Sen. Warren is at it again!

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny though you can't cite any evidence she ever claimed native status with the intent to get a benefit nor can you cite any evidence she ever received any benefit.

Did you need evidence to find Kavanaugh guilty Jeff? Can’t I just say it and then it is real?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Did you need evidence to find Kavanaugh guilty Jeff? Can’t I just say it and then it is real?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Testimony under sworn oath is evidence.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Testimony under sworn oath is evidence.

Of his innocence or his guilt??? Because he swore under oath he didn't do it.

are they both evidence, or only the one you like to believe?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Of his innocence or his guilt??? Because he swore under oath he didn't do it.

are they both evidence, or only the one you like to believe?

looking forward to seeing the answer to this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Of his innocence or his guilt??? Because he swore under oath he didn't do it.

are they both evidence, or only the one you like to believe?

I've never once said her testimony is conclusive proof. I do think his response to her accusation and the accusations in general clearly demonstrated he is unfit to serve on the bench.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never once said her testimony is conclusive proof. I do think his response to her accusation and the accusations in general clearly demonstrated he is unfit to serve on the bench.

but when sotomayor says female latinas make better judges than white men, that doesn’t lead you to conclude that she’s unfit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but when sotomayor says female latinas make better judges than white men, that doesn’t lead you to conclude that she’s unfit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that's not what she said, but regardless it's not even in the same territory as Kav's conspiracy rants and belligerence.

[scottw]

quit whining spence....ruth bader is next

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Did you need evidence to find Kavanaugh guilty Jeff? Can’t I just say it and then it is real?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think they have a pretty good model called firehose of falsehood

Since his entrance into the political arena (if not before), there has been a remarkable evolution in Trump's approach to news. The President has effectively employed new dissemination channels and messages in support of his 2016 election, his agenda, his ongoing involvement in disavowing Russian collusion and various other issues, and his antagonism of allies. The Trump news model is high-volume and multichannel, and it disseminates messages without regard for the truth. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency. Although these techniques run counter to the conventional wisdom for successful information campaigns, research in psychology supports many of the most successful aspects of the model. Furthermore, the very factors that make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it difficult to counter. Traditional counterpropaganda approaches will likely be inadequate in this context. More effective solutions can be found in the same psychology literature that explains the surprising success of the Trump news model and its messages.