Biden for President?

[Regnad Kcin]

What's all this about a hummer?







Oh. Never mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No. When the available evidence doesn't point toward one possible conclusion or the other, ....

That's just not true, though.

Evidence pointing toward one conclusion is being dismissed as a personal attack on Reade. I get it, such attacks on rape victims have been wrongly used in the past.

But don't forget, not one other woman reports any kind of behavior like this. Does that not count? Was Reade just so irresistible Biden lost control?

Who gets turned on sticking a finger in a vagina in a hallway? Think about that. Such an act, had it occurred would have been an act of degradation, not an act of sexual pleasure.

That's even more unlikely given what we know about the hair kissing, shoulder rubbing Biden.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

She claimed he was a rich and powerful defense contractor when she was accusing him of sexual assault. He wasn't rich, he wasn't powerful, and he wasn't a defense contractor. It's evidence that she at the very least embellishes her claims.



And yes, there is certainly a difference between someone who works for a bank and a banker. I was recently told that words have meanings, but apparently that's a concept you can throw out the window when it's convenient.

My Google search showed more than one definition, how odd!

"Banker(noun) one who conducts the business of banking; one who, individually, or as a member of a company, keeps an establishment for the deposit or loan of money, or for traffic in money, bills of exchange, etc.*Banker(noun)"

Seriously, the sustained incredulity it takes to not understand a colloquialism in use is risible.

ETA: It just occurs to me she was born in 1964. If he was making 108k before the insane inflation of the 70s..yeah, that was rolling in the dough back then (I honestly don't care enough).

Inflation adjusted from 1975 (just guessing) would be more that $500,000 annual income today.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You left off, Biden has no history of such behavior.

See my above post. #3283.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

My Google search showed more than one definition, how odd!

"Banker(noun) one who conducts the business of banking; one who, individually, or as a member of a company, keeps an establishment for the deposit or loan of money, or for traffic in money, bills of exchange, etc.*Banker(noun)"

Seriously, the sustained incredulity it takes to not understand a colloquialism in use is risible.

ETA: It just occurs to me she was born in 1964. If he was making 108k before the insane inflation of the 70s..yeah, that was rolling in the dough back then (I honestly don't care enough).

The 108K figure is one I found for PR managers in Atlanta GA. Nobody here knows how much Reade's father was pulling at Honeywell. I suspect quite a bit, given the size and importance of that company.

 

[theprestige]

That's just not true, though.

Evidence pointing toward one conclusion is being dismissed as a personal attack on Reade.

As Stacyhs's law firm citation makes clear, that's not evidence, it's an appeal to emotion. It is a personal attack on Reade, obviously, intentionally, and by definition. You may think the personal attack is justified, but it's still a personal attack.

You're not just satisfied to dismiss her claim for lack of evidence, you feel you have to go much further than that. Why? Who do you imagine is your audience for this?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
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?

He's a marginally acceptable alternative, and we're stuck with Biden.

But I do think Biden will have the right people around him and I think he can repair the damage Trump has done. As much of it as possible, anyway.

 

[theprestige]

The 108K figure is one I found for PR managers in Atlanta GA. Nobody here knows how much Reade's father was pulling at Honeywell. I suspect quite a bit, given the size and importance of that company.

According to Glassdoor, middle managers and communications managers at Honeywell make between ~90k and ~150k these days (no salaries for PR managers specifically were listed).

 

[theprestige]

He's a marginally acceptable alternative, and we're stuck with Biden.

But I do think Biden will have the right people around him and I think he can repair the damage Trump has done. As much of it as possible, anyway.

Probably a better topic than Reade: What would you say is the most important bit of damage Trump has done, that is possible for Biden to repair? How do you think he'll go about repairing it?

Are you thinking more in terms of broad ideals, like America's reputation? Or is this more about narrow actions, like specific executive orders?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What bothers me most is that there are legitimate reasons not to believe Reade's story, but by piling up so much ********, their arguments turn to just piles of ********, you can't find the legitimate issues anymore. It is poor argument.
To be clear, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Biden likely sexually assaulted Reade, but I also don't think that justifies attacks that lack factual merit or relevance.

On the highlighted part we agree.

I do think the Vox story gives very strong evidence Reade's story is unlikely to be true. This is a reporter that tried to substantiate Reade's story and watched the story change as Reade sought more and more attention for the story.

I do still think an alternative explanation for her abruptly leaving Biden's campaign is worth consideration, despite that it's not proven.

But the rest, it's important not to dilute what is valid with all the stuff that is coming out.

 

[Suddenly]

Probably a better topic than Reade: What would you say is the most important bit of damage Trump has done, that is possible for Biden to repair? How do you think he'll go about repairing it?

Are you thinking more in terms of broad ideals, like America's reputation? Or is this more about narrow actions, like specific executive orders?

Appointing people to key executive branch posts based on abilities and qualifications or at least something other than their willingness to never contradict or challenge him.

Also not firing these same people based on political whim.

 

[Dr. Keith]

She claimed he was a rich and powerful defense contractor when she was accusing him of sexual assault. He wasn't rich, he wasn't powerful, and he wasn't a defense contractor. It's evidence that she at the very least embellishes her claims.

Compared to her he was rich and powerful. I suppose when she used comparative terms it should have been a tip off.

And yes, there is certainly a difference between someone who works for a bank and a banker. I was recently told that words have meanings, but apparently that's a concept you can throw out the window when it's convenient.

Hook, line and sinker. Well done. Like you, I have known many bankers who were not owners of banks and you provide evidence that calling an officer of a bank a banker does not imply that they own the bank. I would not be surpirside if my bank employed thousands of bankers, there seems to be one or two at each branch.

Fantastic, you are making progress. I assume you will stop with this foolishness about her claiming that her father owned or was the CEO of Honeywell.

 

[Dr. Keith]

On this we agree. Quite a few legitimate reasons, actually.

And yet you focus on this fluff.

Every single legitimate reason has either been ignored by you guys, or argued against. Even the existence of many legitimate reasons is being waved away as a gish gallop when more than one at a time is brought up. Yes, complaining that there are too many reasons to not believe Reade is most definitely a poor argument.

If your best arguments aren't working that is not an excuse to move on to shoddy arguments. It's like arguing Trump isn't presidential because his tie is too long. It is weak.

 

[Dr. Keith]

On the highlighted part we agree.

I do think the Vox story gives very strong evidence Reade's story is unlikely to be true. This is a reporter that tried to substantiate Reade's story and watched the story change as Reade sought more and more attention for the story.

I do still think an alternative explanation for her abruptly leaving Biden's campaign is worth consideration, despite that it's not proven.

But the rest, it's important not to dilute what is valid with all the stuff that is coming out.

I'm beginning to think Wareyin is trying to tarnish the credibility of the Biden campaign by acting as a surrogate to muddy the response to Reade's accusations.

Classic false flag operation, amirite!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm beginning to think Wareyin is trying to tarnish the credibility of the Biden campaign by acting as a surrogate to muddy the response to Reade's accusations.

Classic false flag operation, amirite!

Dunno, could still be a Bernie Bro.

 

[wareyin]

Compared to her he was rich and powerful. I suppose when she used comparative terms it should have been a tip off.

You are claiming that a woman used to working in a Senators office who rubbed elbows with real defense contractors would have described a middle class PR manager as a rich and powerful defense contractor? Well, I guess if we refuse to consider that she was lying, there's always the possibility that she's just stupid. So, good job?

Hook, line and sinker. Well done. Like you, I have known many bankers who were not owners of banks and you provide evidence that calling an officer of a bank a banker does not imply that they own the bank. I would not be surpirside if my bank employed thousands of bankers, there seems to be one or two at each branch.

Fantastic, you are making progress. I assume you will stop with this foolishness about her claiming that her father owned or was the CEO of Honeywell.

You might need to pull that hook from your toes. Or are you now attempting to claim that a PR manager is actually equivalent to a bank officer?

She clearly embellished or outright lied in a previous accusation of sexual assault. Your desperate attempts to make her false claims somehow true aren't making her or you credible here.

 

[wareyin]

And yet you focus on this fluff.

SuburbanTurkey says I'm gish-galloping. You say I'm focusing on this. Which is it? It almost feels like you guys are ad-homming rather than addressing what was said.

If your best arguments aren't working that is not an excuse to move on to shoddy arguments. It's like arguing Trump isn't presidential because his tie is too long. It is weak.

Yeah, yeah, evidence of fraud, theft, changing stories, previous falsehoods in previous accusations are totally just like complaining about the length of a tie. Which is too long. And is also not presidential.

 

[wareyin]

My Google search showed more than one definition, how odd!

"Banker(noun) one who conducts the business of banking; one who, individually, or as a member of a company, keeps an establishment for the deposit or loan of money, or for traffic in money, bills of exchange, etc.*Banker(noun)"

Seriously, the sustained incredulity it takes to not understand a colloquialism in use is risible.

You post this like it isn't describing a bank owner or officer, rather than anyone who works at the bank. Are you attempting to claim that a bank teller "keeps an establishment for the deposit or loan of money"?

The colloquial use of banker is as the owner or officer, someone high up in the chain of command. The colloquial use of defense contractor is as an individual or owner or someone high up in the chain of command of a defense contracting company. It's not the security guard at the gate. It's not the receptionist. It's not the PR manager. And Reade knew and knows the difference.

ETA: It just occurs to me she was born in 1964. If he was making 108k before the insane inflation of the 70s..yeah, that was rolling in the dough back then (I honestly don't care enough).

Inflation adjusted from 1975 (just guessing) would be more that $500,000 annual income today.

The 108k figure is today's wages for a PR manager in Atlanta, not those for the 1970s. It was SuburbanTurkey's big reveal of a PR manager today being "rich and powerful" pulling down those middle class wages.

 

[wareyin]

I'm beginning to think Wareyin is trying to tarnish the credibility of the Biden campaign by acting as a surrogate to muddy the response to Reade's accusations.

Classic false flag operation, amirite!

News flash, poster who was anti-Biden is upset that the latest smear attempt didn't work, finds a way to still be anti-Biden. Details at 11.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Yeah, yeah, evidence of fraud, theft, changing stories, previous falsehoods in previous accusations are totally just like complaining about the length of a tie. Which is too long. And is also not presidential.

How about weighing the relevance of each of those things? You know, number them 1-10 or something, put them in perspective without dismissing anything.

For example, I weigh changing stories about the assault specifically to be very high.

Evidence of fraud and theft unless it was contemporary to the assault claim I would assign a very low evidentiary weight.

A pattern of lying I only find of much relevant weight if said lying was about making false charges of sexual assault against other men. Otherwise I'd put it very low on the 1-10 list.

Can you do that with the evidence you are describing?