• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
We do know that Reade was removed from her supervisory role over other interns. Ted Kaufman, a Biden senior aide, told her she 'was not a good fit for the office" and gave he a month to find another job according to Reade. If this was done as retaliation for filing a sexual harassment claim, I doubt she would have been given a month to find another job. This is speculation, but I suspect that Reade's chronic financial problems likely arose from her inability to keep a job.
Click to expand...



That makes perfect sense.

Because if she was let go because she complained about Biden diddling her, they would have said: "We let her go because she complained about Biden diddling her, and rather than give her 30 days the termination is immediate as punishment."


In the real world, they make up legit sounding reasons, and give 30 days or more to make it look innocent.
 
Bubba said:
That makes perfect sense.

Because if she was let go because she complained about Biden diddling her, they would have said: "We let her go because she complained about Biden diddling her, and rather than give her 30 days the termination is immediate as punishment."


In the real world, they make up legit sounding reasons, and give 30 days or more to make it look innocent.
Click to expand...

But she didn't complain about Biden "diddling her". She says she did not use the words 'sexual assault' or 'sexual harassment' in her complaint, much less against Biden, in 1993. She said she complained about being asked to serve drinks because Biden liked her legs (which she never claimed HE had said to her). In fact, no one says she ever mentioned sexual harassment, much less assault, during her time in Biden's office. That only came later. What her 'close friend' at the time said was that Reade complained about have a hard time at work. Another colleague said she told him she was being let go for 'a medical reason".

Try again.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It's breathtaking how sure the parrots are that they can safely ignore evidence as long as it doesn't happen in the mighty Wurlitzer. Mainly because they are right.
Click to expand...

Politics is so polarised there is no value that cannot be sacrificed for your side. This includes ethical or epistemological values, insofar as what you might value as constituting good reasons to believe or not believe something.

With Reade no one can determine or not if Biden assaulted her based on what we know yet here we have people constructing narratives that they believe supports a conclusion. The arguments being made here are ********. If I was a Biden supporter I would have my eye on the ball instead of rolling around in the **** constructing arguments of forms that you would not accept in other contexts.

Biden would never be convicted on this evidence but neither can Reade’s accusation be disproven. Biden’s own words on believing women (or men as rape victims) is based on this idea that proof is almost impossible in historical cases where no witnesses, DNA, video evidence exists. What a tragedy that people who have been promiscuous, have a criminal record, defaulted on loans, rent or other contracts are so easily dismissed. Such people are sexually assaulted and what an injustice that such claims get dismissed out of hand on this basis. How many times has some rapist uttered the effects of, “Who is going to believe the likes of you over my reputation.”
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Biden would never be convicted on this evidence
Click to expand...

An understatement of truly epic proportions. Biden would never be convicted (or even prosecuted) because there is NO EVIDENCE. Not only is there no evidence that he committed a crime, there is no evidence that a crime was committed.

but neither can Reade’s accusation be disproven.
Click to expand...

What constitutes "disproven"? It is almost impossible to disprove an accusation unless the accused can show that they were physically unable to have committed the crime (e.g., they have witnesses who can verify that they were somewhere else at the time). By claiming to not remember where the crime was committed or when it was committed, Ms. Reade has made disproving her allegation impossible. However, the NPR reporters were unable to find a location in the Senate office building that in any way matched her vague description of a location, so it can be argued that her accusation has been disproven.

What a tragedy that people who have been promiscuous, have a criminal record, defaulted on loans, rent or other contracts are so easily dismissed. Such people are sexually assaulted and what an injustice that such claims get dismissed out of hand on this basis. How many times has some rapist uttered the effects of, “Who is going to believe the likes of you over my reputation.”
Click to expand...

Are you arguing if an allegation can't be disproven and that it is baseless to evaluate the credibility of the allegation based on the accuser's known level of credibility and possible motive for making a false accusation, and therefore we are obligated to believe the accusation?
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
An understatement of truly epic proportions. Biden would never be convicted (or even prosecuted) because there is NO EVIDENCE. Not only is there no evidence that he committed a crime, there is no evidence that a crime was committed.



What constitutes "disproven"? It is almost impossible to disprove an accusation unless the accused can show that they were physically unable to have committed the crime (e.g., they have witnesses who can verify that they were somewhere else at the time). By claiming to not remember where the crime was committed or when it was committed, Ms. Reade has made disproving her claim impossible. However, the NPR reporters were unable to find a location in the Senate office building that in any way matched her vague description of a location, so it can be argued that her accusation has been disproven.


Quote:
What a tragedy that people who have been promiscuous, have a criminal record, defaulted on loans, rent or other contracts are so easily dismissed. Such people are sexually assaulted and what an injustice that such claims get dismissed out of hand on this basis. How many times has some rapist uttered the effects of, “Who is going to believe the likes of you over my reputation.”
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that the allegation can't be disproven and that it is baseless to evaluate the credibility of the allegation based on the accuser's known level of credibility and possible motive for making a false accusation, and therefore we are obligated to believe the accusation?
Click to expand...

I love the claim that "such claims get dismissed out of hand" when it's those very people who are hand waiving away the totality of the evidence.

Let's just ignore the "promiscuity" bit as no one has mentioned Reade's sex life for either good or bad.

Reade's credibility is not based solely on a defaulted car loan, or failure to pay rent on an occasion or two, or a single check bounce. That's over simplifying it in order to minimize it. What has been shown is a pattern of repeated theft, of repeated manipulation, of repeated lying, of repeated fraud and repeated changing of her story. It's based on the lack of anyone who worked with her at the time verifying her several claims...in fact, not only not verifying it but outright denial of it. There is no evidence of any complaint filed.

Yet, we are supposed to just accept Reade's allegations because she says it happened. If we exchanged the name Biden for Sanders, they'd be singing a different song from the rooftops.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
An understatement of truly epic proportions. Biden would never be convicted (or even prosecuted) because there is NO EVIDENCE. Not only is there no evidence that he committed a crime, there is no evidence that a crime was committed.
Click to expand...

Agree, no evidence. Would not be prosecuted. I did cover this in the post you are replying to. In many cases there is no evidence but one person’s word over another’s.

What constitutes "disproven"? It is almost impossible to disprove an accusation unless the accused can show that they were physically unable to have committed the crime (e.g., they have witnesses who can verify that they were somewhere else at the time). By claiming to not remember where the crime was committed or when it was committed, Ms. Reade has made disproving her allegation impossible. However, the NPR reporters were unable to find a location in the Senate office building that in any way matched her vague description of a location, so it can be argued that her accusation has been disproven.
Click to expand...

Agree again. But if you say Reade is lying about this accusation you necessarily believe it did not happen. That may or may not synonymous with disproven but it is moot to my point that nobody knows and that dredging up someone’s bill paying, fraudulent behaviour, general character is no conclusive support for such a position.

I also pointed out the injustice that rape victims face with regards to attacks on their credibility. It is a reason why people don’t report rape. To engage in muck raking is pointless and ugly in that light.

Are you arguing if an allegation can't be disproven and that it is baseless to evaluate the credibility of the allegation based on the accuser's known level of credibility and possible motive for making a false accusation, and therefore we are obligated to believe the accusation?
Click to expand...

No, that is your constructed framing of my position using blocks beyond and incompatible with the ideas in the post you are responding to, specifically the bit that follows on from “therefore.”
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
An understatement of truly epic proportions. Biden would never be convicted (or even prosecuted) because there is NO EVIDENCE. Not only is there no evidence that he committed a crime, there is no evidence that a crime was committed.



What constitutes "disproven"? It is almost impossible to disprove an accusation unless the accused can show that they were physically unable to have committed the crime (e.g., they have witnesses who can verify that they were somewhere else at the time). By claiming to not remember where the crime was committed or when it was committed, Ms. Reade has made disproving her allegation impossible. However, the NPR reporters were unable to find a location in the Senate office building that in any way matched her vague description of a location, so it can be argued that her accusation has been disproven.



Are you arguing if an allegation can't be disproven and that it is baseless to evaluate the credibility of the allegation based on the accuser's known level of credibility and possible motive for making a false accusation, and therefore we are obligated to believe the accusation?
Click to expand...


We are not at all obliged to believe the allegation. Where are you getting this from?
 
