Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Angrboda]

"If the charge of sexual assault during a party in high school by
Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh  is true, do you
think Brett Kavanaugh:"

The potential answers are, should be confirmed, should not be confirmed, and unsure.

See here.

So you added in "and Kavanaugh is a liar."

I was describing a fact, not reporting a polling question. What difference does it make to my point? Are you saying Republicans wouldn't know Kavanaugh is lying if Christine Blasey Ford's allegation is true? Now you're just being absurd.

I repeat. There is something wrong with you.

[Brian37]

And let me add. This isn't just America, but global. It is a utopia idea to think one can end global trade, and it is insane for 45 to suggest isolationism with his bullshit "America 1rst". We did that after WW1 and waited forever until forced into WW2. His real reason is to pander to bigots and fear. his real reason is his dad bullied him and he mistook that for love and has grown to see authoritarians as to be admired.

Global trade has to exist for the very real reason that our planet's population is so big now that we are far more interconnected than we were 200 years ago, much less 2000 years ago. But what has to stop globally if the world wants more stability, are 62 uber billionaire families that have the combined wealth of 3 billion. After a certain amount, sitting on way more than you need becomes counter productive.

And again, none of what I said is advocating the end of private business. Just a shift in attitude, an appeal to the top to understand what they do affects everyone and they cant simply use "fuck you I got mine".

[John V]

I was describing a fact, not reporting a polling question.

No, you weren't describing a fact. You were putting forth your faulty interpretation of a polling question.

What difference does it make to my point?

It completely invalidates your point. For your point to be valid, the polling question would have to say something along the lines of it being proven now that Ford's charge is true.

As it stands now, I would answer the question as written in the affirmative. I don't know with certainty that the incident didn't occur. Maybe it did. My point is that it's dangerous and unjust to judge the man on an uncorroborated accusation about something that supposedly happened 35 years ago.

However, if you added the proven now language (which is necessary for your interpretation), I would answer in the negative.

Are you saying Republicans wouldn't know Kavanaugh is lying if Christine Blasey Ford's allegation is true?

No, I'm saying there's a difference between it being true, and it being proven true. You're assuming the latter without basis. Not everyone reads it like you did, which is why 12% of Dems and 30% of independents answered in the affirmative. You don't think that 12% of Dems would approve if the charges were proven true, do you? There's obviously different interpretations that you're not allowing for.

I repeat.  There is something wrong with you.

No, you're just not thinking things through. Your partisanship has left you blinded to nuance.

[Mister Agenda]

If they can determine the night of the party and the location of the house

How do they do that?

Are you playing dumb? Genuinely curious.

There were only five people at the alleged party; the house almost certainly belonged to the parents of one of them. They question every witness, and if any witness gives them a name that might be helpful, they question that person too. Heck, maybe they question every student at both high schools that they can still get ahold of. They showed up at my High School and questioned a number of random teachers and students about me when they ran a background check on me. They could do all of this in a couple of weeks, still before the midterms.

And if that doesn't turn up any information that corroborates Ford's story, her credibility is diminished and more benefit of the doubt ought to be given Kavanaugh. Investigation didn't turn up anything, let's move on from this accusation.

The fact that you regard it to be so difficult for the FBI to corroborate Ford's story ought to make you wonder why Kavanaugh and the Republicans don't want to jump on the opportunity to have the FBI saying they couldn't determine any facts of the case that support Ford. If the party didn't happen, of course they won't find anything. That's good for Kavanaugh, right?

---

You know, if the FBI finds evidence that supports Ford's story, that supports Ford's version; and if they don't, that supports Kavanaugh's version. Tricky stuff.

If the bolded were actually the case, I'd support an investigation if it could be done in a reasonable amount of time. But, others here have said that isn't the case - absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. You're the exception. There's no corroborating evidence now and the left thinks he's guilty. An investigation's failure to find corroborating evidence wouldn't change that.

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence in certain circumstances. Absence of strong evidence for Bigfoot doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist, it means that it's unreasonable to conclude that Bigfoot exists (i.e. is guilty of existing). Absence of evidence against Kavanaugh doesn't mean he's innocent of the allegation; it means that it's unreasonable to conclude that he's not innocent of the allegation.

[John V]

Are you playing dumb? Genuinely curious.

No. Are you?

There were only five people at the alleged party; the house almost certainly belonged to the parents of one of them. They question every witness,

What do they ask them? Four have already said they don't recall such a party, and the other can't remember where it was or when it took place.

The fact that you regard it to be so difficult for the FBI to corroborate Ford's story ought to make you wonder why Kavanaugh and the Republicans don't want to jump on the opportunity to have the FBI saying they couldn't determine any facts of the case that support Ford. If the party didn't happen, of course they won't find anything. That's good for Kavanaugh, right?

I've already explained this in detail.

[Angrboda]

The polling question implies that you know the allegation is true. That's what knowing it is true means. You're just taking my point and driving it home with a sledge hammer.

[John V]

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence in certain circumstances. Absence of strong evidence for Bigfoot doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist, it means that it's unreasonable to conclude that Bigfoot exists (i.e. is guilty of existing). Absence of evidence against Kavanaugh doesn't mean he's innocent of the allegation; it means that it's unreasonable to conclude that he's not innocent of the allegation.

And yet that's what the Dems have already done. Why would an investigation which brings us to the point we're already at change anything?

[Mister Agenda]

"If the charge of sexual assault during a party in high school by
Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh  is true, do you
think Brett Kavanaugh:"

The potential answers are, should be confirmed, should not be confirmed, and unsure.

So you added in "and Kavanaugh is a liar."

What?!

[John V]

The polling question implies that you know the allegation is true.

Not to everyone.

That's what knowing it is true means.

It doesn't say that you know it to be true. You're adding that.

You're just taking my point and driving it home with a sledge hammer.

Oh come on, you're a fucking idiot if you think that 12% of Dems, knowing the charge to be true now, and knowing that Kavanaugh was lying about it the whole time, would still support his nomination.

---

So you added in "and Kavanaugh is a liar."

What?!

Huh?!

[Mister Agenda]

Are you playing dumb? Genuinely curious.

No. Are you?

There were only five people at the alleged party; the house almost certainly belonged to the parents of one of them. They question every witness,

What do they ask them? Four have already said they don't recall such a party, and the other can't remember where it was or when it took place.

The fact that you regard it to be so difficult for the FBI to corroborate Ford's story ought to make you wonder why Kavanaugh and the Republicans don't want to jump on the opportunity to have the FBI saying they couldn't determine any facts of the case that support Ford. If the party didn't happen, of course they won't find anything. That's good for Kavanaugh, right?

I've already explained this in detail.

There's a difference between giving a statement and being interrogated. I've been interrogated, you'd be surprised (apparently) at the details a skillful questioner can turn up that you might not have consciously recalled until the interviewer noticed something in your statement and had a chance to press you for more details. When you have to give an answer on the spot vs. mulling it over with great deliberation. In my case, I remembered a detail that led to investigators discovering key evidence, and it was something I barely noticed at the time (whether a key was missing from a keyboard, which placed the keyboard in the car they had found the key in).

The FBI are actually pretty good at their job, AM.