. So it's quite confusing to me why you are so pressed on proving something with means that in the end prove nothing, just to say "at least they're doing something..."

Which is a similar stance I've seen you take in other OCE threads. Doing something that in the end amounts to nothing, is a futile exercise, I don't know why you press for it, because again it achieves nothing.

 

[Imari]

I am aware it is pseudo science, yet in the public eye it has some sense of reliability...

Which is exactly why it shouldn't be used, because despite it being a magic trick people will believe it.

...and the us law enforcement agencies are the largest users of the test and still use it to this day.

So? Doesn't change a thing. The US law enforcement agencies are stupid to continue using it, and that has been well established.

Or is this along the lines of we know that torture doesn't work as an interrogation technique, but the US still use it so everyone else should too?

It isn’t the definite proof for anything, but now it is the time to find as much evidence there is to proof or disprove it happened like the accuser is claiming.

Yes. And a polygraph provides no evidence whatsoever. In fact, it provides things that look like evidence, and that stupid people will attempt to use as evidence, but are in fact meaningless. So actually, you waste everyone's time both doing the test and then having to explain why that test is useless and shouldn't be taken as evidence.

It would seem a lot easier just to avoid the whole thing up front and admit that polygraphs are dumb.

How about this: Tell me in simple terms how a polygraph test would help to prove or disprove the claims of the accuser.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Same with the polygraph test she passed; it was 2 generic questions.

Hate to say this, but more than two questions would have to have been asked. As someone stated earlier, two questions alone would have to been asked to establish a baseline (one is where Ford was telling the truth and one where she was intentionally lying).

Also, I find this very telling. I know that twitter is not often newsworthy, but I saw one tweet that basically said that Ford spoke her truth, but not necessarily the truth. I mean if ordinary people are seeing right through the sham, as Senator Graham puts it, then Kavanaugh has nothing to worry about with the supplemental investigation.

 

[PocketZeven]

If you agree it's pseudo science and you understand that terminology then you wouldn't be saying "finding evidence by any means is paramount to this investigation, even if it means using pseudo science."

I'm paraphrasing your post obviously, but the point is still direct. So it's quite confusing to me why you are so pressed on proving something with means that in the end prove nothing, just to say "at least they're doing something..."

Which is a similar stance I've seen you take in other OCE threads. Doing something that in the end amounts to nothing, is a futile exercise, I don't know why you press for it, because again it achieves nothing.

Which is exactly why it shouldn't be used, because despite it being a magic trick people will believe it.



So? Doesn't change a thing. The US law enforcement agencies are stupid to continue using it, and that has been well established.

Or is this along the lines of we know that torture doesn't work as an interrogation technique, but the US still use it so everyone else should too?



Yes. And a polygraph provides no evidence whatsoever. In fact, it provides things that look like evidence, and that stupid people will attempt to use as evidence, but are in fact meaningless. So actually, you waste everyone's time both doing the test and then having to explain why that test is useless and shouldn't be taken as evidence.

It would seem a lot easier just to avoid the whole thing up front and admit that polygraphs are dumb.

How about this: Tell me in simple terms how a polygraph test would help to prove or disprove the claims of the accuser.

I understand it looks like I am contradicting myself, but like I quoted in the USA it is still used in background checks. More importantly dr. Ford did undertake one herself. And it is the choice of the senate to choose if the data is credible or not, but it is also important to compare apples with apples. The democrats can equally use it to claim Kavanaugh is "afraid" to do a polygraph. Especially because Ford passed her own test. Public perception is important here. A public statement about the unreliability of polygraph tests will not help Kavanaugh, but hurt his credibility in the public eye.

But in my personal beliefs after doing research about it several years ago (because it is very uncommenly used here in europe) I already concluded it is too unreliable.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I understand it looks like I am contradicting myself, but like I quoted in the USA it is still used in background checks. More importantly dr. Ford did undertake one herself. And it is the choice of the senate to choose if the data is credible or not, but it is also important to compare apples with apples. The democrats can equally use it to claim Kavanaugh is "afraid" to do a polygraph. Especially because Ford passed her own test. Public perception is important here. A public statement about the unreliability of polygraph tests will not help Kavanaugh, but hurt his credibility in the public eye.

