Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[homersapien 11,440]

21 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The point is that the evidentiary standards, as Titan even articulated, are virtually equivalent. If you’re going to play this game, try to keep up.

Again with the sophomoric insults.

And I am not interested in "playing the game" with a cheater at any rate.

[homersapien 11,440]

29 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No. Use your imagination.

I'd rather you simply tell me what you meant by your post.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

I'd rather you simply tell me what you meant by your post.

So we can continue arguing?

[homersapien 11,440]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Law gives meaning to facts, or facts give meaning to the law. Both are important. We’re equally informed on one, but not the other. I’ll let you guess which is which. But it’s ok, you probably have me on science

Not sure I understand what you are getting at here, but you've clearly been arguing the law in order to dispute or attenuate the facts.  That's a classic tactic when the facts present a problem to one's case.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No I don’t think it’s a realistic conclusion. Is that ok? It’s comedic actually. Beyond comprehension 

I'm confused.  You think the polling firm got it wrong, or you think the respondents who affirmed they'd want him confirmed even if the allegations were proven true are being idiots?

[homersapien 11,440]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No I don’t think it’s a realistic conclusion. Is that ok? It’s comedic actually. Beyond comprehension 

So, in other words, you reject the science of polling if it doesn't yield suitable results in your opinion.

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The point is that the evidentiary standards, as Titan even articulated, are virtually equivalent. If you’re going to play this game, try to keep up.

I don't think there are any evidentiary standards other than the ones arbitrarily decided by the committee head.   You'll have to prove otherwise for me to accept the "evidentiary standards" argument. 

You are apparently arguing the law, even when there is no law to argue.

[homersapien 11,440]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So we can continue arguing?

Not at all.  I just get tired of this rhetorical "tar baby" act you are constantly deploying.

You cited Feinstein's two month delay as the example that Democrats were deliberately delaying the hearing.  I challenged that statement  by asking if it were possible Feinstein might have acted on different motivations, at which point you went evasive. 

I'd go back and quote the sequence, but like I said, it's tedious and tiring to constantly have to hold you to account for what you said by quoting it.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

37 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm confused.  You think the polling firm got it wrong, or you think the respondents who affirmed they'd want him confirmed even if the allegations were proven true are being idiots?

I don’t think it is an accurate representation of the conclusion is supposedly sets forth.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, in other words, you reject the science of polling if it doesn't yield suitable results in your opinion.

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I simply disagree that the polling accurately reflects reality.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I don’t think it is an accurate representation of the conclusion is supposedly sets forth.

There are only two ways that happens and I've asked you both ways.  Let me repeat them:

1.  Do you think the polling firm is fudging the numbers (lying, manipulating) to make these people look bad?

2. Do you think the polling firm simply got it wrong somehow (made a mistake, employed faulty methodology) in conducting the poll?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

35 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't think there are any evidentiary standards other than the ones arbitrarily decided by the committee head.   You'll have to prove otherwise for me to accept the "evidentiary standards" argument. 

You are apparently arguing the law, even when there is no law as such to argue.

I’m not trying to get you to accept my proposition. There inherently is some evidentiary burden in this setting, and it mostly closely resembles a “preponderance of the evidence.”

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There are only two ways that happens and I've asked you both ways.  Let me repeat them:

1.  Do you think the polling firm is fudging the numbers (lying, manipulating) to make these people look bad?

2. Do you think the polling firm simply got it wrong somehow (made a mistake, employed faulty methodology) in conducting the poll?

 

There are not only two ways that happens. What are you talking about? At this point, you're unnecessarily requiring validation of something very simple and objectively reasonable, thereby manipulating it into something much more complex than it actually is. A conclusion that says over half of the Republicans would see BK confirmed irrespective of whether he's a rapist is patently absurd. The fact that you even need further inquiry shows how detached you are. My contention stems from common sense. 

If this doesn't appease you, I quite frankly do not care. Disagree with me, believe the poll is true, and move on. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

There are not only two ways that happens. What are you talking about? At this point, you're unnecessarily requiring validation of something very simple and objectively reasonable, thereby manipulating it into something much more complex than it actually is. A conclusion that says over half of the Republicans would see BK confirmed irrespective of whether he's a rapist is patently absurd. The fact that you even need further inquiry shows how detached you are. My contention stems from common sense. 

If this doesn't appease you, I quite frankly do not care. Disagree with me, believe the poll is true, and move on. 

This isn't a hard question.  I would like you to explain how you think the results are wrong, but not as a result of either intentional mischaracterization of the results, or through errors in methodology or reporting by the polling firm.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This isn't a hard question.  I would like you to explain how you think the results are wrong, but not as a result of either intentional mischaracterization of the results, or through errors in methodology or reporting by the polling firm.  

Why do you think the results are an accurate representation of the majority of Republican's position towards BK, in the event he was proven of rape?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why do you think the results are an accurate representation of the majority of Republican's position towards BK, in the event he was proven of rape?

I will answer your question.  Could you answer mine first?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I will answer your question.  Could you answer mine first?

Because its objectively absurd. You're intentionally avoiding the element of common sense. My goodness. 

Do you think over half the members of the party you purportedly belong to would excuse proven rape? 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Because its objectively absurd. You're intentionally avoiding the element of common sense. My goodness. 

You you disbelieve it just because you don't want to believe it?  Because you think the results are dumb, they must simply be wrong rather than your perceptions of the views of self-described evangelicals and Republicans being off?

 

Quote

Do you think over half the members of the party you purportedly belong to would excuse proven rape? 

-and-

Why do you think the results are an accurate representation of the majority of Republican's position towards BK, in the event he was proven of rape?

Now I will tell you the reasons for my view on this poll.

Because Marist is a long-time and well-respected polling firm.  I see nothing in their history to suggest they don't know how to properly conduct, tabulate, or weight a poll using random sampling.

Anecdotally, I've watched evangelicals and Republicans rally behind a Presidential candidate who has numerous accusations of sexual misconduct and who was on tape bragging about his ability to grope women because of his wealth/power/celebrity.  I watched as even with numerous credible accusations against Roy Moore for sexual assault and inappropriate sexual contact with a minor, he came within an eyelash of still winning his US Senate race.  I literally saw the Governor of Alabama say that she planned to vote for Roy Moore even though she "had no reason to disbelieve the accusations against him."  And closer to this specific situation, I've argued with numerous people who told me that even if the allegations against Kavanaugh were true, it was too long ago and he shouldn't be judged on something he did as a high schooler.

So, yes, I do find it plausible that a majority of the people in the Republican Party or who call themselves evangelicals would hold such views.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

You you disbelieve it just because you don't want to believe it?  Because you think the results are dumb, they must simply be wrong rather than your perceptions of the views of self-described evangelicals and Republicans being off?

 

Because Marist is a long-time and well-respected polling firm.  I see nothing in their history to suggest they don't know how to properly conduct, tabulate, or weight a poll using random sampling.

Anecdotally, I've watched evangelicals and Republicans rally behind a Presidential candidate who has numerous accusations of sexual misconduct and who was on tape bragging about his ability to grope women because of his wealth/power/celebrity.  I watched as even with numerous credible accusations against Roy Moore for sexual assault and inappropriate sexual contact with a minor, he came within an eyelash to still winning his US Senate race.  I literally saw the Governor of Alabama say that she planned to vote for Roy Moore even though she "had no reason to disbelieve the accusations against him."  And closer to this specific situation, I've argued with numerous people who told me that even if the allegations were true, it was too long ago and he shouldn't be judged on something he did as a high schooler.

So, yes, I do find it plausible that a majority of the people in the Republican Party or who call themselves evangelicals would hold such views.

“Evangelicals” who acquired such a label merely because they checked a box?

Ok.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

“Evangelicals” who acquired such a label merely because they checked a box?

Ok.

While imperfect, I've yet to think of a better way to identify people who belong to certain religious groups.

But that doesn't really address the totality of my answer or explain how you think the numbers are so far off.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

While imperfect, I've yet to think of a better way to identify people who belong to certain religious groups.

But that doesn't really address the totality of my answer or explain how you think the numbers are so far off.

The conclusion the poll seeks to draw doesn’t reflect reality, period. It’s that simple. It’s a true absurdity. You’re stringing this out. I don’t give a rat’s ass how the poll was conducted. Show me in history where Republicans disregarded PROVEN rapists in the name of loyalty. The fact we are having this discussion is truly pathetic.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I simply disagree that the polling accurately reflects reality.

Depends on you mean by "reality".

Polls aren't designed to tabulate the individual data of an entire population, which is practically - if not theoretically - impossible to begin with. (Populations are dynamic and change with time.)

Polls provide a calculated estimate of "reality" using statistically valid sampling techniques and analysis of the raw data, including a statistical standard of error providing the range that estimate may fall within.  For those who appreciate the science, a properly designed poll provides reliable information. In fact, nothing else can.

So, I can only conclude that you: 

1) know something about the methodology of this particular poll we don't know or, 

2) you don't believe the science associated with polling.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Because its objectively absurd. You're intentionally avoiding the element of common sense. My goodness. 

Do you think over half the members of the party you purportedly belong to would excuse proven rape? 

Actually, if that is the way the question was worded in the poll, then the results are (literally) objectively valid.

Your "gut feel" or common sense plays no roll in it.  Whatsoever.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The conclusion the poll seeks to draw doesn’t reflect reality, period. It’s that simple.

On what basis do you determine that you better understand broader reality and that this poll doesn't reflect it?

 

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It’s a true absurdity. You’re stringing this out. I don’t give a rat’s ass how the poll was conducted.

If it's being strung out, it's because of your non-answers.

 

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Show me in history where Republicans disregarded PROVEN rapists in the name of loyalty. The fact we are having this discussion is truly pathetic.

I already gave you some examples anecdotally.  Our own governor of this great state she had no reason to disbelieve Roy Moore's accuser but was voting for him anyway.  I've had numerous conversations/arguments with friends and acquaintances on this very nomination who have said that even if the accusations are true, they wouldn't hold it against him because it was so long ago and he was 17 years old.  I don't know how much plainer it could be.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

On what basis do you determine that you better understand broader reality and that this poll doesn't reflect it?

On the basis that the conclusion is absurd. Learn to think for yourself instead of believing everything purported by “credible” polls. Kind of like last night when you insisted "rape parties" were a thing. I am starting to be very surprised by you.