ecstatichamster
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 10,501
A case of confirmation bias.
Ha!
Ha!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
When I saw Kavanaugh's face during the Senate hearings I was struck by how unhealthy his face looked. Something is going on with his health. The color was uneven, blotchy really, and puffy. I am his age and have none of that, but do notice it occasionally in my contemporaries.
I have to own up to thinking the same things - he is obviously severely stressed rn, but the appearance struck me as such. If he deployed a carrot salad daily, ate an aspirin occasionally and dipped on pufa, I would say he would look markedly different in a short period of time.When I saw Kavanaugh's face during the Senate hearings I was struck by how unhealthy his face looked. Something is going on with his health. The color was uneven, blotchy really, and puffy. I am his age and have none of that, but do notice it occasionally in my contemporaries.
How did you go back and forth many times? What made you switch from one to another? Would like to hear your perspective. I was pretty set on his innocence, rightly or wrongly I don't know. I just felt this was the Dems' 2nd try after Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, and I felt they had refined their art - get a good book cover (a college professor instead of a girl next door, much less a bimbo) and rehearse the part where everything is a blur, and making it credible by saying she was so so traumatized so any inconsistency in her story could be forgiven. And there were far too many inconsistencies. It was well-orchestrated by her lawyers. They asked for more time to make up their act, giving the excuse she was afraid of flying. The Republicans were weak-kneed. Grassley kept extending the deadline to their advantage, buying them time. And they (Republicans) were on the defensive, as seen in their pick in Rachel Mitchell to question Blasey. And she was too deferential in her questioning. A puffy marshmallow woman to show the world they were being nice to the accuser. Had to take a gay man in Lindsey to knock the ball out of the park. And Trump had to toe the orchestrated optics, given his good feel for wind direction, and say that Blasey was "credible" lest he loses the female vote. But if she weren't a college professor, and a mother, and didn't wear nerdy glasses, she would just be seen as a liberal operative sent on a hit job.His expressions were pretty fake, but that doesn't mean he was lying. I'm pretty confident the court will figure it out. After going back and fourth on the issue, at this point I think I believe him. Which is pretty awesome if I'm right, because Trump will prove yet again how insane the left has become. Jimmy Kimmel, Matt Damon, Jim Carrey, and countless others.... B. T. F. O.
...Probs liver damage from binge drinking and he looks a bit pale so prob low D or anemic or like a super guilty conscience . Who knows.
The floodgates are open and this becomes a mess. By floodgates I mean it's about scrutinizing everything he said and finding someone to counter him to discredit him. And what do you know? Another professor. Another R E S P I C T A B L E person.You people are hilarious. Several of his classmates are saying that he lied under oath about his HS and college days and was a violent drunk. Everyone knows he lied tothe Senate about several things in the hearing, including Renate Alumni and devil's triangle. That alone is enough to stop his confirmation. And you still think he's a decent man and deserves to be on the Supreme Court for the rest of his days. it's almost as if people like him simply because he is fighting against a sexual assault allegation.
The floodgates are open and this becomes a mess. By floodgates I mean it's about scrutinizing everything he said and finding someone to counter him to discredit him. And what do you know? Another professor. Another R E S P I C T A B L E person.
And another fool in this forum buying in.
The Dems play a good game. When it comes to lying and manufacturing stories they have the edge. This is after all the party of Keith Ellison and Bill Clinton the Saint of Liberals.
He's being scrutinized. You jump at any hearsay as long as it vindicates your judgment of him. There is no proof even and you're already set. Do you condemn when no proof is given? And you don't think you're a fool? You just follow your lord and master Hirono.You think it's okay to appoint someone to the highest court in the land, and you don't think he deserves to be scrutinized. And you're calling me a fool.
He's being scrutinized. You jump at any hearsay as long as it vindicates your judgment of him. There is no proof even and you're already set. Do you condemn when no proof is given? And you don't think you're a fool? You just follow your lord and master Hirono.
Who is the one accused? Where is the proof? When there is none, he is innocent. What world or what country do you live in?
I just wish you were the accused in a murder trial and hope you are treated the same way.