Biden for President?

[wareyin]

The median salary for a PR manager in Atlanta, GA is 108,000 a year. That's a wealthy person's salary.

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-relations-manager-salary/atlanta-ga

In no way would a woman who was used to working in DC with Senators and real defense contractors and the like describe that as rich and powerful. $108,000 a year is middle class for Atlanta. eta: hell, that's middle to upper middle class across the country!

Reade never said her father owned a defense contract company.

Doesn't matter though. Your smear gallop continues.

Reade said* that her father was a "rich and powerful defense contractor". The definition:A defense contractor (or security contractor) is a business organization or individual that provides products or services to a military or intelligence department of a government. Unless your contention is that Reade was claiming her father was a business organization, which I hope we can agree would be cartoonishly wrong, then she was claiming he was an individual that provides products or services to a military or intelligence department of a government. But he wasn't.


*(as posted in this thread a couple days ago but apparently gold-fishes can't remember more than 5 seconds of defenses)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Politico: Tara Reade allegations spill into 2020 Senate races

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/08/tara-reade-joe-biden-senate-races-245279

Trump really isn't in a great position to attack Joe on these allegations, as it would invite further attention to his own numerous allegations and open admissions of sexual assault.

But Republicans do seem to be trying to use the MeToo hypocrisy in downballot races.

Republicans are pointing out that many of these candidates seem to lack the same fervor of support for Reade that they so recently shown for Ford.

Not sure how effective this will be. Plenty of people might be turned off by the circling of wagons around Biden, but surely they can't see the Republican party as preferable on this issue?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In no way would a woman who was used to working in DC with Senators and real defense contractors and the like describe that as rich and powerful. $108,000 a year is middle class for Atlanta. eta: hell, that's middle to upper middle class across the country!

That's household income. So yeah, 108,000 is rich enough that only one adult needs to work and they still qualify as upper middle class. If you can be upper middle class on a single income in your household, that's rich.

To be honest, this thread isn't even about Biden anymore. It's become a "Tara Reade is a liar, a detailed examination of every written statement she's ever made" thread. I am going to refrain responding to further character smears, as it's pretty much a moot point at this time and the tactics of her accusers is reaching that of conspiracy cranks. The party has made their decision. I will limit my references to Reade strictly to how the allegations and party response are affecting politics directly.

I suspect that I am not alone in feeling disgusted by the viciousness in which the party and the online mob has attacked this woman for daring to make an accusation. As my previous post linked, Republicans are trying to capitalize politically on this perceived hypocrisy. Remains to be seen if it is effective.

 

[Tero]

Politico: Tara Reade allegations spill into 2020 Senate races

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/08/tara-reade-joe-biden-senate-races-245279

Trump really isn't in a great position to attack Joe on these allegations, as it would invite further attention to his own numerous allegations and open admissions of sexual assault.

But Republicans do seem to be trying to use the MeToo hypocrisy in downballot races.

Republicans are pointing out that many of these candidates seem to lack the same fervor of support for Reade that they so recently shown for Ford.

Not sure how effective this will be. Plenty of people might be turned off by the circling of wagons around Biden, but surely they can't see the Republican party as preferable on this issue?

Trump: I can shoot someone on 5th Ave and bla bla bla
Biden: I can touch a woman thru panties and pantyhose in the genital area and get away with it!

Seems like Biden is still an amateur in the "get away with" department.

 

[wareyin]

That's household income. So yeah, 108,000 is rich enough that only one adult needs to work and they still qualify as upper middle class. If you can be upper middle class on a single income in your household, that's rich.

If you can earn a middle to upper middle class income you're rich? No. You're middle to upper middle class. You're not rich, you're not powerful, you're not rich and powerful, you're middle to upper middle class.

 

[Delvo]

When there is no evidence whatsoever to support her rape allegation, then it hinges entirely on her reputation for veracity

No. When the available evidence doesn't point toward one possible conclusion or the other, there's always a third option: admitting that we don't know what we don't know. There is no need to choose which of the first two options to pretend to know must be the answer, so there is also no need to produce a stream of irrelevant personal attacks on whichever persons represent whichever side you find yourself politically opposed to.

If there is any good that might hopefully come from this, it might be getting people who once took a stand firmly on one side for any & all such cases ("believe women", "believe victims", "at least don't turn the whole consideration into a giant personal attack on everything you can dig up about the woman") to admit that their actions in this case go against what they said before and come up with a more honest/cautious approach. But, since the Clinton episode didn't change anything and declaring that simplistic every-case-is-the-same approach is what they've been saying even after his case, probably not.

which is challenged by multiple lies, misrepresentations, frauds and vague, changing recollections.

They all always are. Funny how the choice of which cases an individual will ignore that fact for and which ones (s)he'll obsess over it for just happens to so consistently align with whichever conclusion would suit them politically.

I suspect that I am not alone in feeling disgusted by the viciousness in which the party and the online mob has attacked this woman for daring to make an accusation.

...all to protect and promote the precious all-important goal of boosting the continued further republicanization of the only supposedly non-republican major party.

 

[theprestige]

That's a nothing-burger answer, or as some people call it, a dodge.

More of a wisecrack, really. And it's funny because it's true.

 

[theprestige]

When there is no evidence whatsoever to support her rape allegation, then it hinges entirely on her reputation for veracity

No, it does not. It hinges entirely on the lack of supporting evidence.

The reputation of the accuser is in no way evidence of a crime. No such accusation should ever depend on the reputation of the accuser.

If the evidence isn't there, it isn't there. That's what the accusation should hinge on. You're assassinating her character for other reasons, than to refute the accusation.

which is challenged by multiple lies, misrepresentations, frauds and vague, changing recollections.

No. This is your excuse for trying to destroy the reputation of someone who smeared the reputation of your anyone-but-Trump candidate.

If you can't think of a way to continue Biden's candidacy without destroying Tara Reade, then maybe four more years of President Trump is the right answer.

 

[theprestige]

Not relevant when assessing a rape allegation = No, I can't explain it without damaging Reade's credibility.

You're inventing things.

On the other hand:

On the other hand, appeals to emotion are logical fallacies. The fact that they work on juries and that lawyers won't hesitate to use them to win cases doesn't impress me here. I'm not a juror. You're not a lawyer. Biden isn't a defendant you're trying to get off the hook by any and every illogical and unethical means the law allows.

I don't give a flying rat **** what some law firm says they're prepared to do to influence a jury. But at least now we can both agree that your entire rebuttal of Reade's claim is a big appeal to emotion.

How stupid! Who do you imagine your audience is? Who here do you imagine is so emotionally invested in Joe Biden's reputation, that they need you to doxx Tara Reade just to make them feel good enough to pull the lever for him?

Why is it so important to you to destroy Reade's reputation, rather than simply dismissing her claims for lack of evidence?

 

[theprestige]

And don't need to. Just getting the suggestion out there is enough.

And don't want to. Look too closely and it might turn out to be a lie. We don't want that.

First Hillary was running a child sex ring from the basement of a Pizza place, now Biden is a rapist. Where will it end? Well all Democrats are evil, so...

Be careful with that. Just getting the suggestion out there is enough, after all.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Have you considered she would naturally downplay the incident if it got her fired?

I still haven't seen any evidence that her employer knew anything about this. I'm sure it will be coming out soon.

Have you considered she has changed her story multiple times?

Read the Vox article I linked to.

Yes, I'm just trying to get you to reflect on this one issue. You see it the way you do because of how you see her.

If it was Steyer who had this record in his file you would have dismissed it without further consideration.

Because of that, I think you should dismiss this record without further consideration and focus on the other issues. If this record of no case being prosecuted against her is the best evidence of her nefarious ways, then lord help your case. It is is just one more stick on the pile, your case is better made without it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

<snip> There's also Dr. Keith's bizarre claim that most states have the same program for a bounced check. In opposition, we have quite a few posters from quite a few different states who've never heard of such a thing despite bouncing checks themselves.

Let's see:

1. you have lied about what I said. I said most states have similar programs, but that isn't really important, the important thing is her state had such a program that would have resulted in a record that looks exactly like what was found.

2. I bounced many checks without any trouble. Whether a bounced check is a problem depends on the vendor, not the state.

3. That one is unaware of a program does not magically make the program disappear. The evidence of the program in the relevant state has been provided.

This is such a losing position that you just have to lie and dig into those lies deeper to make any headway. Save yourself froths ugliness. It is not attractive at all.

 

[wareyin]

No, it does not. It hinges entirely on the lack of supporting evidence.

No, this is neither how society operates, how the law operates, nor even how you personally assess the likelihood of whether someone is telling you a whopper. If you know the person has a tendency to lie, embellish, or spout BS you most definitely take that into account when considering whether this time they are telling the truth.

The reputation of the accuser is in no way evidence of a crime. No such accusation should ever depend on the reputation of the accuser.

If the evidence isn't there, it isn't there. That's what the accusation should hinge on. You're assassinating her character for other reasons, than to refute the accusation.

Utter bollocks. The reputation of a claimant is always taken into account when considering their claims, but especially so when there is no evidence for their claims.

 

[Dr. Keith]

They're a problem, but not necessarily the problem. Maybe it's foolish, but I think they might be convinced to stop shooting themselves in the foot while cutting off their own nose. I know Trump supporters can't be convinced.

If that is really your goal, your posts are not helping at all.

 

[wareyin]

Let's see:

1. you have lied about what I said. I said most states have similar programs, but that isn't really important, the important thing is her state had such a program that would have resulted in a record that looks exactly like what was found.

I just said it was similar, I didn't say it was the same? Really? That's your defense?

2. I bounced many checks without any trouble. Whether a bounced check is a problem depends on the vendor, not the state.

As have quite a lot of people. That's why it's hard to believe that Reade simply bouncing one check resulted in a court case with mandatory "class or classes" that she had to attend (as the diversion program posted requires).

3. That one is unaware of a program does not magically make the program disappear. The evidence of the program in the relevant state has been provided.

The evidence of a program that certainly doesn't appear to kick in when one simply bounces a single check has certainly been provided. Good that part of your defense has been sort of shown.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I know the Trumpanzees want Tara Reede to be a big story. However, the main stream media vetted it and found nothing and it's a non-story.

Which should have been enough. But, while we are here, maybe we could dig up some dirt on her anyway just in case. No sense in wasting all these keyboard hours on describing why Biden is a good alternative to all the other candidates that we each preferred.

For example we could be asking meaningful questions like:

SG: Why is Biden a good alternative to Steyer? Which of Steyer's ideas do you think Biden will carry forward?

 

[wareyin]

If that is really your goal, your posts are not helping at all.

Well, sometimes it is difficult to get people invested in self-harm to stop. Sometimes they even lash out at those trying to stop them. That doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal to stop them anyway.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"Sexual Assault Claim Against Biden Lands Collins Challenger Gideon in the Hot Seat"
https://mainernews.com/sexual-assault-claim-against-biden-lands-collins-challenger-gideon-in-the-hot-seat/

Susan Collins, the Republican Senator from Maine, has been seen as a hopeful target for Democrats in the 2020 election. Collins' support for Kavanaugh was seen as one the sharpest attacks against her, both for his anti-abortion stance and the sexual assault allegations.

Republicans are now leveling criticisms at the front-running Democratic challenger for support of Biden concerning the Reade allegation. The two progressives Democrats in the race warn that hypocrisy on the issue will damage the party and cost votes.

Kidman, a non-binary candidate who’s made LGBTQ advocacy a big part of their campaign, told Mainer, “For those who say we have to put [Reade’s allegations] aside to beat Trump, let me be clear: Trump isn’t missing a beat calling us on our hypocrisy and doubling down on it isn’t helping. Prominent Democrats’ choice to dismiss these allegations as ‘false’ or ‘Russian interference’ is every bit as gaslighting and dangerous as the Kavanaugh confirmation was — and, like Kavanaugh, the effects are significantly wider reaching than the question of whether this man gets this job.”

Betsy Sweet, the other progressive primary challenger: “To grant Reade’s claim any less respect than we granted Ford’s is to abandon our credibility as a party, our integrity as leaders, and our responsibility as human beings to listen to all survivors of sexual violence,” Sweet told Mainer. “We must take every claim seriously, even if it is politically inconvenient.”

 

[theprestige]

No, this is neither how society operates, how the law operates,

It is, however, how rational inquiry operates.

nor even how you personally assess the likelihood of whether someone is telling you a whopper.

I don't have to assess whether Reade is telling a whopper. I just have to assess whether her claim has adequate support. My assessment is that it does not. Whether or not I also think it's a whopper is beside the point.

If you know the person has a tendency to lie, embellish, or spout BS you most definitely take that into account when considering whether this time they are telling the truth.

It's unfortunate that you believe character assassination is necessary to justify dismissing her claims. Who do you imagine is your audience for this approach?

Utter bollocks. The reputation of a claimant is always taken into account when considering their claims, but especially so when there is no evidence for their claims.

Always? No. Nor should it be. The fact that juries can be swayed by appeals to emotion and other fallacious arguments does not obligate you to deploy those arguments here. Nor does it legitimize those arguments, in or out of a courtroom.

Again, who do you imagine is your audience for such crap? Whose opinion of Biden is so important to you that you feel you must deploy this crap to change their mind? Who do you have such a low opinion of, that you feel that this crap would actually change their mind?

 

[Dr. Keith]

No evidence that he was well paid, but Mrs. law degree, rubbing elbows with the DC elite has absolutely no reason to claim that a PR manager is a rich and powerful defense contractor. Unless she was embellishing her story. Again.



Nonsense. Her statement was wrong in many ways. We don't describe the PR manager of the Atlanta Falcons as a rich and powerful Football Team Owner, do we?

What positions at a major defense contractor must one hold to allow ones kids to refer to one as having been a defense contractor? Is it solely the CEO, or is it anyone in the C-suite, maybe EVP and above, or would VP be high enough, possibly even manager?

I mean, you do realize that most "defense contractors" are actually multi-million dollar corporations, not individuals, right?