But in my personal beliefs after doing research about it several years ago (because it is very uncommenly used here in europe) I already concluded it is too unreliable.

The dems could say that, which Kavanaugh could retort with the same facts we know, they don't work. Also just because background checks utilize said test doesn't mean it is done as a method to prove guilt or innocence. In reality it is done to see how much a person is willing to give background of their life to, and thus show honesty rather than potential deception. It should be noted that in recent years the idea of a poly being the be all end all to denying someone clearance if they fail, is not actually the case. In reality there is a reason the FBI or others talk to people you've communicated with over the years, to establish a baseline.

And the public eye shouldn't be the judge in all reality, cause the public eye tends to have many people who are gullible and think polygraphs are a silver bullet of proof in the fight for justice. As has been said it's not, it has no legal standing because courts here and internationally don't recognize said tests. So the quicker people understand that the better.

 

[Imari]

I understand it looks like I am contradicting myself, but like I quoted in the USA it is still used in background checks.

Doesn't make it any more reliable. It's only allowed in actual law in very limited places, which are also mocked for being behind the times. As far as people doing background checks, they can use Ouija boards or tea leaves for all anyone cares. It's a very different thing to using it to establish whether someone has committed a crime.

More importantly dr. Ford did undertake one herself.

Doesn't make any difference. Two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, two stupids make extra double stupid. She should know better, but I rather imagine she was relying on people like you who somehow think that it's a potentially valid data point.

And it is the choice of the senate to choose if the data is credible or not, but it is also important to compare apples with apples.

Stop it. Just stop it.

The data is not credible because it came from a polygraph. That's not up to the senate to choose, that's just a fact. All you're doing by giving him a polygraph is giving the senate a chance to screw it up.

There's no apples to apples to compare. You've got up to two pieces of data (a polygraph from Ford and Kavanaugh) that are absolutely meaningless and all you're testing is whether the senate is smart enough to ignore them.

Don't get me wrong, they're quite possibly not smart enough which is exactly why the test shouldn't be done in the first place. If you don't want children to electrocute themselves, maybe don't sit them in front of a live outlet with a fork in each hand.

The democrats can equally use it to claim Kavanaugh is "afraid" to do a polygraph.

They can if they want, and they will be stupid if they do so.

Especially because Ford passed her own test.

Doesn't make any difference. There's no value in passing something that has no relationship to whether the testee was telling the truth or lying. She could have passed the Hogwarts Sorting Hat and gotten placed into Gryffindor for all the difference it makes.

Public perception is important here.

Is it? I thought that was the whole problem, that we're getting to the point where a candidate for the SCOTUS is being chosen by a popularity poll rather than on his merits. A polygraph is helping that, is it?

A public statement about the unreliability of polygraph tests will not help Kavanaugh, but hurt his credibility in the public eye.

Yes. God forbid someone tells the truth. What we should all do is instead lean into the "reliability" of polygraphs even though we all know it's bollocks, and if we all pretend hard enough maybe it'll all come out all right.

Your whole argument seems to be "someone else might do something dumb, so let's get in first!" That seems like an excellent way to make sure that you never really know what happened, and that Kavanaugh gets selected or not based on things that are under no circumstances related to anything that happened in real life.

But in my personal beliefs after doing research about it several years ago (because it is very uncommenly used here in europe) I already concluded it is too unreliable.

Well congratulations, welcome to joining the rest of the sane world. So why are you still advocating for it?

 

[PocketZeven]

The dems could say that, which Kavanaugh could retort with the same facts we know, they don't work. Also just because background checks utilize said test doesn't mean it is done as a method to prove guilt or innocence. In reality it is done to see how much a person is willing to give background of their life to, and thus show honesty rather than potential deception. It should be noted that in recent years the idea of a poly being the be all end all to denying someone clearance if they fail, is not actually the case. In reality there is a reason the FBI or others talk to people you've communicated with over the years, to establish a baseline.

And the public eye shouldn't be the judge in all reality, cause the public eye tends to have many people who are gullible and think polygraphs are a silver bullet of proof in the fight for justice. As has been said it's not, it has no legal standing because courts here and internationally don't recognize said tests. So the quicker people understand that the better.

I didnt stated itn to be an end all be all. The baseline is that both Ford and kavanaugh have done a polygraph. So that it can not be used as a positive or negative. But in the context of this hearing it isnt appropiate to point out the shortcomings of the polygraph. So you dont have to convince me, but what you cant convince me about is that all Republicans in the senate believe what you and I agree about polygraphs. Some of these senators still live in the 60/70's.

Doesn't make it any more reliable. It's only allowed in actual law in very limited places, which are also mocked for being behind the times. As far as people doing background checks, they can use Ouija boards or tea leaves for all anyone cares. It's a very different thing to using it to establish whether someone has committed a crime.



Doesn't make any difference. Two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, two stupids make extra double stupid. She should know better, but I rather imagine she was relying on people like you who somehow think that it's a potentially valid data point.



Stop it. Just stop it.

The data is not credible because it came from a polygraph. That's not up to the senate to choose, that's just a fact. All you're doing by giving him a polygraph is giving the senate a chance to screw it up.

There's no apples to apples to compare. You've got up to two pieces of data (a polygraph from Ford and Kavanaugh) that are absolutely meaningless and all you're testing is whether the senate is smart enough to ignore them.

Don't get me wrong, they're quite possibly not smart enough which is exactly why the test shouldn't be done in the first place. If you don't want children to electrocute themselves, maybe don't sit them in front of a live outlet with a fork in each hand.



They can if they want, and they will be stupid if they do so.



Doesn't make any difference. There's no value in passing something that has no relationship to whether the testee was telling the truth or lying. She could have passed the Hogwarts Sorting Hat and gotten placed into Gryffindor for all the difference it makes.



Is it? I thought that was the whole problem, that we're getting to the point where a candidate for the SCOTUS is being chosen by a popularity poll rather than on his merits. A polygraph is helping that, is it?



Yes. God forbid someone tells the truth. What we should all do is instead lean into the "reliability" of polygraphs even though we all know it's bollocks, and if we all pretend hard enough maybe it'll all come out all right.

Your whole argument seems to be "someone else might do something dumb, so let's get in first!" That seems like an excellent way to make sure that you never really know what happened, and that Kavanaugh gets selected or not based on things that are under no circumstances related to anything that happened in real life.



Well congratulations, welcome to joining the rest of the sane world. So why are you still advocating for it?

Dont confuse my personal beliefs with my opinion about the FBI investigation within the context of the senate conformation of Kavanaugh.

I am only advocating in the context of this hearing. I agree if both parties in the senate agree the polygraph is bull then it is of the table, but do you see that happening? If Ford's polygraph and perhaps Kavanaugh's lack of one can persuade 1 US Republican Senator to vote no, even though he is 100% innocent, he will be scarred as a molester for the rest of his life. And again I am not advocating it personally and even believe it is a reliable tool.

edit: added response to @Imari

 

[Johnnypenso]

I didnt stated itn to be an end all be all. The baseline is that both Ford and kavanaugh have done a polygraph. So that it can not be used as a positive or negative. But in the context of this hearing it isnt appropiate to point out the shortcomings of the polygraph. So you dont have to convince me, but what you cant convince me about is that all Republicans in the senate believe what you and I agree about polygraphs. Some of these senators still live in the 60/70's.


Dont confuse my personal beliefs with my opinion about the FBI investigation within the context of the senate conformation of Kavanaugh.

I am only advocating in the context of this hearing. I agree if both parties in the senate agree the polygraph is bull then it is of the table, but do you see that happening? If Ford's polygraph and perhaps Kavanaugh's lack of one can persuade 1 US Republican Senator to vote no, even though he is 100% innocent, he will be scarred as a molester for the rest of his life. And again I am not advocating it personally and even believe it is a reliable tool.

edit: added response to @Imari

This is some of the most convoluted logic I've seen on these boards in quite some time.

I didnt claim that the FBI or comittee would provide judgment. I know how these background checks work, dont try to correct me on things I am not claiming.

You:

But if it was my dreamjob and my family were behind me going through with it, I would ask the comittee to postpone the vote and start a FBI investigation to prove my innocense and speak to the comittee that I am deeply hurt by the allegations, but am certain of my innocence and that any investigation, polygraph will prove it.

You literally said that any investigation and polygraph will prove it. It won't. Polygraphs are not reliable and FBI investigations do not prove or disprove anything. You could literally end up right where you started, your word against the word of a sympathetic sounding woman with zero corroboration.

Of course polygraphs are not 100% reliable, but I would do one nonetheless. Just to prove my point.

If it's not reliable it can't prove anything.

Nope. I would stay as calm and reserved as possible. You seem to forget that Ford equally had death threats and was forced out of anonimity at the last hour. Called "whore" and probably even worse and she even had to relocate her family and even need for security. Yet she stayed calm and composed. It is a job interview.

I'm not a judge, but my father taught me that your word is your bond and my word, my integrity, has been important to me throughout my life. I've had my integrity questioned a handful of times and my reaction was not one of calmness when I perceived that questioning as malicious and with evil intent. I just went through a questioning of my integrity a couple of months ago with an organization I've contracted with for more than a decade. I risked that contract to protect my integrity and my word.

I dont know anyone who would show that kind of reaction at a job interview. Would you hire him?

This is not a job interview. It's a grilling over Kavanaugh's entire life, a life literally built on integrity. He's a judge and integrity is his calling card. Without it his entire life is over and in his mind, likely worthless. Me being who I am, I fully expected him to be emotional just as I would be. I would care less about the job I was interviewing for than having my integrity intact. I'd have no problem hiring him based on the evidence presented so far.

 

[Tornado]

I hear members of Congress going at Kavanaugh, and I can't help but think of the Duke lacrosse case. The questions and things in the hearing sound so fanatical at times that it smacks of trying to push something that should be true because the narrative behind it frames itself and would play well in Peoria because it sounds true ("Trump nominates actual rapist to be a Supreme Court justice") rather than much concern for whether it actually is.

 

[PocketZeven]

This is some of the most convoluted logic I've seen on these boards in quite some time.

That is how I view american politics

 

[McLaren]

I think in polygraph tests they ask some more questions to get a baseline. I understand the concecuenses of false accusation, but these past few years I haven’t come across any high profile cases where the the accusation turned out false.

I have.

Chris Hardwick who is a television actor and is fairly well known was accused of sexual abuse. His girlfriend at the time published an essay similar to Ford's therapy notes noting she was abused, but did not name anyone in specific. The difference though is that Hardwick's girlfriend gave out enough evidence for everyone to conclude she was pointing to Chris. Immediately, Chris' name was wiped from several partnered websites and AMC took him off his shows. AMC with another agency however, conducted an investigation and found no evidence Chris did anything wrong. When he was re-instated, 5 people walked off shows because his ex-girlfriend was not included as part of the investigation which leads a to common problem in this country with allegations; the public will not wait for all the facts. Those 5 people didn't seem to realize Chris' ex-girlfriend chose not to participate in the investigation. I believe her sympathy vanished when Chris produced evidence showing her contacting him repeatedly, wanting to have a relationship again, etc.

Remember that dr Ford has a good job, a family and has absolutely nothing to gain from this. She already discussed the incident in therapy long before Kavanaugh was nominated.

Having nothing to gain doesn't automatically exonerate one from possibly lying.

Nikki Yovino only had a possible boyfriend to gain and that's why she lied about 2 of her classmates raping her. It never went to court as she ended up admitting she lied, and now she's spending a year in jail for it. Malik St. Claire and the other student had to drop out of the college because they were convicted without trial by their peers. He not only suffered losing his scholarship but also depression and anxiety, all at the expense of her not missing out on a new boyfriend.

So I don’t see how you can compare this with the example you mentioned. In my circle of friends i also had friends falsely accused of assault. And come to think of it the accuser was fired up and quite aggressive while the accused kept his cool. In frustration she admitted guilt under pressure of the possibility of it actually going to court.

I'm not comparing my experience with Ford's case, I'm devaluing Vox's statement that men are no longer safe. Men have never been safe. Some get away. Some most certainly do not even when innocent. My classmate was not safe from allegations. Malik St. Claire was not safe. Brian Banks was not safe: he ended up taking a plea agreement to be convicted because the other side of the coin was being possibly sentenced to 41 years in prison. His victim admitted years later she lied. In 1992, VanDyke Perry and Gregory Counts were sentenced to prison for gang rape. Perry was released in 2001 and Counts was released this year when the woman admitted she lied and was pressured by her boyfriend to accuse them.

In 1955, Emmett Till was dragged by his home by Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam over the accusation by Carolyn Bryant that 14-year old Till had groped her at a grocery store. He was mutilated & killed for it. Later that year, Roy & J.W. were cleared of the case. They admitted after the case they did it. It was not until 2008, 53 years later, that Carolyn Bryant said the part where Till groped her & verbally assaulted her, were not true. That interview was not released until last year and the case was reopened this year; Carolyn is 84. She has gotten away with this for most of her life. This case admittedly, is more significant to black history in America than false sexual claims, but it was a false claim none-the-less that got a boy killed.

Men are not safe from sexual assault allegations and most likely, never have been. For all the ones I've seen, most immediately lose something of value, a job, a scholarship, etc. with a public stigma attached to their name, all of this happening well before an actual trial to clear or convict them. Many are appropriately convicted (unlike Brock Turner), and some are cleared but for some reason, left guilty by those in the public. I have no doubt Kavanaugh will remain a sexual abuser for the rest of his life by many regardless of outcome. People in this country have an awful tendency to not care what evidence supplies in many high profile cases.

 

[Betty blue]

I find this case interesting as why these accusations came up now after 36 years? Why not earlier? What evidence does she have to support her claims?

 

[McLaren]

It appears someone came forth with another accusation against Kavanaugh, but has quickly recanted their claim on social media once the transcript of the interview questioning Kavanaugh about it became public. The claim was that Kavanaugh raped an acquaintance of the accuser in 1985 on a boat.

The committee is seeking a criminal investigation for the claim because it has diverted the necessary resources needed for Kavanaugh & Ford in a time-sensitive review.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoXGxeHXgAI2gXH.jpg:large

 

[Dotini]

Since politics and social justice is war by other means, any amount of lying or illegal action is morally justified on the basis of "doing good". But if your goal is truth, safety, peace or prosperity, it is better not to lie or use illegal means to achieve it. This is the eternal conflict within a society of free individuals.

 

[PocketZeven]

I have.

Chris Hardwick who is a television actor and is fairly well known was accused of sexual abuse. His girlfriend at the time published an essay similar to Ford's therapy notes noting she was abused, but did not name anyone in specific. The difference though is that Hardwick's girlfriend gave out enough evidence for everyone to conclude she was pointing to Chris. Immediately, Chris' name was wiped from several partnered websites and AMC took him off his shows. AMC with another agency however, conducted an investigation and found no evidence Chris did anything wrong. When he was re-instated, 5 people walked off shows because his ex-girlfriend was not included as part of the investigation which leads a to common problem in this country with allegations; the public will not wait for all the facts. Those 5 people didn't seem to realize Chris' ex-girlfriend chose not to participate in the investigation. I believe her sympathy vanished when Chris produced evidence showing her contacting him repeatedly, wanting to have a relationship again, etc.

Having nothing to gain doesn't automatically exonerate one from possibly lying.

Nikki Yovino only had a possible boyfriend to gain and that's why she lied about 2 of her classmates raping her. It never went to court as she ended up admitting she lied, and now she's spending a year in jail for it. Malik St. Claire and the other student had to drop out of the college because they were convicted without trial by their peers. He not only suffered losing his scholarship but also depression and anxiety, all at the expense of her not missing out on a new boyfriend.

I'm not comparing my experience with Ford's case, I'm devaluing Vox's statement that men are no longer safe. Men have never been safe. Some get away. Some most certainly do not even when innocent. My classmate was not safe from allegations. Malik St. Claire was not safe. Brian Banks was not safe: he ended up taking a plea agreement to be convicted because the other side of the coin was being possibly sentenced to 41 years in prison. His victim admitted years later she lied. In 1992, VanDyke Perry and Gregory Counts were sentenced to prison for gang rape. Perry was released in 2001 and Counts was released this year when the woman admitted she lied and was pressured by her boyfriend to accuse them.

In 1955, Emmett Till was dragged by his home by Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam over the accusation by Carolyn Bryant that 14-year old Till had groped her at a grocery store. He was mutilated & killed for it. Later that year, Roy & J.W. were cleared of the case. They admitted after the case they did it. It was not until 2008, 53 years later, that Carolyn Bryant said the part where Till groped her & verbally assaulted her, were not true. That interview was not released until last year and the case was reopened this year; Carolyn is 84. She has gotten away with this for most of her life. This case admittedly, is more significant to black history in America than false sexual claims, but it was a false claim none-the-less that got a boy killed.

Men are not safe from sexual assault allegations and most likely, never have been. For all the ones I've seen, most immediately lose something of value, a job, a scholarship, etc. with a public stigma attached to their name, all of this happening well before an actual trial to clear or convict them. Many are appropriately convicted (unlike Brock Turner), and some are cleared but for some reason, left guilty by those in the public. I have no doubt Kavanaugh will remain a sexual abuser for the rest of his life by many regardless of outcome. People in this country have an awful tendency to not care what evidence supplies in many high profile cases.

I understand you sympathize with the men who have been falsely accused. There are cases where they come out of it unscathed and cases where their lives were ruined. But remember that very likely the false accuser has her/his name ruined as well. I pointed out that she has nothing to gain as a lack of a motive to lie. Either she is mentally disturbed or she is politically sacrifices herself at risk of being a high-profile liar, viewed by millions of people. I find that unlikely.

But for every false accusation There are more cases of assaults that go unreported. I have not found a credible source for the percentage that go unreported (obviously) to post here. Of false allegations I found a percentage ranging from 2 to 8%. This percentage does not take in account all the unreported allegations. So let’s take the highest percentage of 8 percent. Then take account that only 0.6 % of accusers actually face jail time at all. I find it hard to believe the theory that Ford is lying.

I find this case interesting as why these accusations came up now after 36 years? Why not earlier? What evidence does she have to support her claims?

She explained it in the hearing. At risk of being accused a liar and shame she never reported it. She was traumatized and in therapy reveled to her husband in 2012. She then was confronted to the nomination of Kavanaugh and wrote a letter to her representative. She tried to remain anonymous to the public, but no one will take anonymous accusation seriously. Her identity got leaked and at the last moment decided it was her story to tell. Like most high profile cases like bill Cosby, Kevin spacey all we’re accused decades after the fact. So it isn’t hard to imagine. Her only evidence till now is her testimony. An FBI investigation will hopefully find more evidence if it happened or not.

That said I just watched the most recent bit on the hearing on last week tonight:

 

[Rallywagon]

I find this case interesting as why these accusations came up now after 36 years? Why not earlier? What evidence does she have to support her claims?

I'm guessing you haven't been following this thread at all huh?

 

[BobK]

enough information for a sensible, non-partisan decision to be made.

We don't do sensible, non-partisan decisions in this country any more, I'm afraid.

dr Ford has a good job, a family and has absolutely nothing to gain from this.

Except for the book deals and lecture circuit tours, of course. Just two things that occur off the top of my head.