Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
You are claiming that a woman used to working in a Senators office who rubbed elbows with real defense contractors
Click to expand...
You think she would have rubbed elbows with "real defense contractors", just because she worked in a Senator's office?

You think that's how defense lobbyists and industry reps like to spend their time in DC? Hanging out with Senate office staff, chatting about their salary bands and job duties?

You think Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy regularly drops by the Senate offices to "rub elbows" with the staff?

---

ETA: Maybe I have it backwards. Maybe she did rub elbows with defense industry CEOs, and they were all abusive towards her. Not much of a stretch, considering they're all rich old white men with a surplus of privilege and a deficit of humanity*. So when her dad also abused her, she figured, "he works for a defense contractor, and he's abusive like the defense contractors I know, so he must be a rich and powerful defense contractor too!"
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. Seriously, it does.

I'm generally not a fan of presidents whose ideology I disagree with appointing people who are good at advancing that ideology, but I do see the merit of it in principle. It certainly wouldn't be reasonable of me to expect or demand that Biden *not* do that.

I'm saying this next part without snark, without gotcha, because I think it's genuinely interesting, and it might be nice to have it as a reference point in future discussions.

It looks like Biden is giving you an early test case. He just appointed Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to co-chair his climate change policy team. So we can look at that in terms of abilities and qualifications versus political whim, and see how it plays out.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/13/biden-sanders-unity-task-forces-leaders-aoc-254456

We can also look at it in terms of AOC's recent statements about the Reade allegations. On NPR earlier this month, she said "t certainly seems as though something has happened." And that the case "is not clear-cut." So we can see if she's still willing to challenge him on this, now that he's given her a high-profile position on his policy and strategy team.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/8517...biden-sexual-assault-allegation-not-clear-cut

It's also interesting for a third reason, which might (hopefully) spark some discussion from the "Biden is just another conservative" hard-liners. AOC is easily one of the most progressive Democrats in office today, especially on the economy and climate change. Putting her in charge of his campaign's climate change policy seems like a very progressive move for Biden to make.

Is Biden actually a lot more progressive than he looks? Is he expecting AOC to challenge him to be more progressive on climate change? Is AOC actually a lot less independent from the political establishment than she looks?

We'll find out in the coming months, probably. And probably this will give some hints as to how things might go in Biden's Cabinet, or among Biden's agency heads.
 
wareyin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't find her blog story right now, but I believe she only stated that her father was abusive towards her.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hmm, why would I do that? When have, say a wheelbarrow full of stones, I'm a lot more concerned with how heavy the whole load is rather than how heavy each individual stone is. But here, I'll try:

The changing stories, very good evidence that she isn't credible. Especially with the Vox story you posted where a sympathetic journalist really tried to help her out and corroborate them.

The fraud case, that could go high or it could be nothing. It really could be the one in a million jaywalking but got the book thrown at her like some want to claim, that's not impossible. But the timing is certainly suspicious, as is the fact that her lawyer is very carefully not saying it was just what the Reade apologists in the thread are claiming.

The thefts, combined with how she reacted to them being reported on, that starts to be important to me. It's an example of how she treats her workplace/employer, and how she reacts when she leaves on bad terms. It seems reasonable to apply this knowledge to how she treated her work at Biden's office, and how she might have reacted had she left on bad terms.

The pattern of lying, especially in regards to a previous accusation of sexual assault is also going to be high. This is evidence of how she acted in a similar situation previously, and we know she wasn't truthful. Well, there's several people in this thread that think a middle class PR manager could accurately be described as a rich and powerful defense contractor, so they won't admit it's being less than truthful in a previous sexual assault accusation, so I can't say we to imply everyone. Just everyone without a vested interest in ignoring the faults of her claims.
 
wareyin said:
Hmm, why would I do that? When have, say a wheelbarrow full of stones, I'm a lot more concerned with how heavy the whole load is rather than how heavy each individual stone is.
Click to expand...

"Pile up enough nothingburgers, and pretty soon you have a double quarter pounder with cheese. Would you like fries with that?"

- The Burger King, probably
 
wareyin said:
Hmm, why would I do that? When have, say a wheelbarrow full of stones, I'm a lot more concerned with how heavy the whole load is rather than how heavy each individual stone is. But here, I'll try:

The changing stories, very good evidence that she isn't credible. Especially with the Vox story you posted where a sympathetic journalist really tried to help her out and corroborate them.

The fraud case, that could go high or it could be nothing. It really could be the one in a million jaywalking but got the book thrown at her like some want to claim, that's not impossible. But the timing is certainly suspicious, as is the fact that her lawyer is very carefully not saying it was just what the Reade apologists in the thread are claiming.

The thefts, combined with how she reacted to them being reported on, that starts to be important to me. It's an example of how she treats her workplace/employer, and how she reacts when she leaves on bad terms. It seems reasonable to apply this knowledge to how she treated her work at Biden's office, and how she might have reacted had she left on bad terms.

The pattern of lying, especially in regards to a previous accusation of sexual assault is also going to be high. This is evidence of how she acted in a similar situation previously, and we know she wasn't truthful. Well, there's several people in this thread that think a middle class PR manager could accurately be described as a rich and powerful defense contractor, so they won't admit it's being less than truthful in a previous sexual assault accusation, so I can't say we to imply everyone. Just everyone without a vested interest in ignoring the faults of her claims.
Click to expand...

Even when you try to be reasonable you can't help misstating the arguments others have made. I really don't know if it is because you are not careful or if you just care too much to be reasonable.

God I hope that Biden isn't relaying on the likes of you to take care of these issues.
 
theprestige said:
Sounds good. Seriously, it does.

I'm generally not a fan of presidents whose ideology I disagree with appointing people who are good at advancing that ideology, but I do see the merit of it in principle. It certainly wouldn't be reasonable of me to expect or demand that Biden *not* do that.

I'm saying this next part without snark, without gotcha, because I think it's genuinely interesting, and it might be nice to have it as a reference point in future discussions.

It looks like Biden is giving you an early test case. He just appointed Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to co-chair his climate change policy team. So we can look at that in terms of abilities and qualifications versus political whim, and see how it plays out.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/13/biden-sanders-unity-task-forces-leaders-aoc-254456

We can also look at it in terms of AOC's recent statements about the Reade allegations. On NPR earlier this month, she said "t certainly seems as though something has happened." And that the case "is not clear-cut." So we can see if she's still willing to challenge him on this, now that he's given her a high-profile position on his policy and strategy team.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/8517...biden-sexual-assault-allegation-not-clear-cut

It's also interesting for a third reason, which might (hopefully) spark some discussion from the "Biden is just another conservative" hard-liners. AOC is easily one of the most progressive Democrats in office today, especially on the economy and climate change. Putting her in charge of his campaign's climate change policy seems like a very progressive move for Biden to make.

Is Biden actually a lot more progressive than he looks? Is he expecting AOC to challenge him to be more progressive on climate change? Is AOC actually a lot less independent from the political establishment than she looks?

We'll find out in the coming months, probably. And probably this will give some hints as to how things might go in Biden's Cabinet, or among Biden's agency heads.
Click to expand...


It's a smart move whether he intends to listen to her or not. I've never doubted that he is a seasoned politician.
 
theprestige said:
You think she would have rubbed elbows with "real defense contractors", just because she worked in a Senator's office?

You think that's how defense lobbyists and industry reps like to spend their time in DC? Hanging out with Senate office staff, chatting about their salary bands and job duties?

You think Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy regularly drops by the Senate offices to "rub elbows" with the staff?
Click to expand...

I think that exposure to actual rich and powerful people, including defense contractors and Senators, means she can't truthfully claim her middle class father was one of them.

Is it your claim that at no time during Reade's 8-9 month stint in Biden's offices did a real defense contractor visit his office? I guess that's possible.

---

theprestige said:
ETA: Maybe I have it backwards. Maybe she did rub elbows with defense industry CEOs, and they were all abusive towards her. Not much of a stretch, considering they're all rich old white men with a surplus of privilege and a deficit of humanity*. So when her dad also abused her, she figured, "he works for a defense contractor, and he's abusive like the defense contractors I know, so he must be a rich and powerful defense contractor too!"
Click to expand...

If this were how she saw it as a child, maybe. As a grown woman, well if your best defense of her claims was that she was a mentally a child, ok.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Even when you try to be reasonable you can't help misstating the arguments others have made. I really don't know if it is because you are not careful or if you just care too much to be reasonable.

God I hope that Biden isn't relaying on the likes of you to take care of these issues.
Click to expand...

I realize that it's very tempting to attack the arguer when you can't attack the arguments. I've done it myself. I'm told it's frowned on here, though.
 
wareyin said:
I realize that it's very tempting to attack the arguer when you can't attack the arguments. I've done it myself. I'm told it's frowned on here, though.
Click to expand...

But lying about other's arguments is time honored tradition. So well done on keeping up the good work.

We all learned different things in those halcyon days of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
 
wareyin said:
I realize that it's very tempting to attack the arguer when you can't attack the arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Is that remark about the posters here, or about Reade? Because I'm seeing lots of attacking arguers. If there were any more attacking arguers going on, well, people would be loath to argue. They'd think twice. Because of attacking. Attackment?

Let's all reset to the beginning, be calm and reasonable people, and unite together in agreement that Biden has little beady weasel eyes and cannot possibly president half so well as Warren could have.
 
theprestige said:
Sounds good. Seriously, it does.

I'm generally not a fan of presidents whose ideology I disagree with appointing people who are good at advancing that ideology, but I do see the merit of it in principle. It certainly wouldn't be reasonable of me to expect or demand that Biden *not* do that.

I'm saying this next part without snark, without gotcha, because I think it's genuinely interesting, and it might be nice to have it as a reference point in future discussions.

It looks like Biden is giving you an early test case. He just appointed Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to co-chair his climate change policy team. So we can look at that in terms of abilities and qualifications versus political whim, and see how it plays out.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/13/biden-sanders-unity-task-forces-leaders-aoc-254456

We can also look at it in terms of AOC's recent statements about the Reade allegations. On NPR earlier this month, she said "t certainly seems as though something has happened." And that the case "is not clear-cut." So we can see if she's still willing to challenge him on this, now that he's given her a high-profile position on his policy and strategy team.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/8517...biden-sexual-assault-allegation-not-clear-cut

It's also interesting for a third reason, which might (hopefully) spark some discussion from the "Biden is just another conservative" hard-liners. AOC is easily one of the most progressive Democrats in office today, especially on the economy and climate change. Putting her in charge of his campaign's climate change policy seems like a very progressive move for Biden to make.

Is Biden actually a lot more progressive than he looks? Is he expecting AOC to challenge him to be more progressive on climate change? Is AOC actually a lot less independent from the political establishment than she looks?

We'll find out in the coming months, probably. And probably this will give some hints as to how things might go in Biden's Cabinet, or among Biden's agency heads.
Click to expand...


This is an excellent point of discussion, and I'm saying that with no snark either.

To me this appointment is certainly a good political move. He's extending an olive-branch to the far left wing, showing that he's not only willing to work with progressives but to actually appoint them to key positions.

I am curious about what you meant by "abilities and qualifications versus political whim." Do you think this appointment was based on the former or the latter?
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm confused. Is that remark about the posters here, or about Reade? Because I'm seeing lots of attacking arguers. If there were any more attacking arguers going on, well, people would be loath to argue. They'd think twice. Because of attacking. Attackment?

Let's all reset to the beginning, be calm and reasonable people, and unite together in agreement that Biden has little beady weasel eyes and cannot possibly president half so well as Warren could have.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Warren was my first pick as well. But she dropped out long before I could vote in the primary, so now I don't get a say. Biden vs Trump, so it's Biden.
 
Dr. Keith said:
But lying about other's arguments is time honored tradition. So well done on keeping up the good work.

We all learned different things in those halcyon days of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Hey, if I gave you nothing to lie or ad-hom about I'm not sure you'd post here at all!
 
wareyin said:
This is an excellent point of discussion, and I'm saying that with no snark either.

To me this appointment is certainly a good political move. He's extending an olive-branch to the far left wing, showing that he's not only willing to work with progressives but to actually appoint them to key positions.

I am curious about what you meant by "abilities and qualifications versus political whim." Do you think this appointment was based on the former or the latter?
Click to expand...

I mean, you and Dr Keith kind of say it already: It's a political move.

She's got a Bachelor's degree from Boston University, and she's a freshman Representative. I don't really see a case for her having the qualifications or experience to run climate change policy for the US government. She's not a climate scientist. She's not an economist. She's not even a seasoned politician.

I'm not exactly sure what Suddenly means by "qualifications and abilities", though. Maybe he sees something there I don't. Or maybe he's disappointed by Biden's opening moves along those lines.

I don't think it's a bad move, politically speaking, but appointing people for political reasons rather than for their qualifications isn't really the differentiator that Suddenly is talking about, versus the Trump administration.

You'll have to decide for yourself whether this is a qualified appointment or a political one, and how much that matters to you either way.
 
Last edited:
The willingness to defer to climate experts instead of pontificating on stuff they are clueless on my be considered a rare qualification.
 
Sideroxylon said:
The willingness to defer to climate experts instead of pontificating on stuff they are clueless on my be considered a rare qualification.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see how many of her policy proposals are drafted by economists and climate scientists, versus by politicians and activists.

ETA: And if qualifications are important, why wouldn't Biden just appoint a climate expert and cut out the political middleman?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I mean, you and Dr Keith kind of say it already: It's a political move.

She's got a Bachelor's degree from Boston University, and she's a freshman Representative. I don't really see a case for her having the qualifications or experience to run climate change policy for the US government. She's not a climate scientist. She's not an economist. She's not even a seasoned politician.

I'm not exactly sure what Suddenly means by "qualifications and abilities", though. Maybe he sees something there I don't. Or maybe he's disappointed by Biden's opening moves along those lines.

I don't think it's a bad move, politically speaking, but appointing people for political reasons rather than for their qualifications isn't really the differentiator that Suddenly is talking about, versus the Trump administration.

You'll have to decide for yourself whether this is a qualified appointment or a political one, and how much that matters to you either way.
Click to expand...

We both say it's a political move, yes. That's not the same thing as a political whim, though. I will give you credit for describing her as a freshman Representative rather than the typical "bartender" that many on the right use. Does AOC demonstrate the ability to do the job she was appointed for? I'd say she does. She's shown that she can listen and absorb the information experts present. Do the various "acting" Cabinet members that Trump appoints demonstrate any ability other than fealty to him personally and a willingness to donate large sums of money? I'd say no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom