Too many to list. Just watch the hearings (not just the Ford one, but all of them). He'd get asked a question, then either just say a bunch of stuff without really answering, or in some cases, outright say, "I am not going to answer a hypothetical question" or something. The entire point of the hearings is to evaluate him - ANY refusal to directly answer any question from anyone I interview would give me pause. Kavanaugh has been in the system a long time (like every other candidate). In this case, a small fraction of documents relating to his record have not been released to Congress to evaluate. The Republicans and the White House claim "presidential privilege" and that the documents contain "sensitive information." The number of pages were around 415,000, which is a lot from an absolute number of pages standpoint, but there is a period of almost 3 years (during which time Kavanaugh was part of the Bush administration) where NO DOCUMENTS were released. Now, it's reasonable to with-hold some documents, or redact information in them. But to release NOTHING AT ALL from 3 years? Isn't that a bit heavy handed? How are you supposed to evaluate someone if entire years of their record is hidden from you? Finally, just hours before the first hearing, the Republicans finally released additional documents, a very small number of 42,000 pages (all of them initially slated not to be released to the public), but after some Democrats demanded, the Republicans relented and allowed it go public. According to Democrats, the amount of documents released amounts to just 4% of Kavanaugh's record. Let me ask you, if you were interviewing someone for a job, and they only let you see 4% of the jobs/functions they performed in related, relevant roles, would you be satisfied that you can accurately assess his fit? Now instead of it being just a job that you can fire him from... imagine this is a LIFETIME POSITION ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. That wasn't my point. I was responding to your criticism that the Democrats made it about her. In fact, given how long they waited to bring her up, they tried very hard to keep her out of it. I would suggest the fact that you have no idea about this suggests that accusations don't have to turn into public spectacles if they are handled correctly. And that accusations alone don't ruin a person's life/reputation if handled correctly. Again, the point is if Trump or the Republicans had ordered an investigation immediately like Bush did, then there wouldn't have been a media circus. Thus, their denial of the investigation until one of their members (Senator Flake) broke rank and forced their hand means that in this particular point the Republicans are responsible for making the hearings about her. What? The email investigations began in 2015 and didn't end til 2016. The Clintons was also something who has been targeted heavily by the right for investigations for many years. It's a nonsense comparison you are trying to make. The investigation lasted a full year before Comey's initial "no charges" came out. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/key-dates-fbi-hillary-clinton-emails/index.html Anyway, this is besides the point. The point is that the idea that it was the Democrats who made it about Ford is not really the full story, and I am sure people like Graham released the spotlight he was afforded by making it a public spectacle. It's not about politicians (Judges are, by definition, not politicians), but the makeup of the Supreme Court. 1. Typically, the US has had a Supreme Court that's been fairly balanced with equal number of conservative leaning judges and liberal leaning judges. 2. The tiebreakers tend to be more centrist judges who are considered the swing vote. 3. The difference here is that both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are considered conservative leaning, and theoretically upsets the balance (tho in reality you never know), while Garland (who never even received a hearing) would have been closer to Roberts/Kennedy They tried. No one cared. That's WHY they brought her out because nothing else was working.
wow....step away from a thread for a few days and Bane Shift changes fast =) had some fun reading over some of the other questions and results in that poll posted by soko I don't give polls much weight since they aren't often reproduce able, they could do the polls again tomorrow and get completely different results not to mention you can just look at the last election and see how accurate most of the general polls are when gauging how the general public feels, but aside from that the polls were taken from an opt in list and is web based(I would never sign up to be polled so my opinion would never be on here.), which means it's automatically not going to be representative of the general public, only representative of the those who care/are dumb enough to sign up for the polls and have the internet, statistics on the other hand while not perfect are much more reliable as they are based on facts, conclusions aren't so easily reached and statistics can be interpreted differently but polls are just useless. anyway the poll was 1500 people in total so I won't condemn the rest of america for the results, only those 1500 people that thought a sex offender should still be on the supreme court, but I can still have a laugh at the 1500's expense. now for the stuff I found funny if I act like the rest of you do over these results =D 17% of america thinks looking at woman's breasts is always sexual harassment....sorry guys we're all going to prison. 20% of america believes winking at a women is at least usually sexual harassment...damn those bastards 10% of america believes just asking out a women is at least usually sexual harassment...think I found the reason for the dropping birth rates... 55% of women have been sexually harassed....seems low with the criteria mentioned above... only 45% of america thinks false accusations are of equal importance to sexual assault accusations or vice versa....this one is sad more so then funny to me apparently 54% of america doesn't think of Canada as an ally...that's a shame
Polls are actually generally very reproducible when done correctly. There's a reason I posted a variety of sources including more than one poll, a street interview, an op-ed from a right wing outlet, and an interview with a GOP politician. The diverse range of these was intended to demonstrate that this isn't just something shown by one poll or one crazy dude - it does appear to be a legitimate POV held by some people. At the same time, I also avoided just copy-pastaing a bunch of social media because who knows if they are bots/trolling or whatever but there's plenty of people on social media expressing this POV.
well the poll alone proves the point that someone in the world thinks it, but if you try and draw factual conclusions from them you get the 2016 election. IMO they are about as accurate as the the quizzes on the back of magazines you can pick up in the super market, but that's just my opinion. regardless on to your other points which I don't really have much of a problem with they are all accurate for what they are. a teenager who openly admits to not knowing much about the case and is basing his opinions on those of others, but thinks he's not guilty anyway....so a fine example of ignorance but not much else. the quote from the senator is interesting since it came out before the story from ford was told, as such it was very premature to say such things, I believe in sub text there is definitely an accusation towards the democrats due to the timing. the article written by praeger is almost comical, I don't think I have much to say about it's contents, it's inane gibberish spoken from a very radical view of the world that is factually inaccurate from the premise through to the end, now I do comment on the point of using it as evidence, if your intent is again to prove that some people or one person holds a particular view set then it's fine, but the alt right isn't the majority of republicans any more then the regressive left is the majority of democrats. quoting trump - heh...ya I don't know what to say about quoting trump on anything any more, he has so many and half of them contradicting himself, most of them completely harmless, to be quite frank when I read that comment I see it as follows...."i'm not going to bother answering that, we won. it's over" why? because he's said multiple times, dozens of times over the course of the event he thinks he's innocent that's his answer and has been his answer from the start, the time of the quote he just sounds like he fed up with talking about it and somebody wants to use it as a quote for him saying he doesn't care if he's guilty or not. now if you want to go past that trump was likely to eager to believe his pick over the accuser, but he likely picked someone he believed in an he's allowed to have his opinion I suppose so long as it doesn't effect anything in the process. so again to reiterate I don't disagree with your point that some people don't care about whether or not he was guilty, I was not somebody who would of argued otherwise that "some" exist that hold that view point, but a quick glance over the articles and videos, and responses to the polls, has the left completely demonizing the right over the results when it's simply not accurate or fair to do so and even if we were to take the worst reality of the situation and say the polls are 100% accurate and most of the right doesn't care about **** victims then every single % of the right that does is being demonized and being driven away from your cause.
I don't understand what this has to do with anything. I was asked to provide evidence for my claim that some people hold the view that Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court even if he was guilty of the accusations. I believe I accomplished that.
you did and as I said multiple times in that response if that was the sole point of your evidence then you accomplished it. to be quite frank it's such a small point to make I figured you'd have other reasons for stating it, but since it was asked I can understand wanting to prove it.
You claim to like statistics, well, in statistics, the 2016 would be defined as an outlier, which exists even in datasets that are reproducible. It's just a fact of life. By focusing solely on an outlier, you are making an error in statistical analysis. Instead, you need to remember that those types of polls have generally been accurate for decades. Also keep in mind that even in the 2016 election the polls were accurate nationally - it's just that some specific states were wrong.
they are and in my original statement about preferring statistics over polls I said they aren't perfect and are VERY open to interpretation. two people can look at the same set of statistics and get completely opposite interpretations from it. I just think they are a superior option to polls which are glorified relationship quizzes, they have science behind how they are run, science behind how they are created, by are entirely unscientific in practice, but what can you really expect, their goal is to try to boil down the opinions of millions of individuals with 100+ questions and 1500 people, it's silly lol.
Polls != Prophecy/Predictions They tell you which way the wind seems to be blowing, but they don't guarantee results. Especially if one focuses on a single data point like you are So do you consider the Census to be a poll or statistics?
You seem to think that polling is not a science, which is false. The fields of sampling, polling and statistics are inextricably linked - it is very rare that you can actually compile a full dataset without some kind of sampling and/or polling. At this point, I am not even entirely sure what you consider to be a poll vs what you consider to be "statistics" so perhaps that's where the disconnect it.
When you get an soil analysis done on your property to determine environmental impacts of development, they drill a bunch of bore holes in various places and take samples to analyze. They do NOT take your entire property and analyze every molecule. Like polls, this is a form of sampling that allows you to, within some margin of error, to give a statistical range of the types of soil or whatever that are likely to be present in the property. In this way, you are trying to boil down the composition of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of atoms with a few boreholes.
hmmm....well as I said the tests are scientific in design, they are scientific in creation, as you said the principles above in the yard example are sound and scientific, and it's expected that their is a margin for error. at the end of the day ground is vastly less complex then the human opinion though. the problem with polls are what you can draw from the result. unlike the example of your yard hypothetical scenario, people are all different so 46% of the poll group should not be expected to match 46% of millions of people across all of america, but they get treated as such every time, and if you don't do that then what is their point?. what exactly are polls for if not but to pretend they are proper representations of everyone, not sure what I trust less...weathermen or pollsters
It is exactly the same for polls performed by actual professionals (rather than someone you click a radio box on buzzfeed.com or whatever). It's true that humans are more complex than dirt. Luckily, we are not comparing those two things. Thus, it's actually the other way around. Analyzing soil samples is vastly more complex than asking someone some relatively simple questions that are largely yes or no answers. The soil is all different so 46% of the soil being clay in your samples should not be expected to match 46% of soil across the property? But you are looking at it in far too simplistic terms and making a strawman argument that assumes people thinks polls are 100% accurate. Polls aren't designed for that and no one who creates them professionally would suggest they are. Yes, the media and people just extrapolating based on very simple polls doesn't make much sense in some cases and you can't take them as gospel, but things like the Census are advanced forms of polling used to generate incredibly useful datasets and shouldn't just be dismissed because polls.
Libtards are pretending that liberal judges weren’t known liberals when they were appointed. I’m sorry. Your time is up. People are tired of your dumb Bane Shift policies. Don’t worry though, the worm will turn back your way down the road. Sok, you’re so invested and you’re not even part of this great country, simma down.
once u understand that your country influences the politics and policies of other countries whether directly or indirectly, you will understand why alot of non americans are invested into voicing their concerns about what is going on atm
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-admits-she-fabricated-184414094.html My shocked face , we should believe every claim and throw all of those bad white men in prison. Straw man straw man, what other things do liberals say ?
I have this to say: Screw all false accusers No one said believe every claim and throw everyone in prison The right is not above lying or paying people to lie - something we have seen time and again, so who knows with this lady One false accuser doesn't really mean other accusations were false (or true) This specific scenario is extra interesting as the original accusation (the letter) is still up in the air - it makes no sense why the original writer would use a handwritten letter sent from CA, and then suddenly someone would instead email claiming to be said person There is no evidence there was a coordinated effort on the Democrats part to fabricate claims (the same way that there is fabricate claims on the Republican side to slander Mueller) It's interesting how Grassley immediately refers this to the FBI for investigation, but it took tremendously public pressure to even get the sham investigation into Kavanaugh that was limited in both scope and time But now that he is confirmed, they are finding time to slowly and thoroughly investigate the accusers Personally, I wish the Senate had been allowed to actually evaluate the candidate instead so none of this would have mattered, but I already explained all that previously. Relatedly, still interested in your replies to my previous post wherein I replied with great detail to your questions.
Not entirely sure what this is replying to, but yea, even for people who don't live here, the US' global and economic influence matters and impacts a lot of people. And heck, this is a forum, for talking, about stuff. If someone is interested in talking about something, why not? ~ I mean, even immigrants like myself get told all the time to "assimilate" but when we do get involved and speak up, we get told "Why do you care, you are not even American?" I mean, I live here. My wife and children are American. I own/run a business here in the US. I will likely be applying for citizenship in the next couple of years. I pay taxes. I am more connected to civic life than many natives I know. But when someone disagrees with me, out comes the "you aren't even American" card. You can't have it both ways, you can't want people to become invested in the country while also criticizing them when they do so.
