Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

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.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is irrelevant. Nobody is writing any laws as of yet. It's important for Biden to unify the party behind him. He needs the progressives with him.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Do you have thoughts on the words he said?

Rather than "whatabouthisgibberish?"
Click to expand...

Yes. He misspoke.

/thoughts.

And speaking of whataboutisms, if you don’t think the fact that was posted in the first place wasn’t a great big stealth whataboutism, I’ve got some swampland to sell you.
 
johnny karate said:
Yes. He misspoke.



/thoughts.



And speaking of whataboutisms, if you don’t think the fact that was posted in the first place wasn’t a great big stealth whataboutism, I’ve got some swampland to sell you.
Click to expand...
Uh.

How is it "whataboutism" to show, not as a comparison or response to another topic, that a thing happened?
 
johnny karate said:
When a Trump supporter posts something stupid or inaccurate a Democrat says, it’s absolutely a whataboutism.
Click to expand...
What is it when not-a-Trump-supporter does it?

ETA: What is it when a Trump supporter does it first, but then a not-a-Trump-supporter wants to engage on it?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
You're inventing things.
Click to expand...

And you're avoiding answering the questions. Gee...what could be the reason? Let me think about that...


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.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who frequently resorts to logical fallacies like this:
Q. How do you know a rape victim is lying?

A. She once embellished her father's career highlights.
Click to expand...

Exactly what 'hook' am I trying to get off?

Determining an accuser's credibility, like any witness, is a matter of fact for any case. It is neither illogical nor unethical. All your hysterics don't change that.


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.
Click to expand...

The rat will be overjoyed to hear that. I'm sorry if you can't handle the facts that have been presented that show Reade is not very credible without a hissy fit. If anyone is appealing to emotion, it's you. Don't clutch those pearls too hard; they'll break.

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?
Click to expand...

Well, my goodness gracious. What a reaction. That I've shown that an accuser's credibility is, in fact, very important when no evidence of her accusations exist just puts you over the edge, doesn't it? You know, they say that when a person has no logical rebuttal to an argument, they go on the attack in an attempt to put the other person on the defensive. Sorry...it didn't work. Perhaps you'd like to insult my dead mother now?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lessee...Trump is a well known liar. VERY well known. So if a woman....or 20...happen to tell us that he has groped them, forced them up against a wall and forcibly kissed them, assaulted them in a dressing room, etc., whom exactly do you think we should believe? The 20 women or a man who lies on an average of about 20 lies per day?

Get real.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
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.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the $108,000 was the salary mentioned for today, not in the 1970's. Even today $108K is solid middle class (depending on where one lives), and certainly not "rich". Hell, my 26 yr old daughter makes more than that and she's certainly not rich. My husband makes more than that and we are certainly not "rich".
 
Stacyhs said:
IIRC, the $108,000 was the salary mentioned for today, not in the 1970's. Even today $108K is solid middle class (depending on where one lives), and certainly not "rich". Hell, my 26 yr old daughter makes more than that and she's certainly not rich. My husband makes more than that and we are certainly not "rich".
Click to expand...
It was already clarified that the $108k figure was not derived from any statements she made.

Also it was a household income figure, not an individual earner.

If a household is bringing in $108k with a single earner, sure they may not be living ostentatiously rich, but that provides enormous advantages beyond just the bare income. First off, if there are children, one family is burdened with child care expenses the other is not, making an enormous difference in disposable income despite the same income level.

But I'm pretty sure we're out in the weeds on this one, so let's let it drop.
 
wareyin said:
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.
Click to expand...

She charged the two vet bill to the rescue in 2016.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
It was already clarified that the $108k figure was not derived from any statements she made.

Also it was a household income figure, not an individual earner.

If a household is bringing in $108k with a single earner, sure they may not be living ostentatiously rich, but that provides enormous advantages beyond just the bare income. First off, if there are children, one family is burdened with child care expenses the other is not, making an enormous difference in disposable income despite the same income level.

But I'm pretty sure we're out in the weeds on this one, so let's let it drop.
Click to expand...

I never said it was derived from any statements she made. I stated it was an example of today's salary not one from the 1970's .

$108K does not meet the standards for "rich" anywhere in the US regardless of the amount of people it's supporting. Certainly people who make far less might consider it "rich" in comparison. But people who make $20K a year think people making $80K are rich.

[QUOTE]Pew Research Center defines middle-class or middle-income households as those with incomes that are two-thirds to double the 2016 U.S. median household income of $57,617. According to this formula, Pew determined that middle-class Americans have incomes ranging from approximately $45,200 to $135,600.
[/QUOTE]

But, yes....we can drop it here.
 
Stacyhs said:
Nuh-uh. You do not discuss in good faith. You prefer what you think are one or two line "zingers". I'm not going down this rabbit hole with again. Bye, Felicia.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry to interrupt your highbrow involvement in the discourse. Where were you at? Maybe I can raise my game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom