Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Hmm, why would I do that?
Click to expand...
:confused:

It's not obvious?

wareyin said:
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...
If you don't assign weight to things your wheelbarrow weight would be falsely high.

wareyin said:
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.
Click to expand...
So let's give that the most weight, (we agree, not that that matters).

wareyin said:
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.
Click to expand...
How is the timing suspicious?

wareyin said:
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.
Click to expand...
How many years ago was all this? For how many years is her work history relevant? Couldn't some of those workplaces been very different? And people change. Without any direct connection to the timeframe, I can't see how you can give this much weight.

wareyin said:
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...
I need specifics on the assault accusations, I don't see the relevance of how she described her father or what other people in the thread are arguing.

List the previous accusations and what the evidence is for those incidents. That would give the pattern of false accusation more weight.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's bad reporting. It's quite clear that her "criminal charge" was 476A(A), which is only about checks with insufficient funds. Some bad reporters have linked to statute 476, which is about more general check fraud. Again, probably a good reason to not have twitter detectives and amateurs declaring Reade a criminal based on a screenshot from a twitter rando.

This won't stop them, and probably you, from calling her a check fraud, eliding that her "fraud" was a bounced check.
Click to expand...

1) Ms. Reade was charged with a CRIMINAL offense. This could only happen if she had 1 or more checks that were returned (or altered) AND she failed to make an attempt to make good on the check(s) even after being notified about the overdraft(s). Accidental overdrafts do NOT constitute a crime, something that has been pointed out multiple times. People do not get criminally charged without being given a chance to pay up.
2) Ms. Reade entered a diversion program for first-time offenders. The fact that completing such a program results in the offense being removed from the person's record does not, despite your attempt to imply otherwise, prove that they didn't commit the offense.
3) Neither Ms. Reade nor her lawyer have claimed that this story is false, in fact, just the opposite.

In his statement to the divorce court, Ms. Reade's ex-husband stated that he tried to help her because she was having financial difficulties.

Being in debt, even without any accusation of doing anything illegal, is grounds for being denied a Public Trust Clearance, which is required for almost all federal govt. positions that don't require a security clearance.

Meanwhile, no one, here or elsewhere, has presented evidence that Ms. Reade lost her job due to complaining about harassment. If she had, 1 or more members of Biden's staff would have had to have known, and everyone on the staff has denied knowing about a complaint.

So where does this leave us? With nothing proven. But one explanation has at least a little support, albeit nowhere close to the beyond a reasonable doubt level. And one explanation could be true without anyone explicitly lying.
 
theprestige said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

It's both, which is fine. She obviously knows something about the subject matter and has a coherent set of ideas, as much as some people don't like those ideas. She's competent.

She is also all of his problem demographics, which means had he not brought her in the fold somewhere it would be political malpractice.

Plus, hiring someone at least competent to be in a political campaign (or even the administration) on a political whim is a totally different animal from firing the head of a government agency on a political whim.

The latter is dangerous even beyond any philosophical theories of executive power giving the President the right to do that sort of thing. Executives unable to delegate and trust the people they hire usually come to a bad end.

The former is just sort of life. From my pov Sessions as AG was unfortunate, but firing him for a lack of fealty was far worse...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:confused:

It's not obvious?

If you don't assign weight to things your wheelbarrow weight would be falsely high.
Click to expand...

I see all the attempts to downplay, handwave away, and ignore issues and think that this exercise is more apt to have a falsely light wheelbarrow rather than a falsely heavy one.

Skeptic Ginger said:
How is the timing suspicious?
Click to expand...

Because the case was filed 3-4 days before either she was terminated or her last check was issued. There's conflicting information about when she left. So far as I know Reade isn't sure herself. If her paycheck followed normal practices, the fraud case was filed somewhere between a week after she quit/was fired to a 3-4 days before she quit/was fired. I know that if my employer found out about a fraud case against me I would definitely have a good bit of explaining to do to keep my job.

Skeptic Ginger said:
How many years ago was all this? For how many years is her work history relevant? Couldn't some of those workplaces been very different? And people change. Without any direct connection to the timeframe, I can't see how you can give this much weight.
Click to expand...

The theft from the charity she volunteered at was 2014 (or so, going by memory at the moment). I don't think it's unreasonable to think that how she reacted to that in 2014 would be similar to how she feels about other former employers in 2020. Remember, although the accusation is claimed to have happened in 1993, this isn't what she was claiming happened in 1993. This accusation came out in 2020, that's the frame of reference to look at.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I need specifics on the assault accusations, I don't see the relevance of how she described her father or what other people in the thread are arguing.

List the previous accusations and what the evidence is for those incidents. That would give the pattern of false accusation more weight.
Click to expand...

From memory, the previous accusations were against her father and against her ex husband. The evidence for was only her accusation. The specifics of the accusations against her father included clear falsehoods. This is why they matter to me.
 
I’m wondering how this:
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

... somehow got turned into this:
theprestige said:
I don't really see a case for her having the qualifications or experience to run climate change policy for the US government.
Click to expand...

The first part is sort of accurate. The second part, not at all.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
No answer to the rest of the post? I thought you wanted to discuss it.
Click to expand...

If you thought I wanted to discuss it, then introducing irrelevant gripes seems intentionally obnoxious. I see no reason to continue the discussion on that basis. This is the point where I'd wish you better luck next time, but I'm beginning to suspect it's not ill fortune that puts you in this position.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion while it lasted! Hopefully it'll last longer next time.
 
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...

Was it extending an olive branch or was it the most we've seen so far after every bit of leverage that has been applied?

Framing.

ETA: I don't know that these are campaign positions. They are certainly not transition picks, we're not there, yet.

It's nice, don't get me wrong.

But the votes of the platform committees at convention time are where the rubber just begins to meet the road (even the final platform is just a bunch of words and aspirations).
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Do you have a link to the full video?



It cutaway before he said the virus would miraculously disappear in a couple months and that maybe we should looking into injecting disinfectant to treat it.
Click to expand...
Do you have thoughts on the words he said?

Rather than "whatabouthisgibberish?"
 
theprestige said:
If you thought I wanted to discuss it, then introducing irrelevant gripes seems intentionally obnoxious. I see no reason to continue the discussion on that basis. This is the point where I'd wish you better luck next time, but I'm beginning to suspect it's not ill fortune that puts you in this position.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion while it lasted! Hopefully it'll last longer next time.
Click to expand...

You're right I guess. It was wrong of me to think you actually wanted a discussion rather than it was your own attempt at getting in digs about both Biden and AOC. I'll keep that in mind next time I see that sort of post from you.


Psst, pretending to take umbrage at me complimenting you would have played better had you made any attempt to reply to anyone else, either.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Was it extending an olive branch or was it the most we've seen so far after every bit of leverage that has been applied?

Framing.

ETA: I don't know that these are campaign positions. They are certainly not transition picks, we're not there, yet.

It's nice, don't get me wrong.

But the votes of the platform committees at convention time are where the rubber just begins to meet the road (even the final platform is just a bunch of words and aspirations).
Click to expand...

I'm going by the claims that it was an important position. If theprestige was misrepresenting things I will have to revise my opinion.

Yes, framing is important, but Biden could certainly pick far worse, or simply not have included any progressives. Is picking AOC a bad thing?

ETA: ok, she's co-chairing a committee to hash out policy. This isn't as big as it seemed. On the one hand, at least he is including progressive voices in forming policy. On the other hand, she's a co-chair of one of 6 committees. Hopefully Biden does better in reaching out more.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
I'm going by the claims that it was an important position. If theprestige was misrepresenting things I will have to revise my opinion.



Yes, framing is important, but Biden could certainly pick far worse, or simply not have included any progressives. Is picking AOC a bad thing?
Click to expand...

No, but neither does his doing so mean I see it as magnanimity.

Nuance. It's a thing.
 
wareyin said:
I see all the attempts to downplay, handwave away, and ignore issues and think that this exercise is more apt to have a falsely light wheelbarrow rather than a falsely heavy one.

Because the case was filed 3-4 days before either she was terminated or her last check was issued. There's conflicting information about when she left. So far as I know Reade isn't sure herself. If her paycheck followed normal practices, the fraud case was filed somewhere between a week after she quit/was fired to a 3-4 days before she quit/was fired. I know that if my employer found out about a fraud case against me I would definitely have a good bit of explaining to do to keep my job.

The theft from the charity she volunteered at was 2014 (or so, going by memory at the moment). I don't think it's unreasonable to think that how she reacted to that in 2014 would be similar to how she feels about other former employers in 2020. Remember, although the accusation is claimed to have happened in 1993, this isn't what she was claiming happened in 1993. This accusation came out in 2020, that's the frame of reference to look at.

From memory, the previous accusations were against her father and against her ex husband. The evidence for was only her accusation. The specifics of the accusations against her father included clear falsehoods. This is why they matter to me.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any sources in there, did I miss them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom