• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ford’s Polygraph Presents Another Inconsistency In Who Attended Alleged Party

Casper said:
If everyone has such faith in a polygraph then why not have the FBI perform one on Ford, Kav, and Judge, then see who is being deceptive. LOL, I know the righties here and trump would never agree to it since truth is not their goal.
Click to expand...

because it isn't a criminal investigation. that is why.

and no polygraphs are not accurate which is why they are not admissible in court.
we know liberals are not there for the truth.

the slum dogs simply can't accept the truth.
1 being her story is so inconsistent and full of holes it can't be taken seriously.
 
Buzz62 said:
This is both hilarious and ridiculous. An idiot could tell Ford was/is off her rocker.
Man...this is gonna be one of the most embarrassing and costly weeks for the Dumbocrats ever.

I have a request...if I may?
Once Kavanaugh is confirmed and on the bench, would you fine Libbies go out at night and howl at the moon again for us please?
That was so entertaining...
Click to expand...
More people, including me, felt she was credible. But I guess if one is invested otherwise, you see it differently.

41 percent of Americans said that they "definitely" or "probably" believe the testimony of Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a house gathering when the two were in high school in the early 1980s.

A slightly lower percentage of respondents, 35 percent, said that they "definitely" or "probably" believe Kavanaugh's

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...iews-on-kavanaugh-ford-after-dramatic-hearing
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
Let me turn the table on your contention...
Click to expand...

nope no turn there at all.
he has already been investigated and as what has already been proven and you continue to ignore.
polygraphs are not in fact reliable.

and it seems that the one ford was given was bogus.

submitting a fraudulent polygraph is amount to lying.
her lawyers should have been more careful.

then again you aren't interested in facts.
you have a chance to be honest but i know you won't be you haven't been yet.

the discussion here is her polygraph and basically how it was rigged.
 
MTAtech said:
Let me turn the table on your contention...

[h=1]Brett Kavanaugh: Polygraphs Are Important In Making Hiring Decisions[/h]
Click to expand...
These were Kavenaugh's words?(from the linked article)

As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to “screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.” Declaration of Alesia Y. Williams, Defense Intelligence Agency, Chief of FOIA Services Section, at Joint Appendix 226. In Morley v. CIA, we stated: “Background investigations conducted to assess an applicant’s qualification, such as … clearance and investigatory processes, inherently relate to law enforcement.
Click to expand...


Oops.
 
ludin said:
because it isn't a criminal investigation. that is why.

and no polygraphs are not accurate which is why they are not admissible in court.
we know liberals are not there for the truth.

the slum dogs simply can't accept the truth.
1 being her story is so inconsistent and full of holes it can't be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Nice Excuse, predictable.

I am not the one pointing to polygraph results, that would be one of your boys.
So let's give them all the test, are you afraid it might work out badly for Kav and his boyfriend?
 
MTAtech said:
More people, including me, felt she was credible. But I guess if one is invested otherwise, you see it differently.
Click to expand...

how can you call it credible when her story changes every other day and she can't remember anything?

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

you know what an actual expert has to say.
of course you find her credible. you don't want him on the bench so any accusation that would keep him off of it you find credible.
just like the slum dog liberals in congress do.

you pretty much shoot any credibility you had out the window with statements like that.

not only was her story not credible in her accusation she had no evidence to support it.
and it was highly inconsistent all over the place.
 
ludin said:
how can you call it credible when her story changes every other day and she can't remember anything?

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

you know what an actual expert has to say.
of course you find her credible. you don't want him on the bench so any accusation that would keep him off of it you find credible.
just like the slum dog liberals in congress do.
.
Click to expand...
So funny.
Of course he had hid mind made up before she even
appeared, as did most liberals.

And they've torpedoed the Merrick Garland talking point.
Republicans were never going to vote him in but Democrats have to shut their traps about that because they would do the same thing,
 
MTAtech said:
More people, including me, felt she was credible. But I guess if one is invested otherwise, you see it differently.
Click to expand...

Ya know...quite honestly...having actually seen the testimony...I think allot of people who claim that Ford said anything even remotely credible, are doing so to avoid the wrath of the #MeToo crowd. The woman is disturbed...and it shows.
 
ludin said:
how can you call it credible when her story changes every other day and she can't remember anything?
...
Click to expand...

Minor extraneous details might have been different but not the main important issues.

While on the topic, Kav's was clearly lying. He specifically lied about "Devil's Triangle" because it was about sex. He specifically lied about "ralphing" because it was about inebriation. He is accused of drunken sexual assault. So, anything that linked Kav to sex or alcohol had to be Orwelled away.

More on the lying: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
 
Casper said:
Nice Excuse, predictable.

I am not the one pointing to polygraph results, that would be one of your boys.
So let's give them all the test, are you afraid it might work out badly for Kav and his boyfriend?
Click to expand...

we are talking about her polygraph but as usual i expect this excuse and level of dishonesty.
the FBI background that is done on SCOTUS nominee's is more intensive than a polygraph and is checked and double
checked again and again.

she was given a polygraph by a katz associate in conditions that were not conductive to giving a test when she was already
would be in an emotion state after the death of her grandmother.

there is no reliable way to tell what the polygraph would produce.

so therefore he polygraph is invalid and down right fraudulent.
 
Buzz62 said:
Ya know...quite honestly...having actually seen the testimony...I think allot of people who claim that Ford said anything even remotely credible, are doing so to avoid the wrath of the #MeToo crowd. The woman is disturbed...and it shows.
Click to expand...
Really? Because I watched a composed, calm individual who was able to discuss neoreceptors. Then I watched a guy who was supposed to be a federal judge, who was a raving lunatic -- blaming the Clintons and saying "what goes around, comes around" -- supposedly as a veiled threat should he be on the high-court, to anyone who opposed his nomination.
 
MTAtech said:
Minor extraneous details might have been different but not the main important issues.

While on the topic, Kav's was clearly lying. He specifically lied about "Devil's Triangle" because it was about sex. He specifically lied about "ralphing" because it was about inebriation. He is accused of drunken sexual assault. So, anything that linked Kav to sex or alcohol had to be Orwelled away.

More on the lying: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
Click to expand...

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

it was more than just extraneous details.
but again you don't care about facts do you?
 
ludin said:
we are talking about her polygraph but as usual i expect this excuse and level of dishonesty.
the FBI background that is done on SCOTUS nominee's is more intensive than a polygraph and is checked and double
checked again and again.

she was given a polygraph by a katz associate in conditions that were not conductive to giving a test when she was already
would be in an emotion state after the death of her grandmother.

there is no reliable way to tell what the polygraph would produce.

so therefore he polygraph is invalid and down right fraudulent.
Click to expand...

So let's perform one on all three players by the FBI. Yes, you don't want that, as I predicted in my original post, anything else to add?
 
MTAtech said:
Really? Because I watched a composed, calm individual who was able to discuss neoreceptors. Then I watched a guy who was supposed to be a federal judge, who was a raving lunatic -- blaming the Clintons and saying "what goes around, comes around" -- supposedly as a veiled threat should he be on the high-court, to anyone who opposed his nomination.
Click to expand...

And I feel sorry for you. It must be difficult to see anything clearly, with TDS in the way.

The woman's a loon...plain and simple.
 
MTAtech said:
Yeah, because you say so but are unable to add argument to make a persuadable case.

Fox News Host: Ford Testimony 'Credible,' a 'Disaster for Republicans'
Click to expand...

"However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question."
Click to expand...
Leland Ingham Keyser.
Ford's own "witness".

On top of this, Ford does not even know who's paying for all this. The polygraph question was hilarious, telling, and sad, all at the same time. THAT was when I KNEW this woman had, at best, been railroaded, and at worst, knew what she was doing and was gonna do it anyway.
 
The Daily Caller is categorized as a deeply far-right leaning conservative website, it's good to keep that in mind before you draw any conclusions from their opinion. I'd be interested in the result of a polygraph on Brett Kavanaugh.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Doesn't mean much at all, one way or another. Most polygraphs use a minimum of eight questions, including parameter setup, sample questions to create a reaction range by which to judge the comparative reactions to the salient questions. This purported polygraph utilized 2 questions per the release from her attorneys.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And this wholly bizarre polygraph had her write the story down, full of cross outs and rewrites, and then just asked her "Is it true?" and "did you make any of it up?". Rather unconventional way of going about an already controversial procedure.
 
On a side note, I saw a story the other day about a rather promising new polygraph technique that uses a brain activity monitor. The basic process is you have the subject recall a detailed memory, and then make up a detailed story and look at the parts of the brain that are active.

After they have mapped the brain they then have the subject answer questions in detail and look to see if the answer is coming from the creative portion of the brain or the recall portion.

Granted, in this case that too would be ineffective since after 6 years, let alone 36, any event, real or imagined, would be coming from memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom