Democrats Destroying the Most Important Principles of Justice in the USA

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
:thumb:

Had to Google that - I assume you're referring to "motivated reasoning"

I'm surprised I've never run across the concept before

As George W Bush once said "We judge others by their worst example, and ourselves by our best intention."
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The report wasn't disclosed
Then stop trying to suggest it did something you can't produce. And don't make, to be charitable, misleading statements on the point.

I wrote that her testimony was credible.

You responded with, "The FBI didn't think so but what do they know?"

We both know that's not objectively true. It's contrary to what they actually do, which you know. And it's unsupported by any statement by any representative of the FBI.

Even a Democrat agreed and voted to confirm Kavanaugh.
He did. And a few republicans voted for Obama's two picks. I think four on the first and six on the second. The rest didn't. What's your point, that you're amazed a democrat

If the FBI did find evidence that supported Ford's accusation then it is certain that would have been leaked by the Democrats.
What evidence could that be?

I'm not surprised that you are not aware of these thing since you prove over and over that you can't recognize the obvious.
That's not true either, but at least you're being consistent.

Speaking of saying a thing that isn't supportable but suits you:
Do you always answer a question with a question?
Always? Man. List three in this conversation. But the question I asked in that response contained the rebuttal, the inference that your question had no particular value.

Here's why. The presumption of innocence in relation to a hearing is a legal presumption and the context for its application is a criminal trial.

It doesn't exist and isn't applicable in a civil hearing. It doesn't exist and isn't applicable in a hearing on a nomination to the S. Ct.

Someone could be asked a question with the potential for criminal and/or civil action, but that's true outside of a hearing. A reporter could ask a question and the answer might open the answering party for criminal or civil action.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Off the quote, but true enough.

Also unrelated, this election is peculiarly linked to the senate hearing. Trump was elected by fewer votes than were cast for his opponent and the senators voting the nomination out of committee represented fewer Americans than those voting against it.

Doesn't alter the outcome, of course.
The Senate. It's a thing that permeates every single thing in our society, Two votes per state no matter how big.

Or a Russian lawyer...so there's that.
If Trump bought Siberia from Putin I would not be surprised.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The Senate. It's a thing that permeates every single thing in our society, Two votes per state no matter how big.
And I think it's a good idea, just noting that among the senators voting it to the floor, as with the presidency, the power rested with the minority of Americans.

If Trump bought Siberia from Putin I would not be surprised.
:chuckle:


As George W Bush once said "We judge others by their worst example, and ourselves by our best intention."
That's pretty good. I wonder who wrote it.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
And I think it's a good idea,
OK


just noting that among the senators voting it to the floor, as with the presidency, the power rested with the minority of Americans.
"It's not a Bug it's a feature"


:chuckle:
I'm not kidding, Trump wants to lease North Korea, it's a great location!


That's pretty good. I wonder who wrote it.
Maybe, just maybe, it was George W Bush.
And maybe Donald Trump will be President!
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
And maybe Donald Trump will be President!

98adth.jpg
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
:thumb:

"It's not a Bug it's a feature"
Inarguably, but everything that is permissible isn't also good.

Maybe, just maybe, it was George W Bush.
I mean, mathematically speaking it's a possibility. But it was from a speech and reads like the work of a rhetorician. That said, you missed a bit of it.

Here's the entire passage.

"We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other."

Whoever wrote it, I'm happy for the sentiment and, at the very least, endorsement.

And maybe Donald Trump will be President!
But will he ever act like one more often than not? That's the question.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
It's called Motivated Thinking.
There's "Can believe" and "Must believe".
Kavenaughs detractors will settle for Can Believe. As long as they Can Believe he did something that's good enough for them to say he's unfit. Whereas his supporters will not wane unless they are confronted with Must Believe evidence, like a stain on a dress.

it occurs to me that the former is reliant on emotion, while the latter relies on logic and rationality
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
It was consistent with the testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted.

So? Many of women who have been sexually assaulted remember all of the details. Besides that, her testimony was absolutely destroyed by the fact that none of the people who she said was at the party admit to being there. But since you want to believe Ford so bad you care nothing about those facts.

I found her demeanor and answers convincing.

Like her answer about her fear of flying?

Like her answer when questioned about if she knew that Grassley had offered to send the investigators anywhere she wished?

All you prove is the fact that you will believe anything if it advances your liberal agenda.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I mean, mathematically speaking it's a possibility. But it was from a speech and reads like the work of a rhetorician. That said, you missed a bit of it.

Here's the entire passage.

"We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other."

Whoever wrote it, I'm happy for the sentiment and, at the very least, endorsement.
A little bit flowery for Gee Dub I would agree but I Can Believe he wrote it......


But will he ever act like one more often than not? That's the question.
Trump is Seventy Two now? I wouldn't look for any big changes, Old Dogs and all.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
it occurs to me that the former is reliant on emotion, while the latter relies on logic and rationality

Right but emotion and intuition are what keeps us alive in nature, we don't think about everything and that's why we've survived thus far.

False positives and false negatives are another way to look at it. And the cost associated with each.

Let's say you live in an area where panthers hang out in trees and pounce on things walking down game trails. And you're walking down a game trail and get a funny feeling about that bunch of trees ahead. You don't see or hear or smell anything that would say there was a panther but that's just what you'd expect if there was a panther.

So you go around.
Now, if there wasn't a panther then you had a false positive. What did it cost You? Not much, you just went around.
Now if you went threw the trees and you had a false negative (I don't see, hear, smell a panther) but there was in fact a panther then the false negative is very costly, you're getting mauled by a panther.

That's how we wound up with religion.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
A little bit flowery for Gee Dub I would agree but I Can Believe he wrote it......
We can agree it expresses his sentiment, at any rate, and by "his sentiment" I mean after he was out of office. Like Clinton before him, he appears to be made of different stuff than was evidenced during his time in power.

Trump is Seventy Two now? I wouldn't look for any big changes, Old Dogs and all.
That's too bad, but you're likely right.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
like it or not, everything he does sets the new standard for "presidential"

Yup, it's a whole new ball game now. That's why we did it. Don't get me wrong it was a little scary. I voted for Trump in the primaries and the general and felt like I was doing something very risky. Perhaps disastrous. Something that couldn't be undone.
I'm pleased with the results and I might do more things like that in the future.

I was talking to a conservative co-worker before the general election. He said he was going to vote for Hillary and I said "That's a nice safe bet, a known quantity, I had a great time in the 90s, who didn't?"
And then I asked him when was the last time he took all his clothes off and jumped into a snowbank.
He admitted that it had been quite a while if in fact he had ever done that.
So I said to him; "When you're standing in that voting booth if you feel like doing something a little bit crazy vote for Trump".

The seal has been broken. The Politicians belittled the commoner. And he won because they we're belittling us.
 
Top