Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I don't get the comparison to the Kavanaugh case. At least CBF was consistent in her claims of rape and had even confided in a therapist regarding the events (confirmed by notes). Plus CBF had passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent (however accurate that may be). 

 

I dont see any of this with Reade. 

 

Of course, this all might be coming but at the moment the story seems to have changed radically with her over time. 

 

Edit...BTW Biden appears to be doing the correct thing and openly calling for the National Archives to release all info. Imo, I suspect Biden inappropriately touched her on the back and neck as first claimed. He might not have felt it was inappropriate but that doesn't diminish it. I truly don't believe he raped her though. 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @LadySkinsFan for posting that article, at least I know I'm not the only one who sees obvious red flags.

 

It's interesting that a state and federal prosecutor of 28 years who has tried many sexual assault cases brings up the very same questions I posted on this very thread yesterday, ideas that some found irrational due to "expert" opinions.

 

Compliments for Biden. In the 1990s, Biden worked to pass the Violence Against Women Act. In 2017, on multiple occasions, Reade retweeted or “liked” praise for Biden and his work combating sexual assault. In the same year, Reade tweeted other compliments of Biden, including: “My old boss speaks truth. Listen.” It is bizarre that Reade would publicly laud Biden for combating the very thing she would later accuse him of doing to her. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Here's an article about the Biden accusation. Form your own opinion.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/29/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-tara-reade-column/3046962001/

 

 

The Post's lawyer-in-residence wrote a similar piece.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/01/what-joe-biden-did-right-rebutting-tara-reades-claims/

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

I don't get the comparison to the Kavanaugh case. At least CBF was consistent in her claims of rape and had even confided in a therapist regarding the events (confirmed by notes). Plus CBF had passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent (however accurate that may be). 

 

I dont see any of this with Reade. 

 

Of course, this all might be coming but at the moment the story seems to have changed radically with her over time. 

 

Edit...BTW Biden appears to be doing the correct thing and openly calling for the National Archives to release all info. Imo, I suspect Biden inappropriately touched her on the back and neck as first claimed. He might not have felt it was inappropriate but that doesn't diminish it. I truly don't believe he raped her though. 

 

whats being looked at when comparing the veracity of those 2 claims is a lot more than that, though. you can isolate individual parts of a claim, compare and draw conclusions, but they are going to be flawed because they are incomplete- they are smaller parts of a bigger picture. 

 

a good chunk of my criminal justice degree (just finished a few months ago....you can't see, but this is me patting myself on the back right now :) ) was looking at cases and why people were convicted, and sometimes why they were later found to be innocent. these cases are maddening to me. they are often led by bad cops, bad attorneys, bad judges, or just bad science. if you want to lose your mind, look at bite mark 'science' from the 90s and how many innocent people that junk put away. 

 

so you look at many of these popular or politicized cases - central park 5 is a really good one, west Memphis 3, Amanda Knox, cyntoia brown, every prisoner Km Kardashian tweets about, and look at what people are writing about them- why do they think they are innocent (or guilty). in virtually every case, people are relying on bad or incomplete information. heres an example- you can google 'dna evidence exonerates the central park 5' and find that statement all over the place reported as fact. it's false. that's because people don't know or want to take the time to learn about the case. 

 

when it comes to something as difficult to know as these two cases, they way I would look at it, if I were looking for the truth (besides taking a stance of neither for nor against  and not looking for what I wanted to be true) I would make a mental list of all of the agreed upon facts about the case. to get this, you probably will have to look at a lot of sources, including sources you don't normally look at. everybodys got an angle. you have to cover all bases. in the cases I mentioned above, you can go straight to the court documents which are pretty much all available online to get the facts. I go down rabbit holes and obsess. there are strong points and weak points to both of those cases but the totality of evidence and whether or not there are reasonable explanations for the weak points help determine how credible they are. 

 

 

(tshile, i'm working on your reply, btw)

Edited by grego
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

forgot to mention- I advocate going to sources you don't normally like (or even trust) because, in these politicized cases, the left is going to report more favorably in cases where their guy is being looked at, and the right is going to report more favorably in cases where their guy is under the microscope. its just the way it is. 

 

I want to know the counter arguments to my arguments. that way i'll know of I have a good argument. so the way to do that is to look at what the other side is saying. theres a great saying by john stuart mill that I love - "he who knows only his side of the case knows little of that". that, and 'if you want to truth to stand clear before you, you can be neither for nor against'. 

 

isn't it weird how almost all republicans thought blasey ford was lying, while democrats completely believed her? strangely, republicans believe reade, while not too many dems do. and it has little to do with the evidence or lack thereof.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Told ya'll the left can't just twiddle their thumbs at the GOP media machine. 

 

I didn't do it but all women should be heard just sounds bad.

 

 

Dems need to rally behind Biden.

 

As in.... declare him innocent and then put on a fake whatever that proves he's innocent. (Innocent based on the impossibility of conviction btw)

 

Or they can trust in do process and have integrity while we head into Trump's second term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, grego said:

and it has little to do with the evidence or lack thereof.

 

I disagree with this. It probably has more to do with CBF presenting herself well, being respected and telling a credible consistent story against an angry screaming lunatic man-child that was openly lying to our faces about everything else that came up. 

 

Compare that against Biden, a respected and well-liked person we've known for a long time who does't come across as a liar or rapist and his accuser who has some credibility issues of her own making. 

 

Those are pretty objective views of the scenarios. Not saying it proves anything but i think it explains why people are more inclined to believe Biden over Kav.I don't think the reason is as simple as Dems good/GOP bad and vice versa. 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look back, a lot of people were saying they weren’t sure if Ford was right or not, but that it should be investigated and that there was no reason to rush Kav through.  Things go a lot worse for him, ther more we learned about his past and saw his response and the gop and others attempts to hinder the investigations, and finally Kav’s behavior during the hearing vs Ford’s.  Also Kav could have been easily replaced by someone else.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, visionary said:

 Also Kav could have been easily replaced by someone else.

I disagree. It would be hard to find another like him. Douchebags of that magnitude don't grow on trees. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I disagree. It would be hard to find another like him. Douchebags of that magnitude don't grow on trees. 


You’d be surprised. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so to be clear the “why did she wait so long” and the “but she continued the relationship” arguments are credible ways to attack accusations of sexual assault and rape?

 

just trying to keep up with the changing standards. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

I don't think the reason is as simple as Dems good/GOP bad and vice versa. 

It seems like there’s a lot of differences you could use to support what you’re saying. 
 

but what you’re saying doesn’t account for the same group of people who attacked the idea that you cannot judge an accused based on how long they wait or how they act with the accused after the alleged assault, now using that very same idea in their list of reasons why she’s not credible 

 

either waiting a long time matters or it doesn’t. Either how she continues a relationship with the person matters or it doesn’t. 
 

during the kav and trump accusations people who used those arguments were shot down as being uninformed on the issue. Now it’s a legitimate argument?

 

its confusing to me because I did consider those legitimate arguments. But it was repeatedly explained by supposed experts that it’s not. Now it is?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ok so to be clear the “why did she wait so long” and the “but she continued the relationship” arguments are credible ways to attack accusations of sexual assault and rape?

 

just trying to keep up with the changing standards. 

And this is where my issues lie with the left's response. This woman has credibility problems, there's really not a pattern of behavior with him (no, smelling someone's hair and forced penetration aren't the same kind of action) and there are holes in her story. But, some of the arguments people on the left are now using are exactly the ones they were angry about when they were used on Kavanugh's or Trumps accusers. And the whole level of personal attacks launched on her would have been called "monstrous" or something equivalent if done in previous cases. 

Edited by Rufus T Firefly
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I thought the main issue with Kavanaugh was that they did a half-assed investigation over just a few days, then confirmed him, rather than allowing time for the facts to actually be established before giving him a lifetime appointment.  

 

In other words, it was never even a matter of whether it actually happened or not.  Republicans simply did not care if Kav sexually assaulted someone.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I thought the main issue with Kavanaugh was that they did a half-assed investigation over just a few days, then confirmed him, rather than allowing time for the facts to actually be established before giving him a lifetime appointment.  

That was absolutely an issue. 

 

but there was also a giant issue of the two sides over how to treat these cases. The instant character assassination stuff. And the left got on a real big moral horse about rape culture, and how men are awful animals, and how women never get a fair shake, and how this is why rape and assault are underreported cause all us assholes start asking questions like “why did she wait 20 years when the guys now nominated for scotus? Seems awful convenient timing for a candidate the left deeply hates for other reasons (slanting the court)”


the social justice warriors all told us that she was only doing it now because him being in the news all the time brought back the pain and she couldn’t stand to be quiet anymore. And that the rest of us are just anti women or something. 

 

now those same people are asking why his woman waited 20 years. they jumped straight to instant character assassination. 
 

you all want to talk about moral high ground and how you’re not like them, but damn if it doesn’t seem like you all eagerly jump to the same tactics when the script flips. 
 

sure, the Dems sacrificed some people during the metoo movement when things came out. Like Frankin. But now we’re at a spot where turning against Biden would be very very detrimental to beating trump. So now that there’s real skin the game, this is the response we get. 
 

and she has credibility issues. And that’s fine to attack them. But to pick up those specific arguments and start using them? It’s revealing. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ok so to be clear the “why did she wait so long” and the “but she continued the relationship” arguments are credible ways to attack accusations of sexual assault and rape?

 

just trying to keep up with the changing standards. 

 

Maybe I missed it but who is making that argument and only that argument? I thought the argument was that Reade' s accusations appear to have recently changed and her continued support for Biden up until last year do not help the believability of these new accusations?

 

 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tshile said:

Ok so to be clear the “why did she wait so long” and the “but she continued the relationship” arguments are credible ways to attack accusations of sexual assault and rape?

 

just trying to keep up with the changing standards. 

It depends on the situation. Every one is different. In general, complaining someone waited too long to say anything is kind of a pointless complaint and not really something to attack them over, because we don’t know what is going on inside their head or what they may have told people before, and people respond differently. But you of course have to factor in inconsistencies, contradictory statements, timing, and continued praise, and context around all these things in deciding if a person or their claim is credible or not.  

 

In short, she shouldn’t be attacked over it, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be looked at as part of the bigger picture.

Edited by visionary
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Don's comments about this, seems like even he thinks this isn't going anywhere or he'd be projecting all over the story. Guessing his campaign people did their digging and found the same things people are mentioning here along with probably more that just tells them it will only backfire. Kind of amazing since typically Don's gut would be all over pushing this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Based on Don's comments about this, seems like even he thinks this isn't going anywhere or he'd be projecting all over the story. Guessing his campaign people did their digging and found the same things people are mentioning here along with probably more that just tells them it will only backfire. Kind of amazing since typically Don's gut would be all over pushing this. 

Some of his people have been pushing it of late and right-wing twitter has been full steam ahead.  Trump might not want to invite more scrutiny of his own issues...maybe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Maybe I missed it but who is making that argument and only that argument?

 

 


thats... not the way it works. An independent argument is either valid or it isn’t. It isn’t invalid unless surrounded by other valid, independent arguments. 
 

none of the other arguments have any bearing on whether it’s valid or not to use how long it took for someone to report an assault. Or whether it’s valid to use how they treated/acted with the accuser after the fact. 
 

During the metoo movement those independent arguments were invalid because they’re supposedly fundamentally flawed and require not understanding the mentality of an abused/assaulted mental state and actions. 
 

now they’re valid? Why because she changed her story (which I also remember many of you saying is not a legitimate criticism, as I also remember many of you saying it’s not valid to criticize the abused having trouble recalling details due to the trauma and what that causes plus the length of time! !)

 

that’s not how independent arguments work. And if an independent argument is invalid, surrounding it with other (potentially) valid arguments doesn’t do anything to rectify the invalid argument. 

 

16 minutes ago, visionary said:

It depends on the situation. Every one is different.


no it doesn’t. See above. Criticizing someone for taking too long to report it, or reporting it when the person is up for a big achievement, is either valid or it isn’t. It wasn’t valid a year ago. Now it is?

 

and trouble recalling the events and getting details wrong was also considered invalid back then. 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, visionary said:

Some of his people have been pushing it of late and right-wing twitter has been full steam ahead.  Trump might not want to invite more scrutiny of his own issues...maybe.

 

You're right. I'm sure they'll have ads on it tonight. Meanwhile, the stupid Dem Pacs could be talking about all of Trumps accusers.

 

Either way, I don't see it going much further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, tshile said:

no it doesn’t. See above. Criticizing someone for taking too long to report it, or reporting it when the person is up for a big achievement, is either valid or it isn’t. It wasn’t valid a year ago. Now it is?

 

and trouble recalling the events and getting details wrong was also considered invalid back then. 

I’m not going to spend all day arguing about this, so you can keep making a point you seem hell-bent on making, actual context and details be damned.

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Rdskns2000 changed the title to Presidential Election: 11/3/20- Joe Biden WILL BEAT Donald Trump. Yes he will, U-watch. Friday or Saturday, Joe will win!
  • Jumbo changed the title to Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...