Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh, there isn't?

Do you have one and some examples? This would be really interesting.

- Doc

[_Water Dog]

Honorary doctorates, haha



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... dc3cf9bc21

Ok, so looking into the Nate Silver business more. It would appear Lowry didn't misrepresent Silver. It seems they're just trolling the guy over his preening arrogance.

Like this.

During the Whitehouse questions about the yearbook, he's literally almost sneering with contempt while launching into a series of wildly implausible explanations on ralphing, devil's triangle, Renate Dolphin, "boofed", etc.

and this.

They aren't white lies, either. Kavanaugh was lying about stuff that would establish (i) his propensity to drink to excess, especially to the point of blacking out or misremebering events and (ii) objectifying attitudes he had toward women he had has a young man.

Scrolling through his feed, and his blog, which is just insufferable by the way, gawd, he comes off like this immense prick who's a legend in his own mind. He speaks with this haughty tone as if he's spawned from deity, or has daddy issues, but is right about everything and it's such a terrible burden living in a world where everyone is so stupid and quite forcefully he can never allow them to forget it. He probably suffers from whatever condition Kevin has. Every comment he makes about the Kavanaugh/Ford hearing is immensely biased and implies that Kavanaugh is for-sure lying because Silver's genius calculator brain is a type of lie detector machine and has determined it to be so, presumably through some statistical model he has devised.

I think you're right, there is no actual model where he attempted to calculate kavanaugh's honesty (at least not which he's made public), he just speaks as if there is one, in a vault, somewhere. He fed Kavanaugh's testimony into it and out came the result... his explanations of ralphing, devil's triangle, Renate Dolphin, "boofed", etc., is "highly implausible." Silver obviously had a very different high school experience than Kavanaugh did.

True, if a known liar says something which fits a previous pattern of lying, it is probably a lie too. This is like saying if a machine which has a certain failure rate is exhibiting signs that correlate with past failures, then it's probably about to fail again. He's making a banal statement about prediction. Who the “F” talks like that?

The problem in this case is he has no tested model from which to feed any of his observations into. He speaks as though he's predicting the weather. And he's a weatherman. Dew points are rising, humility levels are moving, therefore, rain, or something. WTF. Seriously, WTF?

Ralphing? Devil's Triangle? ROFL. I'm gonna head over to Boofing Barts, I heard he's throwing a Rager tonight.

Silver is a retard. Kavanaugh didn't lie about a damn thing. Silver has no basis whatsoever for assigning a "probability" to any of Kavanaugh's statements. But he asserts they are all "highly implausible." And what does that even mean? < 0.1?, < 0.25? "I count 7 or 8 highly implausible things there." Yah, okay.

What a fuckwit. What is the probability that Nate Silver is a fuckwit? How might we calculate that? I propose a simple method. Who was more accurate about the 2016 election, all the elections, state by state, etc.? And they should be weighted by number of voters for a given race. Nate Silver or Ann Coulter. If Ann Coulter was more accurate with her predictions, that means Nate Silver is a fuckwit. I'll return and report after I run the math.

by the way, his polling models are very pedestrian. It's data laborious, but there is nothing magical or impressive about the math. And his big calculator brain totally sucks at reading people and working the human factor or any data points that are non-linear or don't rely on polling into his models. I love his graphics though. The visualizations rock. He's got some good coders that really know how to use D3.Joseph Smith, always impressed by the presentation.

[_Res Ipsa]

What have Relief Society leaked re Kavanaugh?

Re Ramirez. This Ramirez allegation is pretty stupid to begin with. Its genesis down to the very allegation itself which isn't even an assault. I personally couldn't care less if 10 people confirmed witnessing that it happened. Drunk kids getting rowdy, a dick makes an appearance, the horror! But they got nothing. Who cares. So dumb.

Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez.

...

Appold said that he initially asked to remain anonymous because he hoped to make contact first with the classmate who, to the best of his recollection, told him about the party and was an eyewitness to the incident. He said that he had not been able to get any response from that person, despite multiple attempts to do so. The New Yorker reached the classmate, but he said that he had no memory of the incident.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... classmates

A second hand witness demands to talk to the FBI. This guy didn't even see it. SMH.

Enough.

Every time Grassley etc. selectively released information that they felt would help K.

And you are changing the subject in Ramirez. If, as you said, the FBI interviewed the guy who told the other guy, then the contents of that leak were leaked by a Republican.

[_Res Ipsa]

Whoops. I totally missed it, which is odd because the thread finally perked up when you started contributing with your viewpoint on the matter.

I'll say this, regarding the Democrats' behavior throughout this affair. It's been off the charts insanity. It's interesting to see both parties have their version of extremists really show their asses lately. I don't expect many here who lean Left to admit it, but we have a serious ____ problem in our party, but I'm not sure how we can take it back. I think the crazy horse has left the barn (as evidenced by some of the posts on this forum). Not a good look if you're looking to swing an election or capture a few million key votes in swing states.

- Doc

The problem that I run into with you, Doc, is that on a limited number of subjects, you go weirdly black and white in your thinking. Either someone agrees with you or they are a hypocritical extremist. You push those who disagree into these ready made boxes, generally by out and out mischaracterizing what they say. People who’ve argued with you aren’t on the crazy train. Not even close.

In one of these threads, you made the claim that there are far more false claims of sexual assault than real ones, and obviously so. I asked you how you got to that conclusion, but I don’t think you responded. Would you mind doing so?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

In one of these threads, you made the claim that there are far more false claims of sexual assault than real ones, and obviously so. I asked you how you got to that conclusion, but I don’t think you responded. Would you mind doing so?

I think you have that one backward. As far as the rest goes I don't really know what to tell you. You have your perspective and I have mine. Personally, I think there are posters on this forum with HUGE blindspots, but I don't really know what to say to people who can never, under any circumstance, admit they might be wrong. I'm not including you on that last statement, but it's fairly obvious who they are.

- Doc

[_Gunnar]

And I still have yet to hear an effective and credible rebuttal to the demonstrated fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath in previous appearances before Senate hearings, even if not this one. All this foofaraw about the claimed lack of credibility of the accuser, and the additional, limited, far from thorough FBI investigation seemed deliberately designed to deflect attention from that one extremely damaging and embarrassing (to Republicans and Trump, at least) fact, which alone should permanently disqualify him from becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

At least one former and respected, but now retired, Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, now agrees that Kavanaugh's behavior should disqualify him from the position, though Stevens originally approved of Kavanaugh.

[_canpakes]

And I still have yet to hear an effective and credible rebuttal to the demonstrated fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath in previous appearances before Senate hearings, even if not this one.

Honestly, I just don't see how anyone's can realistically claim that he's fit for Supreme Court given his lunatic performance rant during that hearing. I'm not even sure I'd feel confident having this guy run a gas station pump let alone do anything more serious.

Conservatives are guaranteed to be able to place a qualified candidate of their philosophical liking on to the court, and they have another two dozen on the list to pick from. Why they want the Snowflake King of Whiny Emotional Lunatic Fringe preparation School Brats in that seat is beyond me.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

And I still have yet to hear an effective and credible rebuttal to the demonstrated fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath in previous appearances before Senate hearings, even if not this one. All this foofaraw about the claimed lack of credibility of the accuser, and the additional, limited, far from thorough FBI investigation seemed deliberately designed to deflect attention from that one extremely damaging and embarrassing (to Republicans and Trump, at least) fact, which alone should permanently disqualify him from becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

At least one former and respected, but now retired, Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, now agrees that Kavanaugh's behavior should disqualify him from the position, though Stevens originally approved of Kavanaugh.

Well, we'll see tomorrow at 10:30 am how the Democrat's strategy of focusing on the wrong thing works out. I'm not feeling hopeful since it looks like some potential swing votes have said they're satisfied with the FBI's inquiry.

- Doc

[_Water Dog]

And I still have yet to hear an effective and credible rebuttal to the demonstrated fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath in previous appearances before Senate hearings, even if not this one. All this foofaraw about the claimed lack of credibility of the accuser, and the additional, limited, far from thorough FBI investigation seemed deliberately designed to deflect attention from that one extremely damaging and embarrassing (to Republicans and Trump, at least) fact, which alone should permanently disqualify him from becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

At least one former and respected, but now retired, Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, now agrees that Kavanaugh's behavior should disqualify him from the position, though Stevens originally approved of Kavanaugh.

Truth be told I didn't pay attention to any of this pre-Ford. I started to pay attention at the very beginning, but then Democrats engaged in those procedural shenanigans. Drowning out discussion with noise and interruptions, constantly invoking motions and such in the middle of questioning just to be obnoxious. I watched in awe for like 30 minutes, shook my head, and never paid attention again until the Ford stuff.

If somewhere in the first 30ish hours of questioning Kavanaugh lied about something, I have no idea what that's about. Given how the latest round has gone I doubt there's any truth to it. I'm sure partisan people "think" he lied about something, a subjective interpretation of some case he was involved with. An absurd line of questioning from a grandstanding senator trying to set a trap and get reelection soundbites.

[_EAllusion]

And I still have yet to hear an effective and credible rebuttal to the demonstrated fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath in previous appearances before Senate hearings, even if not this one.

Honestly, I just don't see how anyone's can realistically claim that he's fit for Supreme Court given his lunatic performance rant during that hearing. I'm not even sure I'd feel confident having this guy run a gas station pump let alone do anything more serious.

Conservatives are guaranteed to be able to place a qualified candidate of their philosophical liking on to the court, and they have another two dozen on the list to pick from. Why they want the Snowflake King of Whiny Emotional Lunatic Fringe preparation School Brats in that seat is beyond me.

Kanavaugh is reliably partisan. His rant is a virtue for what they want, not a vice.

We're heading quickly to a reality that a President gets whomever they want on the bench when their party controls the Senate and nothing when they don't. We're also heading quickly to a reality where a tiny % of the population controls the vast majority of the Senate due to disparities in population unforeseen in the 1700's. That disparity by historical coincidence is strongly favoring Republicans. Democrats keep lucking into good election cycles for the Senate, but Republicans have a substantial edge in the partisan Senate math now. The net result of those two trends is a realistic chance Republicans dominate the courts.

A more hidden trend is that conservative jurisprudence keeps getting more radical. There's a feedback loop where conservative legal theorists seeming out there chases away young intellectuals, which further concentrates the radicalism, which chases away even more intellectuals. The pool of people who are naturally qualified to be judges is overwhelmingly liberal, but Republicans get half, and maybe much more than that in the future, of all appointments. It's like affirmative action for conservative radicalism. It's not implausible that in the not too distant future, a small minority of the population is controlling the US court system with unusually conservative legal views. That feels dangerous for the health of the democracy.