Dr. or Judge? Who Do YOU Believe?

"No room for humor"??? Dude, you wasted TWENTY-FIVE PAGES of everybody's time arguing something you didn't even believe in. What the hell was the point?

If this was actually talking I'd lose my voice. And of course my wife would say that's what you get for smoking.

I've been faking it too. It was a ploy. I've been undercover all of this time, as I've secretly been continuing my research on this whole ordeal being the work of the Bogdanoffs.





(that last tweet was unceremoniously deleted afterwards.)

__________________

212 555 6342

Pierce & Pierce: Mergers and Acquisitions

Patrick Bateman
Vice President

358 Exchange Place New York, N.Y. 10099 FAX 212 555 6390 TELEX : () 4534

I'm crazy

Humor is like pudding - there's always room!

Congratulations Trump !! I will go with anything that strengthens the right wing across the world .

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but this all seems a bit much and, sadly for all the "believers without any evidence" out there, all too expected.

It reminds me of after 9/11: I had this one very left, very radical friend and he had all the details arranged of how George Bush pulled off the attack. I listened, then afterward said he was taking random puzzle pieces and forcing them together to make them fit. Sure, there were some coincidences, but most of them didn't connect. Just like if you forced puzzle pieces together that didn't go together - his final assemblage of evidence did not form a coherent picture.

Unlike this situation, where the pieces of an apparent set-up seem to fit together nicely, as one seems to connect snugly into another.

I had a feeling there would be a story (and more stories) like this shortly after the other uncorroborated accusers started coming forward (especially the Swetnick woman - anyone see her interview? Ford was "credible," but Swetnick just seemed to have "Batsh*t Crazy" written all over her!)

But I also predict the Ford revelation won't all come together in one big breaking story, but the information will trickle out gradually. By the time it becomes very obvious or even proven that this was a conspiracy, it will all be "last week's news."

All those who said they know and they believe won't acknowledge something that becomes intentionally forgotten about once it becomes apparent they were duped (or for those that helped orchestrate it, that they were complicit in promoting it!)

In other words, it will all get swept under the rug from the Democrat side and they'll just act like nothing ever happened: there was no radical behavior, no one exhibited the notion of "guilty until proven innocent" toward the accused, and no one raged that they "believe survivors" in response to opportunistically timed, uncorroborated claims without a single shred of evidence.

"Dr. who? Blasey Ford? Is that a new car model?"

Same goes for the opposing side.

Politicians are a lot like grandparents: they are senile and forget what they had for breakfast quite often. Oh yeah, they smell like tapioca and raisins, too.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I wonder why our girl, Monica McLean, would need a lawyer?

"His name is David Laufman. You may not know his name, but you know his work. He worked on the Hillary investigation. He was instrumental in bringing Gen Michael Flynn down, and he was working on the Russian collusion investigation, quitting when investigators started getting close to the DOJ corruption."

This kind of thing happens every single day, and very often the reasons seem frivolous.

Suffice to say this world is getting...

CARAZZZZZZZY

Yea I watch the TV and it is startling how many people say you have to believe women. Assaults against women are by far the most falsely reported crime. With that being the reality, logic would tell anyone that it is the crime that should cast the most doubt. It has nothing to do with not taking the crime seriously or insensitivity towards real victims, but everything to do with the desire to know the truth. These people are either clouded by bias because the crime has touched their lives, or they're just plain stupid.

You convinced me. 9/27 Never Believe.

Who's arguing that people don't lie btw? Is anyone arguing that that never happens? Was that ever the point? You've been going so far down a path to prove that people can falsely accuse (which no one seems to disagree with) as if that's somehow proof against Ford's testimony. Who DOESN'T take that possibility into consideration by default? Again, believe the witness and follow through with an investigation.

This is unique in that the crime was not filed at the time it happened which brings with it a whole other list of complications and considerations that are being pushed aside so as to hide any sense of obligation to a truth that some don't believe in or dont want to believe in. Your lack of faith does not negate the possibility that this specific truth exists. At the same time my belief doesn't prove that it does. I accept the reality that both outcomes are possible. Im not going to buy a half-assed internet Scooby Doo argument sourced by right-wing opinion pieces as if that's the only material to trust. Why are you so trusting of it? You say you're independent but the citations you've mostly given are clearly NOT independentent sources. They're OP-EDITORIALS at that.

Like your allegations to sociopathic conditions, you seem content, if not willing, to jump into the deep end of unfounded speculation as a form of proof to argue but then expect to be taken seriously as a centrist non-affiliated individual.

To be clear, I don't care what people believe. That is not my argument. I care deeply in HOW people come to their beliefs.

Is this not still merely an alleged incident or have I missed some salient recent development?

That is just as crazy as always believing. Why can't we assess each case individually with an open mind using logic and facts?

My whole point about false accusations, which is factually accurate, is to counter the point that women need to be believed, which is asinine when used as a general principal.

But you have it backwards. I am not believing opinions from links I am posting. I am posting links of opinions that I have already given.

Once I came to the conclusion that the story wasn't true, which didn't take long, I started trying to figure out why. Some of my theories were sympathetic to the accuser. I think those theories are much less likely now that more information has come out.

We have something in common here. I like when people come to conclusions by using logic and facts, not by using bias, emotion, or identifying with the accused.

I liked how many in the anti-Trump camp kept asking why would Dr. Ford (or anyone) lie? What would they have to gain from it? These are good questions, yet I think some of the possible answers are quite obvious.

And then Dr. Ford's credible sounding testimony along with her goldie-locks and little girl voice made us all want to believe and protect her from the big bad wolf!

But then Swetnick came along.
At first the Senate Democrats leveled her accusations against Kavanaugh! But, lo and behold, they suddenly dropped all references to that accusation as the claims became incredible, altered, retracted and changed after the woman gave an interview, making Cruella Deville faces and appearing like some schizoid loony!

Point: why would anyone lie?

Obviously the Dems, along with everyone else, wrote off Cruella... I mean Swetnick... for not being "credible," or, in other words... lying... because she must just be another anti-Trump loony who'd say anything to get revenge over Hillary's loss, level the playing field, get 15 minutes of fame, or any number of reasons for falsely accusing a nominee of Trump's.

But they maintained their support for Dr. Ford because "why would anyone lie?"

Well, if it's not already apparent, the reason WHY anyone would lie could be very much the same! And the Dems obviously understand WHY someone would lie since they're not believing Swetnick, and have come up with, at least in their own minds, any number of reasons she would lie.

The only difference may be in the actor and their acting ability.
Swetnick is like William Shatner, whereas Ford was more like Meryl Streep!
(No offense to Shatner - he's a fine actor, but was known for his Shakespeareanesque scenery-chewing in his role as Captain Kirk!)

As I've said before, what makes good liars good at it is that they can appear sincere, invoke compassion and sound credible - their ability to be convincing is what makes them "good" liars as opposed to bad ones. (And I'll just add that psychologists probably know more about how to convince people of things than those in most other professions.)

So when the question is raised again as to why would anyone lie, just look to Swetnick and ask if anyone thinks she was telling the truth? Whatever her reasons were for lying can be easily applied to anyone else (the only difference in apparent credibility is obviously not in the ability to supply a preponderance of evidence... as we've most certainly seen in this case... but may only be in execution and acting ability.)

Good points Cap, but after watching and hearing for the second time, I didn't think she came off as believable at all.

What I couldn't see by listening is the way she looked at people who were there before answering simple questions. What are you looking at them for?

Other things

Mitchell-Didn't your friend ask why you ran out of the house that night?

Ford-I've talked to her recently

What?

Mitchell-Who recommended your attorneys?

Ford-friends and family (true enough to not perjure herself yet not honest)

Mitchell-anyone else?

Ford-oh yea I think Feinstein's office (no shlt)

Anyone find it weird the way she emphasized "accidentally" when describing the alleged incident?

There is so much more. The only thing she said that I believed was google interns using her house. As it turned out, even that made her look bad. Your entire google presence doesn't just disappear overnight unless someone from google manually deleted it. This would only happen if you had connections with people who worked for google. Shady at the very least. Also, that would be a reason for having a second front door, but then her tale about that got destroyed once the building records came out anyway.

One very interesting thing we completely STOPPED hearing about - two men came forward last month saying that THEY may be the men who attacked Dr. Ford when they were all teenagers as they claim to remember having such an incident with her.

The speculation from the left was that these two men were just pro-Trump zealots.

Of course, it would be hard to imagine men willing to risk their reputations, careers, relationships or possibly even face indictment or jail for a crime they didn't commit just to try to exonerate a Trump nominee. But, as we've established, people have been known to go to extremes for any variety of reasons, including admitting to crimes they didn't commit. There are lots of cases to support this idea, but what's known to be far more common is falsely placing blame on someone who committed no crime than admitting to one you had no involvement with.

I can't find any updated info on these individuals (did the FBI look into their claims?) and all the stories that come up on the net have dates from last month.