Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...


This is the same vein of problem: “the accused lies a lot so he probably did those things he’s being accused of,” is a horrible argument.

Besides, we didn’t get an in-depth investigation of the “credibility” of all those accusers. I mean, what if a few of them have bounced checks or something sinister like that?
 
xjx388 said:
This is the same vein of problem: “the accused lies a lot so he probably did those things he’s being accused of,” is a horrible argument.
Click to expand...

Good thing that's not the argument. The accused lies a lot so his story is probably not credible without evidence. But put that way it doesn't fit your agenda, so I can see why you went with your own version.
 
Key point from that CNN poll showing Biden potentially losing battleground states:

Though other recent polling has shown some signs of concern for Biden among younger voters and strength among older ones, few have pegged the race as this close among younger voters. The results suggest that younger voters in the battleground states are tilted in favor of Trump, a stark change from the last CNN poll in which battleground voters were analyzed in March, even as other demographic groups shifted to a smaller degree.
Click to expand...

Biden's poor performance among younger voters is a long identified problem. What is being done to address this? Is it effective?

Blaming the voters is a fools argument. It's the candidates job to convince enough voters to win. What is Biden going to do to appeal to younger voters?
 
wareyin said:
Good thing that's not the argument. The accused lies a lot so his story is probably not credible without evidence. But put that way it doesn't fit your agenda, so I can see why you went with your own version.
Click to expand...


His story (I didn’t do it)
is probably not credible (he probably did it)

Please explain how this is put any differently than I put it? Because it’s not.

My agenda is clear: you don’t examine the credibility of allegations or denials by looking at the character of a person, you look at the evidence. This is amply proven by the fact that the media did no investigation about the characters or backgrounds of the various Trump accusers, we have no evidence other than the allegations themselves and yet, Trump is painted as a sexual predator.

We’ve been told that we should look for a pattern of accusations. Kavanaugh didn’t have a pattern of accusations. Yet he is supposedly a sexual predator.

Many posters here are not applying their own professed criteria, that they clearly apply to people with an R after their name, to people with a D after their name. Biden in this case. Recall that many of the accusations against Trump are of the, “he hugged and kissed me without my consent,” variety. That’s really bad, apparently. But Biden’s penchant for burying his head in women’s hair and kissing their heads without their consent (and other similar behavior) is no biggie, apparently.

It appears that the line between sexual predator and mildly creepy all comes down to the biases of the person evaluating the situation.
 
Reasons to vote in 2020 (besides the obvious one)

1) State governments. 2020 is a census year, which makes it a year for redistricting, and potentially, Gerrymandering. This is a big one. I'm not in favor of Gerrymandering, but I'm pretty sure that Republicans will do it in states where they control the process. That will give them a built in advantage in elections for the next decade.

2) The courts. Not only the Supreme Court, although obviously that especially. Hopefully Ruth can make it until January of next year, but I wouldn't count on her making it to January 2025.

3) Four more years of you-know-who. (OK, that's the obvious one)
 
xjx388 said:
His story (I didn’t do it)
is probably not credible (he probably did it)

Please explain how this is put any differently than I put it? Because it’s not.
Click to expand...

But it is. His story (I didn't do it, but I bragged about doing it on tape)
is probably not credible. When he's given conflicting stories, it's pretty hard to believe both of them. And when his story isn't credible, it doesn't automatically make all of the other stories completely true. This is such poor, black and white thinking that I don't think you apply it to any other time you are dealing with people.

xjx388 said:
My agenda is clear: you don’t examine the credibility of allegations or denials by looking at the character of a person, you look at the evidence. This is amply proven by the fact that the media did no investigation about the characters or backgrounds of the various Trump accusers, we have no evidence other than the allegations themselves and yet, Trump is painted as a sexual predator.
Click to expand...

If you think that there was no research done into the backgrounds of the Trump accusers, you're as ignorant of that as those that think there was no research done into Kavanaugh's accusers.

xjx388 said:
We’ve been told that we should look for a pattern of accusations. Kavanaugh didn’t have a pattern of accusations. Yet he is supposedly a sexual predator.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! Four accusers came forward. In the background research that you think wasn't done, one admitted she fabricated the accusation. Please review the basic facts next time.

xjx388 said:
Many posters here are not applying their own professed criteria, that they clearly apply to people with an R after their name, to people with a D after their name. Biden in this case. Recall that many of the accusations against Trump are of the, “he hugged and kissed me without my consent,” variety. That’s really bad, apparently. But Biden’s penchant for burying his head in women’s hair and kissing their heads without their consent (and other similar behavior) is no biggie, apparently.

It appears that the line between sexual predator and mildly creepy all comes down to the biases of the person evaluating the situation.
Click to expand...

No, you are as ignorant of the accusations against Trump as you were of those against Kavanaugh.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
This is reactionary thinking in action.

Right here.

I can have my own independent thoughts. I'm sorry for whatever limitations prevent you from doing so.
Click to expand...

Of course you can have your own independent thoughts. I never said that you couldn’t.

But you asked my opinion and I gave it.

I’m sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way, but just like you’re allowed to think what you want, so am I.
 
johnny karate said:
Of course you can have your own independent thoughts. I never said that you couldn’t.

But you asked my opinion and I gave it.

I’m sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way, but just like you’re allowed to think what you want, so am I.
Click to expand...

The claim that following Trump supporters demonstrates independent thought is pretty good, though.
 
wareyin said:
The claim that following Trump supporters demonstrates independent thought is pretty good, though.
Click to expand...
Having the same concern as a Trump supporter =/= "following Trump supporters"

But just go on and embrace both the genetic fallacy and poisoning the well at the same time.

End result: you don't have to acknowledge anything you don't like.

ETA: there may be a misattribution of my concern with that quote. I'm not jumping on the dementia bandwagon. It reinforces my concern about his having priorities that greatly diverge from mine. What an awful line to flub. It makes him look like he cares more about jobs than lives cut short.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
But it is. His story (I didn't do it, but I bragged about doing it on tape)
is probably not credible. When he's given conflicting stories, it's pretty hard to believe both of them. And when his story isn't credible, it doesn't automatically make all of the other stories completely true. This is such poor, black and white thinking that I don't think you apply it to any other time you are dealing with people.
Click to expand...
Look . . . I'm not interested in another extended back and forth exchange. But I did find this article that says a lot of what I think:

... In situations such as these, questions about a man’s behavior suddenly become a referendum on women’s characters, and it is women’s reputations, not that of the man in question, that somehow always wind up suffering.

Rank-and-file Biden supporters, along with the liberal and anti-Trump commentariat, have been much more aggressive in their attacks on Reade. They have smeared her as a quack or a plant; to discredit her, they have pointed to her support for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and a weird, since-deleted Medium essay she wrote praising Vladimir Putin, although feminists have spent much of the past three years explaining that such non sequiturs do not diminish a woman’s testimony. Darkly, Reade has also been cast as suspicious because for a time she lived under another name—a step she took in response to a domestic-abuse situation. Reade has received death threats, in addition to the usual slew of disbelieving and cruel missives. Even journalists covering her story have come under fire. New York magazine’s Rebecca Traister received threatening texts after publishing a piece on Reade. When the MSNBC host Chris Hayes devoted a segment on his show to the allegations, activists on Twitter called for him to be fired.

This kind of vitriol is supposedly justified by the moral imperative of denying Donald Trump a second term. But the argument that Reade’s allegations must be refuted lest the country reelect Trump is undermined by Trump’s presidency in the first place: If an allegation of sexual assault by the candidate were enough to fatally harm a campaign, Trump would never have become president at all. Meanwhile, survivors are seeing members of the political party that is more amenable to women’s rights disbelieve a story of assault, and smear the accuser—as if #MeToo had never happened.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

If you disagree with that, fine. I will just continue to watch the situation with bemused interest at the foibles of human nature.
 
xjx388 said:
This is the same vein of problem: “the accused lies a lot so he probably did those things he’s being accused of,” is a horrible argument.

Besides, we didn’t get an in-depth investigation of the “credibility” of all those accusers. I mean, what if a few of them have bounced checks or something sinister like that?
Click to expand...
Are you arguing Trump's accusers aren't credible? :confused:
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
'I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade': Biden says about sexual harassment allegations

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/i-wouldn-t-vote-me-if-i-believed-tara-read-n1207516

This is the third time Biden has told voters concerned about issues not to vote for him.

- Told a climate activist not to vote for him in Iowa

- Told immigration activist who questioned him to vote for Trump

A bold strategy, let's see if it pays off.
Click to expand...

In this case it seems to me an appropriate response and (not ironically) a bold choice that could pay off . There is no way for him to publicly contest this beyond a denial without implicitly attacking Reade in some way and that ends up being quite hypocritical. Essentially saying "make up your own mind" keeps him out of the mud, and he did so without minimizing her allegations by agreeing that it could be disqualifying.
 
Suddenly said:
In this case it seems to me an appropriate response and (not ironically) a bold choice that could pay off . There is no way for him to publicly contest this beyond a denial without implicitly attacking Reade in some way and that ends up being quite hypocritical. Essentially saying "make up your own mind" keeps him out of the mud, and he did so without minimizing her allegations by agreeing that it could be disqualifying.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

Most voters will dismiss the claims if he denies them. What choice do we have? But if he drags this woman the way his supporters here seem excited to do, he will lose voters. Probably not me, the courts are just too important, but he will turn off some voters. It is unnecessary and unseemly to drag this woman through the mud. Even if you think she is a pig.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

Most voters will dismiss the claims if he denies them. What choice do we have? But if he drags this woman the way his supporters here seem excited to do, he will lose voters. Probably not me, the courts are just too important, but he will turn off some voters. It is unnecessary and unseemly to drag this woman through the mud. Even if you think she is a pig.
Click to expand...

If you don't challenge a lie then some people will believe you're admitting it's true. Why should anyone let someone besmirch their good name with slander and libel, publicly accuse them of terrible things, and mount no defense at all? I wouldn't expect anybody to tolerate that treatment, even people who aren't politicians.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Agreed. And building off of xjx388's post, there is no profit in attacking Reade's credibility. None.

...
Click to expand...
I think this is an issue of selectivity, there's a threshold for what is relevant.

The accusation was not made in a vacuum. You seem to be saying one shouldn't look at anything about Reade. I'm saying we should be discriminatory and not go in for the throwing in anything to see if it sticks approach.

There is an middle ground here.

It's relative if it is specifically related to her accusation, such as her changing accounts of why she left her job in Biden's office.

The Vox reporters account is relative because it shows Reade escalating the story and escalating her search for news media attention.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If you don't challenge a lie then some people will believe you're admitting it's true. Why should anyone let someone besmirch their good name with slander and libel, publicly accuse them of terrible things, and mount no defense at all? I wouldn't expect anybody to tolerate that treatment, even people who aren't politicians.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it is politically dangerous to dig the woman. Challenge the accusation, sure. He has. He said it didn't happen. So far I think he is handling this well.

His supporters are not handling it as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom