Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TragicMonkey said:
What?
Click to expand...

Yeah because there's nothing in this whole thread casting doubt on Reade's story?

When are you #AllWomen NO MATTER WHAT folks going to address the evidence pro and con instead of this kind of BS?

TM said:
It does seem topsy-turvy for skeptics to insist that one shouldn't take a witness's credibility into consideration when deciding whether or not to believe what they're saying.
Click to expand...
Who in this thread said anything of the kind except the people claiming some double standard yada yada?

Who in this thread did this:?
TragicMonkey said:
Indeed. However that doesn't mean one must throw critical thought out the window from a desire to compensate for current or prior social oppression.
Click to expand...

Are you just flipping back and forth?

Have you addressed the evidence casting doubt on Reade?
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
My take is disagreement with a misreading of your post. You must be filled under Biden haters.
Click to expand...

Nothing of the kind. I'm objecting to some nebulous guilt trip being laid on those of us looking at the evidence. We are not skeptical because we weigh the evidence against Reade. We aren't good skeptics because... reasons unrelated to the actual issues. We much believe all women no matter what or we are hypocrites.
 
It's amazing how the evidence always comes out in favor of the person who is a member of the same political party one is . . .
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nothing of the kind. I'm objecting to some nebulous guilt trip being laid on those of us looking at the evidence. We are not skeptical because we weigh the evidence against Reade. We aren't good skeptics because... reasons unrelated to the actual issues. We much believe all women no matter what or we are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

I get that comparisons between the way Democrats have spoken about Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade are difficult.
 
Judging by microcosm here, goal of that stint - infighting among Democratic supporters - was successful. Putin laughs all way to his office.
 
Sideroxylon said:
I get that comparisons between the way Democrats have spoken about Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Tara Reade are difficult.
Click to expand...
I don't find the comparisons difficult.

Similarities
  • Ancient history
  • Political opponent

Unique to Kavanaugh
  • There were witnesses to the purported event. It was theoretically provable.
  • Other accusers of Kavanaugh (although the facts were weak)
  • Damning character witnesses
  • Damning comments from Kavanaugh -- women as sexual conquests
  • Ford did not praise Kavanaugh repeatedly
  • Ford did not drastically change her facts
  • Ford came across as honest

It's shallow to play hypocrisy gotcha (otherwise known as your go to move) with these two scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
As the columnist notes, the records would show her work schedules and assignments, memos written to, from and about her, and anything else that was documented about her employment. As the writer noted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...id=lk_inline_manual_7&itid=lk_inline_manual_7
Click to expand...

This is not accurate. From the US Senate website:
The records created and maintained within a senator's office are the property of the member. Most senators donate their collections to a research repository in their home state when they leave office. At the repository, they are made available to researchers after an appropriate amount of time has passed.
Click to expand...

The papers in the U. of Delaware collection are papers that Biden was free to do anything he wanted to with, including throwing them in the trash. They are not official records.

If she had ever complained to her manager about Biden or anything else, it wouldn't be in Senate files, but the manager might have written a memo for the office files. She might have asked for different work. There might be performance reviews. Anything about her work for Biden potentially would be relevant. I also note that the Congress makes its own rules about employment, and has exempted itself from many laws that would apply elsewhere. And a complaint outside an academic sphere would rarely go to a "formal disciplinary hearing." Certainly private employers don't conduct hearings.
Click to expand...

As the quote that I posted from the senate website shows, the U. of Delaware papers would likely not contain any of these items. I can't imagine that it would be legal to have any personnel records included in a collection that is not controlled by the government.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
I don't find the comparisons difficult.

Similarities
  • Ancient history
  • Political opponent

Unique to Kavanaugh
  • There were witnesses to the purported event. It was theoretically provable.
  • Other accusers of Kavanaugh (although the facts were weak)
  • Damning character witnesses
  • Damning comments from Kavanaugh -- women as sexual conquests
  • Ford did not praise Kavanaugh repeatedly
  • Ford did not drastically change her facts
  • Ford came across as honest

It's shallow to play hypocrisy gotcha (otherwise known as your go to move) with these two scenarios.
Click to expand...

And Kavanaugh probably lied under oath about the meaning of terms.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yeah because there's nothing in this whole thread casting doubt on Reade's story?

When are you #AllWomen NO MATTER WHAT folks going to address the evidence pro and con instead of this kind of BS?
Click to expand...

Scroll up, re-read. I said we should use critical thinking when evaluating a witness. That's the opposite of what you're accusing me of.

Are you just flipping back and forth?

Have you addressed the evidence casting doubt on Reade?
Click to expand...

Again, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I said her other statements cast her credibility into doubt. You're so spoiling for a fight you see disagreement where it isn't.
 
Mader Levap said:
Judging by microcosm here, goal of that stint - infighting among Democratic supporters - was successful. Putin laughs all way to his office.
Click to expand...

Infighting doesn't matter so long as there are more votes for Biden rather than Trump. I hate Biden, and have done so long before Reade showed up, but I'll still vote for the slimy molluscular bank-suckling parasite turd.

As for Putin, from what I've heard he's got problems of his own with his pandemic handling not going over well. He may find himself devoting less attention to us and more to his own.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
There are two sentences at the end of what you quoted. I want to make sure you understand them since you've had such difficulties in the past. What exactly do you want be to produce a quote of Joe saying?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, but I just now stopped laughing at you insulting my reading comprehension while apparently not understanding what “second to last sentence” means.

So yeah, like I’ve already said, it’s the second to last sentence in your post.

I honestly have no idea how to make that any clearer to you.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
New Biden campaign slogan: At least he didn't tell people to inject bleach into their eyes!

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I was thinking something more along the lines of “Vote for Biden because Trump is responsible for letting a pandemic ravage the country and now tens of thousands of people are dying and our economy is in the toilet”.

I’m not sure it will fit on a bumper sticker, though.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Infighting doesn't matter so long as there are more votes in certain states for Biden rather than Trump.
Click to expand...
FTFY. You have to take in account fact USA is pseudo-democracy where someone that got less votes can win election.

TragicMonkey said:
As for Putin, from what I've heard he's got problems of his own with his pandemic handling not going over well. He may find himself devoting less attention to us and more to his own.
Click to expand...

I think Putin is perfectly capable of tending to two things at once. He can delegate anyway. And I think "meddling in USA elections" would be pretty high on his priority list.
 
Last edited:
Mader Levap said:
FTFY. You have to take in account fact USA is pseudo-democracy where someone that got less votes can win election.
Click to expand...

'Tis the nature of the beast. We're a federation of states, we must live with that.

I think Putin is perfectly capable of tending to two things at once. He can delegate anyway. And I think "meddling in USA elections" would be pretty high on his priority list.
Click to expand...

I don't know, it depends on how serious his problems are at home. I think they might be an order of magnitude more serious than is generally suspected. Just a hunch. But boy will I look clever if he's toppled before the end of the year!
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
This is not accurate. From the US Senate website:

The papers in the U. of Delaware collection are papers that Biden was free to do anything he wanted to with, including throwing them in the trash. They are not official records.

As the quote that I posted from the senate website shows, the U. of Delaware papers would likely not contain any of these items. I can't imagine that it would be legal to have any personnel records included in a collection that is not controlled by the government.
Click to expand...


What's not accurate? What makes you think a Senator's records about his staff wouldn't be among his papers, particularly informal memos and notes about their performance and behavior? Capitol Hill staffers are not Civil Service employees. Congress makes its own rules. The columnist suggests a way to find anything about Reade that may actually be in Biden's files, instead of relying on what you "can't imagine." If there's nothing there, that helps support Biden.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
'Tis the nature of the beast. We're a federation of states, we must live with that.
.....
Click to expand...

As others note, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Electoral College to operate as it does. "Winner-take-all" is not mandatory, and at least two states do it differently. States could distribute electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote, or by Congressional district (raising gerrymandering issues), or some other way.
 
Bob001 said:
As others note, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Electoral College to operate as it does. "Winner-take-all" is not mandatory, and at least two states do it differently. States could distribute electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote, or by Congressional district (raising gerrymandering issues), or some other way.
Click to expand...

Mmmm hmmm. If you say that often enough will it change anything? Because, as others note, it's been said quite frequently! Perhaps posting it again will finally have an effect. Go on, one more time should do the trick!
 
varwoche said:
I don't find the comparisons difficult.

Similarities
  • Ancient history
  • Political opponent

Unique to Kavanaugh
  • There were witnesses to the purported event. It was theoretically provable.
  • Other accusers of Kavanaugh (although the facts were weak)
  • Damning character witnesses
  • Damning comments from Kavanaugh -- women as sexual conquests
  • Ford did not praise Kavanaugh repeatedly
  • Ford did not drastically change her facts
  • Ford came across as honest

It's shallow to play hypocrisy gotcha (otherwise known as your go to move) with these two scenarios.
Click to expand...


Another difference is that Ford testified under oath at a televised Senate hearing and was cross-examined by hostile Republicans. Reade has been vague and inconsistent in her claims, and hasn't even given interviews to reporters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom