Roy Moore Slams America, Says ‘Maybe Putin Is Right’

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

😐😲😲😲

They aren't that tough to understand NB. I can walk you through one one day to help teach you. Don't be overwhelmed.

 

17 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

She only made up part of it. Lol. Cross her off the list 

Absolutely agree. One down, how many more to go?

 

As far as I'm aware there is nothing connecting her to the other women so her lying doesn't impact the other women's stories. Unless you have evidence of a conspiracy (dun dun duhhhhh).

[bcking 3,157]

https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/polygraph_404.pdf

 

Here is the link to the meta-analysis, for people to review.

 

NB - You may not want to click on the link. It's far longer than a twitter post or your customary length expectations here on these forums. I can't be held responsible for the consequences.

Edited December 10, 2017 by bcking

[jg121783 3,915]

 

1 hour ago, bcking said:

There is very little evidence that lie detector tests work...

 

So actually we still wouldn't know for sure.

 

How do you reconcile McConnell's stance? He said he believed the women at one point, but then changed his mind. I believe his mind changed before the woman admitted to adding the date and location to the yearbook (keep in my she claims the signature is still genuine).

So she lied about one thing then claims another thing and you believe her? There is a word for that and that word is gullible.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

 

So she lied about one thing then claims another thing and you believe her? There is a word for that and that word is gullible.

No sorry I didn't give my opinion, I was just clarifying the story. She didn't admit to forging the whole thing, just the date. Take that as you will.

 

I agree it calls into question her story and I would discount it.

 

However I don't think her story has much bearing or impact on the other women's claims. I'm treating them all independently unless evidence comes out to suggest we shouldn't.

Edited December 10, 2017 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

When this mess with Moore first started, a friend of mine on FB made a comment along the lines of “Let Alabama decide whom they wish to elect.”  I asked him if he was comfortable with putting a sexual predator in a position of political power.  Turns out, he knows Roy Moore personally, and said he has never seen anything to make him believe the stories.

 

While I realize people can be fooled, at least for a while, I know this guy is pretty sharp, and wouldn’t tolerate any shennaginas.  So I let it go, and though I’d just sit back and watch what unfolded.  Now, I have more doubts that Moore is actually guilty than I had in the beginning.  Only time will tell...

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IDWAF said:

When this mess with Moore first started, a friend of mine on FB made a comment along the lines of “Let Alabama decide whom they wish to elect.”  I asked him if he was comfortable with putting a sexual predator in a position of political power.  Turns out, he knows Roy Moore personally, and said he has never seen anything to make him believe the stories.

 

While I realize people can be fooled, at least for a while, I know this guy is pretty sharp, and wouldn’t tolerate any shennaginas.  So I let it go, and though I’d just sit back and watch what unfolded.  Now, I have more doubts that Moore is actually guilty than I had in the beginning.  Only time will tell...

Well time probably won't tell whether he is guilty. Time will tell if he gets elected though.

 

Proving the allegations from decades ago is nearly in possible. Proving they are all false is likely also nearly impossible.

 

So we just have to each accept what level of risk is acceptable to us (the risk of him being a current or former sexual predator). Well mostly just those of us (if any) that live in Alabama.

[yuna628 9,676]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

When this mess with Moore first started, a friend of mine on FB made a comment along the lines of “Let Alabama decide whom they wish to elect.”  I asked him if he was comfortable with putting a sexual predator in a position of political power.  Turns out, he knows Roy Moore personally, and said he has never seen anything to make him believe the stories.

 

While I realize people can be fooled, at least for a while, I know this guy is pretty sharp, and wouldn’t tolerate any shennaginas.  So I let it go, and though I’d just sit back and watch what unfolded.  Now, I have more doubts that Moore is actually guilty than I had in the beginning.  Only time will tell...

Defenders of child molesters and rapists always say that.

[jayjayj 571]

42 minutes ago, bcking said:

https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/polygraph_404.pdf

 

Here is the link to the meta-analysis, for people to review.

 

NB - You may not want to click on the link. It's far longer than a twitter post or your customary length expectations here on these forums. I can't be held responsible for the consequences.

We'll probably need a separate thread on polygraphs.

 

I can tell you this though, before I read through the data, the U.S. government trusts polygraphs enough that results have cost many people their clearances and jobs.  I personally know of several instances when this happened.  It isn't always based solely on the polygraph results, even though there are cases of that being the sole deciding factor for certain cases.  There are also cases where the polygraphs point toward possible misleading answers and further investigation is initiated.  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

47 minutes ago, bcking said:

https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/polygraph_404.pdf

 

Here is the link to the meta-analysis, for people to review.

 

NB - You may not want to click on the link. It's far longer than a twitter post or your customary length expectations here on these forums. I can't be held responsible for the consequences.

I could of used this last night when I couldn't sleep.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

We'll probably need a separate thread on polygraphs.

 

I can tell you this though, before I read through the data, the U.S. government trusts polygraphs enough that results have cost many people their clearances and jobs.  I personally know of several instances when this happened.  It isn't always based solely on the polygraph results, even though there are cases of that being the sole deciding factor for certain cases.  There are also cases where the polygraphs point toward possible misleading answers and further investigation is initiated.  

Absolutely agree that it has cost people jobs. My point is that the backing for it isn't that straightforward and just because it is used to prevalently doesn't mean it is has objective evidence to support it.

 

That's why I used the O2 sat monitors. We ABSOLUTELY use information from that to care for patients, and most of us have no doubt that it helps. But that is all expert opinion. No one has actually rigorously studied it and at this point it is so standard of care that it would be unethical to randomize patients and study it now. That still doesn't change the fact that there is no high quality evidence though.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't use it. I'm just saying we shouldn't assume that just because it is in use that it is good. It by no means prove that they are guilty.

Edited December 10, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

40 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

 

So she lied about one thing then claims another thing and you believe her? There is a word for that and that word is gullible.

There are other words 

[jayjayj 571]

51 minutes ago, bcking said:

Absolutely agree that it has cost people jobs. My point is that the backing for it isn't that straightforward and just because it is used to prevalently doesn't mean it is has objective evidence to support it.

 

That's why I used the O2 sat monitors. We ABSOLUTELY use information from that to care for patients, and most of us have no doubt that it helps. But that is all expert opinion. No one has actually rigorously studied it and at this point it is so standard of care that it would be unethical to randomize patients and study it now. That still doesn't change the fact that there is no high quality evidence though.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't use it. I'm just saying we shouldn't assume that just because it is in use that it is good. It by no means prove that they are guilty.

There are some really intelligent and professional people working for the government - much smarter and more educated than any of us.  Agencies such as the NSA hire the best minds out of the top universities.  I have no doubt the government conducted exhaustive studies to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of these tests before deciding that they could be used to determine a person's fate.  I'm also sure that these studies have been repeated over the years, to ensure they are using the best technology for this purpose.     

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

There are some really intelligent and professional people working for the government - much smarter and more educated than any of us.  Agencies such as the NSA hire the best minds out of the top universities.  I have no doubt the government conducted exhaustive studies to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of these tests before deciding that they could be used to determine a person's fate.  I'm also sure that these studies have been repeated over the years, to ensure they are using the best technology for this purpose.     

Of course they could have secretive unpublished studies that aren't peer reviewed...but it's dangerous to just assume that.

 

I know a lot of very very smart people who do things or use things without high quality evidence. Most people, even very intelligent people, don't distinguish well between expert opinion and objective high quality evidence.

[jg121783 3,915]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

There are other words 

True but I don't want to get banned today.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

36 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

True but I don't want to get banned today.