Okay, you don't know what it is. And I don't need to argue the point. You conceded it. Take a look: Me: You:
Your point? We both make assumptions. You couch yours as a hypothetical, while I don’t. You argue semantics because logic destroys your hypothetical. At its base, it is 1 (possible) witness for her story versus 4 (definitively) against her story. So unless the numbers swap to being 3 unbiased witnesses supporting her story against 2 biased witnesses refuting her story, what does logic suggest here? That 2 out of 3 unbiased witnesses are lying and the remaining unbiased witness is actually telling the truth? 2 unbiased witnesses supporting your story trumps 1 unbiased witness saying that you are lying. Unless you assume in your hypothetical that the two unbiased boys cannot be truthful, and only the one unbiased girl can be truthful. What happens if all 3 unbiased witnesses back Kavanugh’s story? Do you still assume she is telling the truth?
In appraisal-ese, assumption and hypothetical are distinctly different: Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions - Wikipedia "An assumption is a statement or condition that is presumed or assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. [4] USPAP defines an assumption as "that which is taken to be true".[5][6][7][8] An extraordinary assumption is an assumption which if found to be false could alter the resulting opinion or conclusion.[8][9][10][11] A hypothetical condition is an assumption made contrary to fact, but which is assumed for the purpose of discussion, analysis, or formulation of opinions.[8][12][13][14]" Similar? Absolutely. Same thing? Absolutely not. Now, FSU and Suck might be synonyms and completely interchangeable, but assumption and hypothetical are not. Sounds like splitting hairs, but in some very important situations, the difference is bigly. Yuge, as a matter of fact, believe me I must tell you.
You need to reevaluate your math. There were 5 people counting her. And only two are remotely arguable as unbiased witnesses. A little "logic" would be nice.
The whole objective is to delay, the Democrats have used every single delay tactic available to them under the Senate Rules and have run out of options. They had the letter months ago and sat on it so they could use it as a delay tactic. Delay, delay, delay......
Democrats are delaying. Republicans are trying to ram him through. There is no moral high ground there. However, a sexual assault allegation should be taken seriously.
I understood there were 4 boys present at the party plus her plus the other girl. Hence the correction she made regarding the therapists notes from 4 boys assaulting her to 2 boys assaulting her. So 5 people at the party not counting her, which makes 6. 4 boys, and 2 girls. Of those 4 boys, 2 would be considered biased witnesses and 2 would be considered unbiased witnesses. Out of the 2 girls, 1 would be unbiased and 1 would be biased. Therefore, there is a total of 3 biased witnesses and 3 unbiased witnesses going by what has been posted previously. If you are correct that only 5 people were present, then it becomes 3 biased witnesses and 2 unbiased witnesses. If the other girl isn’t one of the unbiased witnesses, then you have 2 unbiased witnesses saying Kavanugh didn’t do anything versus only the woman saying that he did. When I say biased, I mean involved in the alleged incident. When I say unbiased, I mean present at the party, but not involved in the incident.
This post is satire I saw Kamala Harris eating babies one time... I demand an FBI investigation... She needs to prove that she never ate babies, now.... Seems legit... This post is satire
Why would an innocent person refuse to testify to a committee with all sorts of means of accommodation, including meeting Ford at an undisclosed location?
From what our Nole fan and Whelan said, it sounds like there were four people besides herself there. Sounds to me like she's planning to testify.
“No way she can get a fair hearing if she’s questioned by those 11 biased Republican men. The only way we are doing this is if you take the proper formal, judicial-style steps and do an FBI investigation.” “No, but we’ll get a third party to do the questioning if you want.” “Absolutely not, that’s too formal and judicial seeming! The only way she will show up is if you promise that only those 11 biased Republican men will ask questions.”
"Unbelievable evil old white males bullying a victim of sexual assault. How dare they?" "Okay... we'll get a female attorney to do the questioning..." "That's not fair, either! I can't have a woman question me!"
How does a third party make any difference? That's a complete misrepresentation. It wasn't the prospect of testifying to the Senators that was problematic. It was the fact that they were going to make it a pure he said/she said spectacle.
She has been offered an open hearing, a closed hearing, or a hearing in CA with Senate staffers, she hasn't agreed to any of those.
