I'm thinking about these polls lately, especially since I seem to get them about every 29 minutes. You guys ever answer them? Like, I get one at work yesterday, i can't talk to this guy at work. Then i get one, can i speak to the youngest registered voter in the house? No, you can't, sorry.
Swetnicks story had her coming off as extremely stupid and quiet frankly sick in some regards. She was reaching way too hard for the "wow" factor. And I'm sure her savy$ lawyer probably helped there. Ford told a more believable story. But when your witnesses including your friend and she cant even put those involved at the same place at anytime (which doesnt equal sexual assault) you have what you have. A story.
I will put it like this - if the police got a warrant to search Kavanaugh's home/computer/phone whatever, it would be a relatively easy warrant to attack based on her testimony and the testimony of the people who she says was there. It would be easy because the evidence does not come close to rising to the level of probable cause. And in no universe does an accusation that lacks probable cause amount to a "credible" accusation. As far as people calling her credible, I think that stems from the fact that she is white, educated, middle class . . . . Similar to the women whose accusations resulted in far less powerful men being hung from trees across this country just a few decades ago.
I dont answer calls from numbers I dont know. I was left a message a month ago by a nameless robot in Maine stating I needed to call this number because the local police were looking for me in regards to 4 outstanding warrants.
On your first point, this wasn't a criminal investigation. This is a semantics game. What would they search his home or computer or phone for? What would the warrant be for? That doesn't make her less credible anymore than her credible claim makes him guilty of it. As to your second point, I think people called her credible because she gave a specific, detailed account that didn't include only helpful or uncontestable facts. You know, she told the truth. That so many say, "I believe something happened to her..." demonstrates this. It is the second part about just dismissing the part where she was 100% sure of the attacker that is a load of crap. Can he be proven guilty? Not with what is out there now. Does that make these claims phony or mean he should go ahead and have been seated? [uck fay] no. That's pure politics, not the investigation and questioning of him and this claim.
I don't usually answer either, but I've got a couple of things going on that I'm expecting calls. Guess i could let them go to voicemail, but who wants to go through that hassle of pin numbers and press this button or that button to hear your voicemail
the fact that it wasn't a criminal trial has no bearing on the issue of credibility, right? I doubt you are saying that if it was a criminal trial her story/witnesses/etc would change. The probable cause element would be the same as well - just because it wasn't a criminal trial doesn't invalidate a probable cause analysis. Seator Collins used a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in her Senate speech. Its not semantics game just because this wasn't a civil trial for damages. It seems that you are rather lose with your definition of "credibility" - whicch is a semantics game. You are saying that because her story includes things not helpful that this somehow makes her credible?????? So the fact that no one she says was there remembers anything about such a party means Dr. Ford is credible. That is turning the notion of credibility on its head. Again - I think people who say she is credible mean exactly that - SHE is credible because she is white, educated, middle class . . . . Not that her story is credible, because it most certainly is not.
If I were going to make up a story about a guy just to torpedo his nomination, I wouldn't say his friend was around or name people at the gathering. That detail alone makes it very unlikely she was making it up. Also, I didn't label her credible all by myself. Many people, including on the right and including the President, called her credible. They changed their tune when it became clear they would have to change the narrative in order to seat him without upsetting anyone in their base. So, she became "uncredible."
So you are saying what I thought you said. Which is nuts. The fact that her friend and others she claims were at the party not remembering such a party or denying it ever took place makes her story "credible." I thought it was bad when Merriam Webster added "figuratively" to the definition of "literally" - but such of use of "Credible" might be worse. I am guessing you think her lack of remembering time, place, manner of getting home, etc. makes her story more credible as well.
Such gatherings are right there on Kavanaugh's calendar. People have conflated other claims with Ford's claims. They had weekday small gatherings. And not remembering one doesn't mean it didn't happen or couldn't of happened, which is what some said (not that it absolutely didn't happen, which is what Kavanaugh and Judge said). It is "able to be believed," i.e. credible. No definition altering at all. To say that it is not believable in any way flies in the face of everyone not named Kavanaugh and Judge who say they did have get-togethers and parties, of the calendar Kavanaugh shared, of the sort of banter in the yearbook, etc. It is absolutely credible.
Its not worth arguing about - but the notion that her not remembering very key details (apart from "HE DID IT!") and no one backing Dr. Ford's claims makes her claims "credible" is rather stupid. Or better yet, it seems an ad hoc usage to reach a desired result, because there is no doubt that if one person remembered the party you would count that as tending toward making her story more credible. So no matter what, her story is credible.
This will show you how ridiculous politicians are, amendment 9 to Florida constitution, you vote yes or no to prohibiting offshore oil drilling AND permits more restrictive vaping ordinances. Why do we need both on one amendment? Can we not want offshore drilling AND want to be able to vape? I don't vape, but if I did, I wouldn't want to be grouped with offshore drilling.
Ya, that packaging shit pisses me off. And later, they will use that vote against a politician. "He voted for more restrictive vaping ordinances!" "He voted against more restrictive vaping ordinances!"
At least its not Alabama where [uck fay]ing everything is a constitutional amendment. County X wants to allow alcohol sales on Sunday? Whole [uck fay]ing state has to vote on it.
Interesting that in the districts considered “leaning” or “toss ups” republicans actually hold a +1 advantage on the generic ballot.
Correct, there is massive gerrymandering. The house doesn't even reflect the popular vote. Nothing does.
