Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[goskins10]

4 minutes ago, visionary said:

I don't know that I agree with this take.  But I do agree that trying to do the right thing often gets the Dems screwed over by the Republicans, especially now that Trump and co. have set all our norms on fire.  I do think there's something to be said for setting a good example though.  I'm not at all sure how helpful looking at records would be though.  Either way, it would just prolong this, no matter what is found out.  

 

This is not directed at you but more to the tweet itself: 

 

We are supposed to be better than that. The argument many trump supporters use for most anything trump does is well hillary did it, well obama did it, well just fill in the blank. What's of course lost is that most times they are either just not true or a very weak comparison. 

 

But mostly, if it was wrong when say Hillary did it, is it not still wrong when trump does it? It, whatever "it" is, is either wrong or not. It's not person dependent. 

 

So just because trump will not do the right thing is not a good reason for Joe to not do the right thing. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

This is not directed at you but more to the tweet itself: 

 

We are supposed to be better than that. The argument many trump supporters use for most anything trump does is well hillary did it, well obama did it, well just fill in the blank. What's of course lost is that most times they are either just not true or a very weak comparison. 

 

But mostly, if it was wrong when say Hillary did it, is it not still wrong when trump does it? It, whatever "it" is, is either wrong or not. It's not person dependent. 

 

So just because trump will not do the right thing is not a good reason for Joe to not do the right thing. 

I assume this  idea of not doing tit for tat goes for using executive orders, getting rid of the filibuster, stacking the courts, etc as people on the left have been proposing?  Or does this only go for Biden?

 

 

10 minutes ago, grego said:

 

yep. dean baquet actually admitted it. "Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct, And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/business/media/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times.html

 

So he did his job and corrected it as the media often does when they realize they did something wrong or a campaign points out something misleading.  Shocking.

[PleaseBlitz]

10 minutes ago, grego said:

 

yep. dean baquet actually admitted it. "Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct, And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/business/media/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times.html

 

In the context of that entire article, I don’t find that particularly troubling. 

[visionary]

By the way, since Biden is supposedly not picking his vp until at least July, if he ends up dropping out or whatever before then, we will probably have utter ****ing chaos as to what to do next. 

Just something to keep us all up at night.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

17 minutes ago, visionary said:

So he did his job and corrected it as the media often does when they realize they did something wrong or a campaign points out something misleading.  Shocking.

Agreed. To make that out as something nefarious or crooked would be a stretch of titanic proportions.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Agreed. To make that out as something nefarious or crooked would be a stretch of titanic proportions.

 

Which is why I expect it to be a well known fact inside the echo chamber, within 48 hours.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

Just now, Larry said:

 

Which is why I expect it to be a well known fact inside the echo chamber, within 48 hours.  

I honesty don't have ay idea what you mean by this. 

[grego]

14 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

In the context of that entire article, I don’t find that particularly troubling. 

 

oh, no doubt there could be completely legitimate reasons to go back and edit an article after being published. to admit that you changed it after approving it 

because a presidential hopeful didn't like the way it sounded is, at the very least, a bad look. why is a political campaign telling the biggest, most respected newspaper in the world what to print? it just shouldn't be that way. it didn't used to be that way. not like this. 

[goskins10]

33 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

I assume this  idea of not doing tit for tat goes for using executive orders, getting rid of the filibuster, stacking the courts, etc as people on the left have been proposing?  Or does this only go for Biden?

 

I realize this is meant more as snark than a real question but I will answer anyway. 
 

yes of course it means for all the tit for tat as you put it from both sides. 
 

A Pandora’s box has been opened that any means to an end is ok.  Its been going on for some time actually but this administration has taken to a whole new level but dems are not innocent.  It’s got to stop.  Sadly I do not think it will any time soon.  

[visionary]

7 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I realize this is meant more as snark than a real question but I will answer anyway.  

It's not just intended as snark.  It's meant to get people to think about their position and whether they truly believe it or not.

I've generally been uncomfortable with ideas people have floated about using Trump's methods or other shady anti-norm methods post-Trump to return the favor or push through liberal ideas.  But this is probably getting a bit off topic, I suppose.  

[Mr. Sinister]

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

It's not just intended as snark.  It's meant to get people to think about their position and whether they truly believe it or not.

I've generally been uncomfortable with ideas people have floated about using Trump's methods or other shady anti-norm methods post-Trump to return the favor or push through liberal ideas.

 

Gotta restore the precedent 

[Rufus T Firefly]

27 minutes ago, visionary said:

By the way, since Biden is supposedly not picking his vp until at least July, if he ends up dropping out or whatever before then, we will probably have utter ****ing chaos as to what to do next. 

Just something to keep us all up at night.  

Which is why, as much as I despised the idea of nominating Biden, I am horrified by the thought of him having to step down now. It would, as I said earlier, bring up the no-win scenario of nominating Bernie or giving his supporters cause to tear the party apart over how the nom was "stolen" from him. It's a nightmare possibility.

 

To be clear, I think there's about a 0.01% chance he'll have to step down. 

[goskins10]

12 minutes ago, visionary said:

It's not just intended as snark.  It's meant to get people to think about their position and whether they truly believe it or not.

I've generally been uncomfortable with ideas people have floated about using Trump's methods or other shady anti-norm methods post-Trump to return the favor or push through liberal ideas.  But this is probably getting a bit off topic, I suppose.  

I have been pretty consistent. I was not comfortable with the dems using the nuclear option for judges or the use of executive orders by Obama. That’s just a few off the top of my head. 
 

but the Rep have gone to new lows. I am really tired of the whole process.  I hope the next president works with congress to make it harder to abuse the system but that is likely way too optimistic, no matter who wins.  

[visionary]

I think it's easy for us all to get overwhelmed or carried away with some of the online back and forth over this. 

For instance I see there's a new #1 trend now using Pelosi's statement and kind of twisting it into something it's not.  

(although it's not the best statement either)

[JSSkinz]

54 minutes ago, tshile said:

if you want to suggest you know more than the experts go ahead. 

Not suggesting that at all but there's a lot going on with Tara Reade and her story and I'm trying to make some sense of it.  

 

As I said in my first post I would like to see both of them answer questions under oath. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

Spoiler alert he's gonna deny the accusation

 

[tshile]

39 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Not suggesting that at all but there's a lot going on with Tara Reade and her story and I'm trying to make some sense of it.  

 

As I said in my first post I would like to see both of them answer questions under oath. 

That’s fair. 
 

I was addressing the very specific point you made that her liking a tweet, or tweeting positive things about him, after he allegedly assaulted her somehow can be used as a judgement against her credibility.  
 

one thing that was emphasized over and over and over during the metoo movement was that this sort of judgement is incredibly flawed. That victims of abuse often do defend their abusers, that they often do continue the relationship after the abuse even in cases where continuing the relationship means continuing the abuse. 
 

so the point you were making is flawed, according to the experts. That’s all I was trying to point out. 

[twa]

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

yep. dean baquet actually admitted it. "Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct, And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/business/media/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times.html

 

move read your other responses. but I wanted to quote this post. Because it has the quote. 
 

that quote in no way reads to me as a journalist altering their work because a political campaign (supposedly one the journalist likes/prefers?) told them they didn’t like the quote and so the journalist acquiesced. and therefore there is an issue of integrity. 
 

instead it reads perfectly to me as a person putting together a piece of work, then having it pointed out to them that the work doesn’t reflect the facts, then the journalist determining that his work created an opinion that’s not consistent with the facts nor was it consistent with the intent of the work. 
 

I see a huge difference there. Journalists should correct the record when it is brought to their attention that the work does not reflect facts. I wish that was done more often. 
 

but they absolutely shouldn’t do it just because what they’re wrote makes a person look bad and they like the person and don’t want to make them look bad (which is what you’ve essentially accused him of here)

 

im not saying it should raise a concern and that it’s not worth looking into more. Just that the information you’ve provided doesn’t paint the picture you’re telling us it does (in my opninion)
 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

13 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Spoiler alert he's gonna deny the accusation

 

Of course, but it's important for him to answer directly.

 

Him hiding out and letting surrogates defend him via talking points" that his campaign is distributing is a really bad look.

[visionary]

I guess he should speak about it, but I can't see much good coming from it now.  No matter what he says, people will tear him apart over it and it will draw more attention to the story and make it much more visible.  Whether that's a good thing or a terrible thing, I guess we're going to find out.  

[Renegade7]

I get that bad news is coming in spades right now, but Biden is not dropping out.

 

R-E-L-A-X

[tshile]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

I guess he should speak about it, but I can't see much good coming from it now.

 

It’s a gamble

 

would you rather take the “he didn’t even speak about it” criticism

 

or the criticism that comes out of it?

 

me, id choose the later. I think most people will.

 

biden? I have no doubt he has the same confidence I do, but he’s got a history of mucking up things. So.... I don’t know. 

[PleaseBlitz]

He's not going to talk about it in depth.  He'll say something concise, strongly deny it again, say that women should be believed and therefore her accusation should be investigated (but note again that it did not happen), point to his record involving woman-friendly legislation and call it a day.  Maybe pivot to dunking on Trump's coronavirus response.

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s a gamble

 

would you rather take the “he didn’t even speak about it” criticism

 

or the criticism that comes out of it?

 

me, id choose the later. I think most people will.

 

biden? I have no doubt he has the same confidence I do, but he’s got a history of mucking up things. So.... I don’t know. 

Honestly, it's not even that choice. He can't avoid this for 6 months. 

 

The choice is:

Not say anything about, be rightly criticized for a long period of time for avoiding and hiding from it, then answer questions about it; or

 

Address it now