Jump to content

The Joe Biden Presidency Thread


Mr. Hoopah!
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, JayOzOne said:

Add two more to the list. Although I have suspicions they drank the bleach after the Falcons went off the men's draft boards and selected AJ Terrell in round one of last week's draft.

 

 

 

Did either of them die from the bleach or Coronavirus? Because if not, I'm gonna count that as a pretty big win for Trump's theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JDaveG said:

"We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. 'I don’t have any confidence in the story,' she said.

Keyser thought the whole setup Ford described—the Columbia Country Club, followed by a gathering with boys at a local home—sounded wrong, given that Keyser had been working at the Congressional Country Club that summer."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/pogrebin-kelly-kavanaugh/598159/

This is the Atlantic's version of the NYT piece by the same two authors.  3 days later, they appear to have realized, after mounting criticism of their NYT hit piece, that the omission was pretty significant.  Still, they downplayed it, per the narrative.  

Talk about "framing."  Perhaps more in the vernacular than in the sense you meant it, but still.

I "don't have any confidence in the story" does not change the "but I believe her" part from before. That is your framing. And, way to leave out the next part of that quote:

"But Keyser acknowledged that she was a member of the Columbia club, and that she might have stopped by to watch Ford dive and then decided to go to a party. (Ford also said not to assume that the gathering had originated at the club, guessing that it might have been arranged by Keyser and Judge by phone or in person elsewhere.)"

In other words, a person doesn't explicitly remember something from 30 years ago, confirms some details, isn't confident in others. Exactly like happens in many such situations, as described by many experts in these matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JDaveG said:

I see it as a negative because her statements before she "spent time with her attorney" were to the effect that she was **** faced and didn't remember who was in the room or who did that to her.

Until she suddenly remembered, a couple of decades later.

Oh, I get why you see it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Monarch said:

I "don't have any confidence in the story" does not change the "but I believe her" part from before. That is your framing. And, way to leave out the next part of that quote:

"But Keyser acknowledged that she was a member of the Columbia club, and that she might have stopped by to watch Ford dive and then decided to go to a party. (Ford also said not to assume that the gathering had originated at the club, guessing that it might have been arranged by Keyser and Judge by phone or in person elsewhere.)"

In other words, a person doesn't explicitly remember something from 30 years ago, confirms some details, isn't confident in others. Exactly like happens in many such situations, as described by many experts in these matters. 

El.

Oh.

El.

"We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy."

That's literally the sentence that precedes Keyser saying "I don't have any confidence in the story."

She changed her mind as more facts came out and as people pressured her to lie about what she remembered.

But I'm "framing."  That's hilarious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Statick said:

I know, we are stupid, but we ain’t Georgia stupid :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quotes from the Kelly and Pogrebin book attributed to (and others about) Leland Keyser:

"Those facts together I don't recollect, and it just didn't make any sense."

"It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she's getting home," Keyser told Pogrebin and Kelly. "I just really didn't have confidence in the story."

“It is possible that Ford’s account is wrong and that Keyser’s lack of recollection is proof of that,” (Kelly and Pogrebin) wrote, but said “Keyser’s memory might be affected by her struggles with alcohol and other substances.”

*PAUSE*

Why is it okay to claim Keyser's memory was affected by her struggles with alcohol and other substances, but not to point out that Ramirez was drunk AT THE TIME she claimed the event happened and until she holed up with some lawyers said she did not know who did this to her? The message I'm getting is "believe all women.......but not this *****."

Maybe there is an answer......

*CONTINUING*

"I was told behind the scenes that certain things could spread about me if I didn't comply." 

"A group text recounted in the book between Ford’s friends following the hearing included discussions on how to convince Keyser to modify her story. Cheryl Amitay, a grade behind Ford at Holton, urged Keyser’s friends to talk to Keyser. “Maybe one of you guys who are friends with her can have a heart to heart,” Amitay texted. “I don’t care, frankly, how f---ed up her life is.” 

Amitay called Keyser “a major stumbling block.” 

Another Ford classmate, Lulu Gonella, said she was to meet with Keyser within an hour. 

Another friend, a man who’d gone to Holton’s brother school, suggested making Keyser's "addictive tendencies" — the authors describe in the book her struggles with alcohol and drugs — widely known. “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is,” the man texted."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/just-didnt-make-any-sense-leland-keyser-now-challenges-story-of-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford

Please keep in mind, if you want to attack the source here it only proves my point -- the major media didn't tell you this.  They omitted these portions of the book from the NYT article.  They also aren't in The Atlantic article.  When only one side is telling the other side of the story, that side might be in the tank, but it also demonstrates how much the other side is.

And the fact that our media has sides is precisely my point about all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

El.

Oh.

El.

"We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy."

That's literally the sentence that precedes Keyser saying "I don't have any confidence in the story."

She changed her mind as more facts came out and as people pressured her to lie about what she remembered.

But I'm "framing."  That's hilarious.

 

Literally just coming back to say that after reading more, it does seem like she no longer "believes" her old friend. But it really doesn't change much, given that she still corroborated some parts of the story (e.g., dating Judge for a bit, being a member of the club), that she might have gone to a party after watching Ford dive, and that she believed Ford had indeed suffered some "trauma" in her past. Moreover, Ford said from the start she did not expect Keyser to remember. It would have been an insignificant event for her, not something we put deep into memory.

And it also doesn't change the other stuff, like the lack of any motive for Ford (who did try to protect her identity, who has no profit motive, who has no history of fabrication like that), that she told other people about it years before (which in the world of sexual assault is about as good a corroboration as you can get), and the confirmation of other things (like her dating Kavenaugh's friend, etc.).

Again, you will focus on the things that discredit her to the exclusion of all else. I get that.

 

In any event, I'm sure this is growing tiresome for you and me and the board, so feel free to have the last word.

 

Edit: ha! but before you do, I again think it's important to consider their (Kavenaugh and Ford's) testimony. As I said, she came across as a far more credible witness. He seemed much less so, and definitely lied about his past drinking, terms in his yearbook, etc. Like, unnecessary lies. FWIW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Monarch said:

Literally just coming back to say that after reading more, it does seem like she no longer "believes" her old friend. But it really doesn't change much, given that she still corroborated some parts of the story (e.g., dating Judge for a bit, being a member of the club), that she might have gone to a party after watching Ford dive, and that she believed Ford had indeed suffered some "trauma" in her past. Moreover, Ford said from the start she did not expect Keyser to remember. It would have been an insignificant event for her, not something we put deep into memory.

And it also doesn't change the other stuff, like the lack of any motive for Ford (who did try to protect her identity, who has no profit motive, who has no history of fabrication like that), that she told other people about it years before (which in the world of sexual assault is about as good a corroboration as you can get), and the confirmation of other things (like her dating Kavenaugh's friend, etc.).

Again, you will focus on the things that discredit her to the exclusion of all else. I get that.

 

In any event, I'm sure this is growing tiresome for you and me and the board, so feel free to have the last word.

First, thank you for correcting your perception on this.  I respect that greatly.

The only last word I'll have is regarding Ford protecting her identity, etc.  I've addressed the rest upstream.

Ford took a polygraph test on August 7.  She contacted the Washington Post with her story and told them if they didn't want to run the story she would take it to the NYT.  For someone who didn't want to come forward, those seem to be very odd things to do.  

Side note: it's interesting the places you learn this stuff:

"It has only been one year since Christine Blasey Ford appeared on Capitol Hill and for a time was the focal point of national attention, as one of the newly visible faces of the #MeToo movement. But just weeks before that, Ford couldn’t get a Washington Post reporter to call her back on her tip about a likely Supreme Court nominee named Brett Kavanaugh.

What Ford had to do instead was 'the equivalent of a journalism threat,' write New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey in She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement, their new book chronicling the two journalists’ investigations into sexual harassment, assault, and abuse of power. After Ford’s anonymous tip—'Potential Supreme Court nominee with assistance from his friend assaulted me in mid 1980s in Maryland. Have therapy records talking about it. Feels like I shouldn’t be quiet but not willing to put family in DC and CA through a lot of stress.'—went unanswered, she told the Post she might take her story to the Times."

https://newrepublic.com/article/155007/christine-blasey-ford-she-said

I mean, "I really want to protect my privacy" and "if you won't run this I'll go to the NYT" seem to be mutually exclusive positions. Also note:  "likely Supreme Court nominee."  This means this happened before July 9.

She also scrubbed her social media of all of the left-wing and anti-Trump resistance stuff she previously posted there before he was even named as the nominee.  Her attorneys made up some bull**** about her supposed fear of flying before it came out during her sworn testimony that she literally flies all over the globe, all the time.  Having watched the hearings unfold in real time, I remember having a real sense that getting an investigation done was not the object.  The object was delay.  Push it past the midterms so the Democrats can take back the Senate.  That certainly was the concern of Democrats, and her attorneys' actions square with that.  

As to the polygraph itself, it's an odd one.  Two questions were asked.  "Is any part of your written statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?"  That's it.  That's the entirety of the polygraph "examination."  The clear purpose of doing it was to ensure she could say "I passed a polygraph examination."  It was absolutely not to delve into her story and examine whether she was telling the truth about details, etc.  I have never seen such a polygraph examination done in my entire life, save for this one instance.  That is the action of someone who expects her story to be made public, not the action of someone who wants to maintain her privacy.  She knows it's coming out.  And she's getting her evidence together for when it does.

She said she wanted to maintain her privacy.  But her actions suggest she wanted to ambush.  The timing of this story was not accidental.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr. Hoopah! said:

Have I mentioned I’m voting straight ticket democrat in November? 

So you don't care if people are bankrupt which is also causing more and more deaths as this goes along? Dems want people bankrupt and the GOP wants them dead according to some Lemmings on here. Both circumstances are ridiculous, we need to find a happy median that benefits us all as a nation. Bottom line is we don't want either to happen. 

Straight ticket Dems...screw peoples livelihood as long as we have money for the arts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostone said:

Lmfao, Republicans are actively garbage and dems are passively garbage 

 

It's incredibly easy to understand.  Investments are more important than anything else and it isn't even close.  That is what they are trying to protect.  Who cares if millions of people lose their jobs?  Think of the investments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scrunchomarx said:

Yeah but someone’s got them by the nose and they go wherever their pulled all while calling everyone else the lemming

Lemmings do know color Harpo, Lemmings are all colors. You'll know if you're a Lemming by your actions, but many fail/refuse to recognize it. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...