Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Who's Eddie Krassenstein and why should his opinion matter?

2. What's the evidence, and why does it only "cast dobut" rather than "contradict"? How much doubt? Is Eddie doing good analysis, or just amateur kremlinology?

I've never heard of either of them before (it's Brian and Eddie, there's two of them). It's just something that came up when I did a search on Tara Reade's name. By all means take what they say with an appropriate amount of salt, as any good skeptic should. I can't independently verify anything in there, but it appears that they did a lot of checking on things she has written on the internet using various social media accounts. The Russia stuff in particular makes me wonder whether the Russians got to her somehow, because she seems to be have been parroting Russian propaganda.
 
I've never heard of either of them before (it's Brian and Eddie, there's two of them). It's just something that came up when I did a search on Tara Reade's name. By all means take what they say with an appropriate amount of salt, as any good skeptic should. I can't independently verify anything in there, but it appears that they did a lot of checking on things she has written on the internet using various social media accounts. The Russia stuff in particular makes me wonder whether the Russians got to her somehow, because she seems to be have been parroting Russian propaganda.

Surely the Russians would want to use an agent that hadn’t blown her cover?
 
I've never heard of either of them before (it's Brian and Eddie, there's two of them). It's just something that came up when I did a search on Tara Reade's name. By all means take what they say with an appropriate amount of salt, as any good skeptic should. I can't independently verify anything in there, but it appears that they did a lot of checking on things she has written on the internet using various social media accounts. The Russia stuff in particular makes me wonder whether the Russians got to her somehow, because she seems to be have been parroting Russian propaganda.

The Krassenstein brothers are notorious internet grifters. Probably some of the worst people to emerge from resistance lib hysteria.

I suppose this is an improvement to their last work, a children's book featuring semi-erotic shirtless depictions of Robert Mueller.

Djc8bz9XsAAIcuA


Is this what counts as evidence to dismiss a potential rape victim as a liar? Twitter analysis from the Krassensteins?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Evidence Casts Doubt on Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegations of Joe Biden
1. Who's Eddie Krassenstein and why should his opinion matter?
I have no idea who Krassenstein is, and I certainly wouldn't be using his 'opinion' on the matter; instead, I would look at the article as a source of fact/evidence, and then draw your own conclusions.
2. What's the evidence
Well, we know for one thing that as recently as 2017, Reade was praising Biden. (You can actually see at least one of the actual postings right on the Twitter site.)

https://twitter.com/taramccabe94/status/841120222639607808

Now, I am not a psychologist... but, I do have to question how common it is for a victim of a traumatic experience to be supportive of the perpetrator.

Plus, you also have the fact that her story has changed over time. And this is verified by other (more reputable) media sources. For example, from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims
Reade also gave a slightly different version of events last year; she accused Biden of touching her neck and shoulders in a way that was inappropriate and uncomfortable, but did not say anything sexual took place.

Now neither of these is proof that Biden is innocent. But compare that to the Ford/Kavanaugh case, where there was a distinct lack of praise for Drunky McRapeface from Ford prior to his supreme court nominiation.
and why does it only "cast dobut" rather than "contradict"? How much doubt? Is Eddie doing good analysis, or just amateur kremlinology?
You're just wasting time playing with words, trying to use irrelevant distinctions in terminology.
 
I have no idea who Krassenstein is, and I certainly wouldn't be using his 'opinion' on the matter; instead, I would look at the article as a source of fact/evidence, and then draw your own conclusions.

It matters who the author is because the reader is relying on them to be honest brokers of the facts. We have no idea what the Krassensteins found while crawling through her social media accounts, only what they decided to share.

The Krassensteins are grifters. They would absolutely cherry pick a twitter feed to paint someone as a villain if it suited their purposes.
 
I've never heard of either of them before (it's Brian and Eddie, there's two of them). It's just something that came up when I did a search on Tara Reade's name. By all means take what they say with an appropriate amount of salt, as any good skeptic should. I can't independently verify anything in there, but it appears that they did a lot of checking on things she has written on the internet using various social media accounts. The Russia stuff in particular makes me wonder whether the Russians got to her somehow, because she seems to be have been parroting Russian propaganda.

Fair enough. I'm trying to cut back on clicking on links that are presented without comment, just to find out WTF is actually being said, if anything. If you thought there was enough value in the analysis to post excerpts here and discuss them, it'd be different. If we're just going as far as finding a headline on the Internet, I don't have any strong need to go further than that.
 
1. Who's Eddie Krassenstein and why should his opinion matter?

2. What's the evidence, and why does it only "cast dobut" rather than "contradict"? How much doubt? Is Eddie doing good analysis, or just amateur kremlinology?

You could read the article and find out.
 
I have no idea who Krassenstein is, and I certainly wouldn't be using his 'opinion' on the matter; instead, I would look at the article as a source of fact/evidence, and then draw your own conclusions.
It matters who the author is because the reader is relying on them to be honest brokers of the facts.
Uhh... no we aren't relying on them for anything. They presented facts/evidence. We have the ability to verify their evidence (at least in some cases) by going to original sources. And we have other media sources which verify at least some of their claims.
We have no idea what the Krassensteins found while crawling through her social media accounts, only what they decided to share.
The claims against Biden are known to the public. If there is evidence to support Reade's accusations, it would likely already be known from other sources (considering how much the right-wing media would want to smear Biden.)
The Krassensteins are grifters. They would absolutely cherry pick a twitter feed to paint someone as a villain if it suited their purposes.
They provided evidence that supports their opinion. But as far as I can see, the facts they presented are accurate, even if it is (as you claim) cherry-picked.

If you say "the sky is green", and I present a photo showing the sky is blue, its pretty good evidence that your 'green sky' belief may be faulty. Similarly, if we have evidence that Reade is somehow unreliable, that evidence is not going to go away.

This case is weird... a supposed biden supporter doing a 180 and accusing him of assault (after years of publicly supporting him, using an inconsistent story of the attack). I know you're eager to condemn Biden because anyone who isn't sanders is automatically a hitler-wannabe.
 
Fair enough. I'm trying to cut back on clicking on links that are presented without comment, just to find out WTF is actually being said, if anything. If you thought there was enough value in the analysis to post excerpts here and discuss them, it'd be different. If we're just going as far as finding a headline on the Internet, I don't have any strong need to go further than that.

As far as I'm concerned the burden of proving the allegation is on Reade. It is not on Biden to prove a negative, which is generally impossible.

It does seem pretty clear from the available evidence that from around 2018, she began expressing pro-Putin views. How did she come to have those views? Was she befriended by Russians? And if so, who exactly were those Russians anyway? Just regular folks without a political agenda, or perhaps (unbeknownst to Reade even) Russian agents looking for assets to exploit?

Why a Liberal Democrat Supports Vladimir Putin Alexandra Tara Reade, J.D.

(If you read this whole story, it reads like something that could have been written by Putin's own PR people. Did she come to these ideas on her own, or did someone help her along, help shape her thinking about Russia and Putin?)

Through my lens, President Putin brought a chaotic and failed nation to become a vibrant, creative, economic force within a decade. I don’t care what your politics; just admit that his sheer, calculated vision and willful energy brought Russia back to be a world power. Now, I said this to a friend recently, she waved her glass of Merlot at me and began the “anti-Russia” lecture we all have come in America to memorize, a tale of spies, oligarchs, rigged elections and murders. I start to drift. I listen to the Sade song playing in the background “The Sweetest Taboo” as she speaks. When she finishes, I say, “Well, he is very good to women, holds them in high regard.” She starts to protest then stops and says, “yes, yes, but…” She trails off no doubt thinking of the American President’s obvious disdain and objectification of all women. I shrug. Maybe, America is on some wrong side of very big issues and we need to look at our own actions. For example,Yemen or Afghanistan. It used to be fashionable as a Democrat to embrace our Russian sisters and brothers. Now, it is supposed to be only Republican territory. This is ironic since the whole American anti-Russian propaganda came originally from neo-conservative hawks.

There have been many American administration changes; President Putin has tried again and again to keep diplomatic ties strong. I am sure, President Putin has experienced political whiplash with the mercurial American diplomatic meetings. But then he is against an American machine that is more than one politician; it is an American political landmine full of traps, set up before he even came to power. The agenda was clear, concise and evident when I worked in Washington DC, keep the Russians talking but bring their nation down and no world seat for them at the table. Politics has always been a blood sport.

President Putin’s genius is his judo ability to conserve his own energy and let the opponents flail, using up their energy, while he gains position. Currently, President Putin has a higher approval rating in America then the American President, particularly with women. President Putin has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity. It is evident that he loves his country, his people and his job. Although his job may seem like in the words of writer, Elizabeth Gilbert on genius, “ trying to swallow the sun.” This is a whole lot to deal with for one mere mortal… President Putin’s obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is intoxicating to American women. Especially since the bloated, American President is so negative, denigrating and dismissive of anyone but himself as he stumbles even playing golf (which is not a real sport anyway but a past time, sorry golfers).

Where would an American come across such curious views about Vladimir Putin, I wonder? Who are her Russian friends, exactly?
 
As far as I'm concerned the burden of proving the allegation is on Reade. It is not on Biden to prove a negative, which is generally impossible.
Yep. I agree with this completely. As far as I'm concerned, Reade's accusations are unproven and should be treated accordingly.

<amateur kremlinology snipped>
This is the "amateur kremlinology" thing I was talking about.

And stop beating around the bush. If you think Putin's troll farm got to her, just say so plainly.
 
Yep. I agree with this completely. As far as I'm concerned, Reade's accusations are unproven and should be treated accordingly.


This is the "amateur kremlinology" thing I was talking about.

And stop beating around the bush. If you think Putin's troll farm got to her, just say so plainly.

It looks like a strong possibility that her thinking has been influenced by Russian agents. I thought that was pretty clear. Yeah, I do think that they likely "got to her" somehow. Perhaps she was befriended by Russian agents. I don't know exactly how they did it, but that article about how awesome Vladimir Putin is could only be Russian propaganda. I mean, don't take my word for it. Read it yourself if you have any doubt.
 
It looks like a strong possibility that her thinking has been influenced by Russian agents. I thought that was pretty clear. Yeah, I do think that they likely "got to her" somehow. Perhaps she was befriended by Russian agents. I don't know exactly how they did it, but that article about how awesome Vladimir Putin is could only be Russian propaganda. I mean, don't take my word for it. Read it yourself if you have any doubt.


The thing that you don't understand is that Vladimir Putin is awesome and you are propagandized. Read his address to the nation from a couple of days ago if you want to know how a competent politician handles a crisis. Better spent than reading nonsense by some inconsequential media hag or whoever that person is.
 
But, yeah hasn’t Biden’s image of Obama’s cheery playmate that we were being sold aged badly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom