Did Christine Blasey Ford Set Back the #Metoo Movement?

[Crock]

Originally Posted by marvelousntx

I just asked a guy who administers polygraph tests for the city of Fort Worth. He says no they can't be manipulated. And if you try, like you said they know.

He's a liar, and it sounds like either you or I weren't clear in what the question was.

Can you manipulate the sensors' readings? Not without serious risk as there are tampering safeguards that make a polygraph appear more credible.

Can a polygrapher guide the interview to get a particular result? With the exception of outliers, yes. A polygraph examination is very subjective and the examination can be tailored so that the polygrapher is able to exploit the subjectivity.

Look, if you know nothing about polygraph suites, you really should just stop. Unfortunately, I know a lot of polygraphers and they are all highly invested in protecting their livelihood (i.e., they are all liars when it comes to answering questions about their profession with anyone they don't trust completely).

Like B Three said, it's a powerful tool in the hands of a skilled interviewer (especially in follow-up interviews). The problem is that it is often treated as a lie detector, which it absolutely is not. It's also often abused by people who want a particular outcome, which makes it practically worthless.

Oh, and anyone who was surprised at a polygraph with only two questions? They know nothing about polygraphy, either. It's often only one question that they want to know about, but you have to ask a bazillion BS questions (control questions) in order for the pseudo-science to look credible. So it could be hours of questions to get the results on two questions.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Crock

It's often only one question that they want to know about, but you have to ask a bazillion BS questions (control questions) in order for the pseudo-science to look credible. So it could be hours of questions to get the results on two questions.

I don't know a lot, but I do know this is true.. unless you answer the control questions "right", the test does not work. I think the control questions are also designed to relax you, and make you more apt to respond truthfully.. they are "softball" questions to set up the real questions at hand.

[marvelousntx]

Originally Posted by Crock

He's a liar, and it sounds like either you or I weren't clear in what the question was.

Can you manipulate the sensors' readings? Not without serious risk as there are tampering safeguards that make a polygraph appear more credible.

Can a polygrapher guide the interview to get a particular result? With the exception of outliers, yes. A polygraph examination is very subjective and the examination can be tailored so that the polygrapher is able to exploit the subjectivity.

Look, if you know nothing about polygraph suites, you really should just stop. Unfortunately, I know a lot of polygraphers and they are all highly invested in protecting their livelihood (i.e., they are all liars when it comes to answering questions about their profession with anyone they don't trust completely).

Like B Three said, it's a powerful tool in the hands of a skilled interviewer (especially in follow-up interviews). The problem is that it is often treated as a lie detector, which it absolutely is not. It's also often abused by people who want a particular outcome, which makes it practically worthless.

Oh, and anyone who was surprised at a polygraph with only two questions? They know nothing about polygraphy, either. It's often only one question that they want to know about, but you have to ask a bazillion BS questions (control questions) in order for the pseudo-science to look credible. So it could be hours of questions to get the results on two questions.

I'm not lying. And 10 out of 10 times when a person agrees to a polygraph exam and that person has a lawyer, they already know the questions that are going to be asked. Why? That way they aren't ask anything stupid. Kind of like Donald Trump saying yes I'll answer your questions, only if you send them over on a piece of paper. About the only way to pass a modern-day polygraph exam deals with inflicting pain upon yourself during the opening test questions that Chung just wrote about. And that's really about it nowadays. Otherwise the answer they were going to give is we can't say he was lying or not but he was trying to be deceptive. Kind of like they did That's Amore a chick that murdered that Chicken Mansfield. They didn't say she was lying, but they also said she was trying to be deceptive.

[marvelousntx]

Originally Posted by Crock

He's a liar, and it sounds like either you or I weren't clear in what the question was.

Can you manipulate the sensors' readings? Not without serious risk as there are tampering safeguards that make a polygraph appear more credible.

Can a polygrapher guide the interview to get a particular result? With the exception of outliers, yes. A polygraph examination is very subjective and the examination can be tailored so that the polygrapher is able to exploit the subjectivity.

Look, if you know nothing about polygraph suites, you really should just stop. Unfortunately, I know a lot of polygraphers and they are all highly invested in protecting their livelihood (i.e., they are all liars when it comes to answering questions about their profession with anyone they don't trust completely).

Like B Three said, it's a powerful tool in the hands of a skilled interviewer (especially in follow-up interviews). The problem is that it is often treated as a lie detector, which it absolutely is not. It's also often abused by people who want a particular outcome, which makes it practically worthless.

Oh, and anyone who was surprised at a polygraph with only two questions? They know nothing about polygraphy, either. It's often only one question that they want to know about, but you have to ask a bazillion BS questions (control questions) in order for the pseudo-science to look credible. So it could be hours of questions to get the results on two questions.

I'm not lying. And 10 out of 10 times when a person agrees to a polygraph exam and that person has a lawyer, they already know the questions that are going to be asked. Why? That way they aren't ask anything stupid. Kind of like Donald Trump saying yes I'll answer your questions, only if you send them over on a piece of paper. About the only way to pass a modern-day polygraph exam deals with inflicting pain upon yourself during the opening test questions that Chung just wrote about. And that's really about it nowadays. Otherwise the answer they were going to give is we can't say he was lying or not but he was trying to be deceptive. Kind of like they did That's Zamora a chick that murdered that chick in Mansfield. They didn't say she was lying, but they also said she was trying to be deceptive.

[marvelousntx]

Hey Judge Kavanagh, since you didn't do it you should take a polygraph exam. They say those things are more than 98% effective now. What a great way to prove you didn't do it.

Judge K: no, those tests are unreliable.

Interesting answer from a guy that wrote in an opinion on the bench about how reliable and necessary he thought polygraph exams are. I'm just so confused how people defend people like this.

[Tsmokies]

Back on topic since we have no mod here lol. Chung, I guess we will know the night of 11/6. Will ladies and other intelligent people vote? Only time will tell

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

Back on topic since we have no mod here lol. Chung, I guess we will know the night of 11/6. Will ladies and other intelligent people vote? Only time will tell

Ha!

I can't wait for that night.. easily the most significant "off-year" Election in history. and way too soon to predict with any certainty.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by grean

How do we get back to compromising? When 49% of people think one way and 51% think another, the 49% still matters and still have rights. Republicans stop an Obama nominee, now Democrats are trying their hardest to block Republicans. If Democrats stop this one, the Republicans will feel just as TTH. How do we stop the vicious circle ?

At what point do we say enough is enough?

After we’ve gotten even and not a minute before. Besides, I don’t think in their current configuration, Republicans even believe in the rule of law. If they did, they never would have elected scum like Trump. His entire existence since he’s been an adult is a rejection of the rule of law. He’s a crook, a con man, and by all appearances, a racist, xenophobes, misogynist, and a bigot. You don’t compromise with people like that. You extirpate them from the body politic.

[kochu]

This woman looks crazy. She is being used by the filthy DemocRats to bring down this guy. This woman had plenty of opportunities in the past and didn't do anything. This is just filthy politics by the leftist mongrels. Dianne Feinstein is a rotten cunt.

I don't believe Kavanaugh is a saint. We don't know what exactly happened but there was no rape according to this woman. Even if he has done something as she claims, I would give him a pass because it is not an unforgivable crime for a 17 year old drunk college student in a party in the 80s to behave this way. People are victims of their environment. If you were in his age group and claim that you were a saint, you are lying. Some of the comments above are too funny because some people act like they are some kind of saints.

No sane person thinks sexual assault is alright. But, going back 36 years without any credible evidence or witness to destroy someone's life is unforgivable.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by slowmover

I think it's time for men to STFU and listen for once. Just listen.

You must never been married.

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

…"to be fair...."

There's been nary a scintilla of this entire process that's been fair to anyone.

Bottom line, the Dimms have conducted a smear job of historic proportions on Judge Kavanaugh and his family, friends, etc.

Think back...months ago, Schumer said (quote) they "will do anything and everything to prevent this man from being confirmed".

For once in his life, Cryin' Chuck wasn't lying.

Anybody remember the Duke Lacrosse Case? National news nightly convicting 3 players for rape? Stripper who made accusations wasn't being backed up by other stripper who was there? Turns out the DA was sitting on evidence because he might lose his Democratic seat? Coach fired. Players sued the university and won. DA disbarred.

If you kept up with it the stripper killed her "handler" and was convicted.

Originally Posted by LargeBreastFan

The Democraps will do anything for more power, even if it destroys lives and America.

Yep. Then they'll blame it on the Republicans.

Originally Posted by somedude265

I listened to the entire hearing. The whole testimony from both sides, and the conclusion that I have come to is that I don't believe for one damned minute a single syllable of either one of them. The whole damned thing was a farce. The thing I keep coming back to is that these are very serious allegations that would each carry a minimum of a 10 year sentence in Maryland. So, why in the world was this first brought to light in a senate judiciary committee hearing, and not as a public press brief from the local police department in whatever town that was in Maryland. If there is enough evidence to derail a supreme court nomination, then there is absolutely enough evidence to arrest on criminal charges. Since that doesn't appear to be happening, I am inclined to believe that it is all bunk. With that said, Kavanaugh is the absolute poster child of the 1980's prep-school/frat house culture, and it is absolutely believable that he could be guilty of sexual misconduct. I don't believe one single syllable of that rambling statement that he wrote, and if he had nothing to hide, he would have pushed harder than anyone else for the FBI investigation which will absolutely now happen due to Senator Flake.

There's no charge of "sexual misconduct." The media made it up. Also, he's already had several FBI investigations.

Originally Posted by dark3419

It scares me to death when people talk like this. In countries like communist China or the Stalinist Soviet Union people had nothing to hide. In America we have this thing called privacy, freedom and liberty.


I could imagine any number of things tht the judge might have from his youth that he'd want to keep private and those things would have nothing to do with the Ford case. I bet that most people here wouldn't want an investigation into their private lives, even if they were innocent of whatever charges were put on them.

If you read her letter, it's difficult to say what criminal charge, if any, would be filed. In fact, didn't the woman who asked Ford questions say she couldn't file charges?

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

This from the evil motherfuckers who kept Scalia’s seat open for over 400 days and never gave Merrick Garland a hearing while his nomination was pending for over eight months. Heaven forbid we wait two to four more weeks. What a sorry bunch of worthless, lying, inconsistent pricks you guys are.

Wasn't that two vacancies ago? Didn't Biden pull the same thing?

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Don’t for a minute think that this is payback for Merrick Garland. This isn’t even a down payment. We won’t be even for that until we steal a seat that should belong to the Republicans. We WILL get even for Merrick Garland. But when we do, it’ll make this look like a fuckin’ Sunday School picnic in comparison.

Finally, the truth comes out. Biden pulled the same maneuver. Blame him. Reid pulled the nuclear option. Blame him. There's your answer LargeBreastFan.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

After we’ve gotten even and not a minute before. Besides, I don’t think in their current configuration, Republicans even believe in the rule of law. If they did, they never would have elected scum like Trump. His entire existence since he’s been an adult is a rejection of the rule of law. He’s a crook, a con man, and by all appearances, a racist, xenophobes, misogynist, and a bigot. You don’t compromise with people like that. You extirpate them from the body politic.

You're unhinged but continue. You're proving yourself guilty of every point you are trying to make against President. "Stay Tuned", we get it. And you are an officer of the court?

BTW, the Trump beat every Republican in the primaries and he didn't use under handed tricks like superdelegates or lock out Bernie supporters. But you won't compromise because why? 40% of the white women voted for him. 35% of hispanics. They were able vote for him. But you are better than that because you're enlightened? Mexico compromised. Canada compromised.

Yeah, sacrificing your values for, uh, your values.

[rexdutchman]

All I gotto say is You are INOCENT till proven guilty , NOT in the media and social court paying out here ( he said she said from 36+ years ago ridiculous )

[Crock]

Originally Posted by kochu

No sane person thinks sexual assault is alright. But, going back 36 years without any credible evidence or witness to destroy someone's life is unforgivable.

Well, that's just sad.


At the risk of revealing too much personal information, I'll share that my wife was raped when she was in high school. She had suppressed those memories until one day she saw the rapist coming out of a pizza joint. She wanted to go home immediately. She didn't want me to confront him. She didn't want me to do anything other than hold her. That night, she told me all of the details that she remembered from that day, 29 years prior, when she was raped. For almost three decades she had not thought of it. And then, in an instant, it all came rushing back. Nobody else knows. Nobody else needs to know. It's far too late to seek justice. But if you saw the guy that raped your wife nominated to the most powerful position in our country, wouldn't you speak out? Would you allow such an evil person to move forward?

If so, you're cowardly scum.

I said all that to say that it may look like this woman is being used by the Democrats, and that may be what is happening. But I know that this is exactly how it happens for real victims. I think that a thorough investigation is exactly what is called for here and I can't understand why anyone truly interested in justice would not want these allegations investigated.

[marvelousntx]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You must never been married.


Anybody remember the Duke Lacrosse Case? National news nightly convicting 3 players for rape? Stripper who made accusations wasn't being backed up by other stripper who was there? Turns out the DA was sitting on evidence because he might lose his Democratic seat? Coach fired. Players sued the university and won. DA disbarred.

If you kept up with it the stripper killed her "handler" and was convicted.


Yep. Then they'll blame it on the Republicans.


There's no charge of "sexual misconduct." The media made it up. Also, he's already had several FBI investigations.

If you read her letter, it's difficult to say what criminal charge, if any, would be filed. In fact, didn't the woman who asked Ford questions say she couldn't file charges?

Wasn't that two vacancies ago? Didn't Biden pull the same thing?

Finally, the truth comes out. Biden pulled the same maneuver. Blame him. Reid pulled the nuclear option. Blame him. There's your answer LargeBreastFan.

You're unhinged but continue. You're proving yourself guilty of every point you are trying to make against President. "Stay Tuned", we get it. And you are an officer of the court?

BTW, the Trump beat every Republican in the primaries and he didn't use under handed tricks like superdelegates or lock out Bernie supporters. But you won't compromise because why? 40% of the white women voted for him. 35% of hispanics. They were able vote for him. But you are better than that because you're enlightened? Mexico compromised. Canada compromised.

Yeah, sacrificing your values for, uh, your values.

I find it amazing the type of people that try to defend this guy. The guy that literally sat there and asked what he drank in high school his reply was beer, you know we drink beer. I like beer., you know beer, we like beer, you know I like beer beer. When I was in high school the drinking age was 18, so we could drink our senior high school, by the way the drinking age his senior year was 21. But anyway his answers alone were so pathetic and unhinged I can't imagine any sane person would have listened to that and thought that guy was okay. The guy down there started crying when he started talking about a calendar that his dad used to fill in and share with the family at Christmas. But when you did the math the first time his dad would have shown that calendar to them he would have been 14. Why was he crying? The way he was talking you would have thought his dad was dead. His dad was sitting right behind him at the hearings. When asked have you ever drink and black out his response was have you? This is the guy you were trying to say is okay to sit on the United States Supreme Court?

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

This from the evil motherfuckers who kept Scalia’s seat open for over 400 days and never gave Merrick Garland a hearing while his nomination was pending for over eight months. Heaven forbid we wait two to four more weeks. What a sorry bunch of worthless, lying, inconsistent pricks you guys are.

Garland was payback for Bork - we owed you one.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Crock

That night, she told me all of the details that she remembered from that day, 29 years prior, when she was raped.

Thank you for sharing your story. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for you not to strangle your wife's attacker.

I am curious - when it all came back to her, did she remember details like time/place/corroborating witnesses? Or were there as many gaps as there are in Blasey Ford's recollection?