Sideroxylon said:
Politics is so polarised there is no value that cannot be sacrificed for your side. This includes ethical or epistemological values, insofar as what you might value as constituting good reasons to believe or not believe something.

With Reade no one can determine or not if Biden assaulted her based on what we know yet here we have people constructing narratives that they believe supports a conclusion. The arguments being made here are ********. If I was a Biden supporter I would have my eye on the ball instead of rolling around in the **** constructing arguments of forms that you would not accept in other contexts.

Biden would never be convicted on this evidence but neither can Reade’s accusation be disproven. Biden’s own words on believing women (or men as rape victims) is based on this idea that proof is almost impossible in historical cases where no witnesses, DNA, video evidence exists. What a tragedy that people who have been promiscuous, have a criminal record, defaulted on loans, rent or other contracts are so easily dismissed. Such people are sexually assaulted and what an injustice that such claims get dismissed out of hand on this basis. How many times has some rapist uttered the effects of, “Who is going to believe the likes of you over my reputation.”
Click to expand...


I haven't been following this "case" at all and it was not what I was referring to. The videos of creepy Joe touching and sniffing young girls are more than enough evidence for me to conclude that this guy is a freak.

I was talking about the mounting evidence that the vice president of the US was running a just regime-changed ******** country like a king, dictating the halfway-elected president with highly corrupt energy what to do against his people to enrich himself, his son and his cronies. Which is not picked up at all, or if it is is smeared as "fake news" by the complacent corporate media. Which enables the clowns that in general have nothing against these practices to ignore them. It makes me wanna vomit.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I haven't been following this "case" at all and it was not what I was referring to. The videos of creepy Joe touching and sniffing young girls are more than enough evidence for me to conclude that this guy is a freak.

I was talking about the mounting evidence that the vice president of the US was running a just regime-changed ******** country like a king, dictating the halfway-elected president with highly corrupt energy what to do against his people to enrich himself, his son and his cronies. Which is not picked up at all, or if it is is smeared as "fake news" by the complacent corporate media. Which enables the clowns that in general have nothing against these practices to ignore them. It makes me wanna vomit.
Click to expand...

It certainly would be a lot more on topic. Lets start piling up the speculation assured in the knowledge that if you stack enough of it up you can reach the loving embrace of your desired conclusion, sitting upon the majestic peak of your “totality of evidence.”

Jabba liked to use that expression in his various Shroud threads. Got me coming over all nostalgic.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The videos of creepy Joe touching and sniffing young girls are more than enough evidence for me to conclude that this guy is a freak.
Click to expand...
When I was a young trainee technician (in 1976) the office lady came up behind me and ran her fingers through my hair. I was disturbed by it, but it turned out I was the freak. Other people were touching each other all the time and nobody thought anything of it.

Fast-forward 30 years, when for the first (and last) time I tried 'dating'. "No sex", she said, to which I heartily agreed. I ended it when she touched me on the leg with the back of her hand, an obvious come-on (or was it accidental? I wasn't inclined to find out). What was I thinking? There was no way this 'relationship' was going to work.

Sadly, I am not the only one out there. Some of us are so haphephobic that it severely affects our ability to interact socially, prevents us from forming romantic relationships, and causes feelings of isolation and loneliness. IOW, we are freaks.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
When I was a young trainee technician (in 1976) the office lady came up behind me and ran her fingers through my hair. I was disturbed by it, but it turned out I was the freak. Other people were touching each other all the time and nobody thought anything of it.

Fast-forward 30 years, when for the first (and last) time I tried 'dating'. "No sex", she said, to which I heartily agreed. I ended it when she touched me on the leg with the back of her hand, an obvious come-on (or was it accidental? I wasn't inclined to find out). What was I thinking? There was no way this 'relationship' was going to work.

Sadly, I am not the only one out there. Some of us are so haphephobic that it severely affects our ability to interact socially, prevents us from forming romantic relationships, and causes feelings of isolation and loneliness. IOW, we are freaks.
Click to expand...


That's fine with me as long as you don't run for POTUS.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
You don't understand. I am saying the people freaked out by Biden's behavior are the freaks. Which is fine with me as long as you don't run for POTUS.
Click to expand...

You don’t get to assume consent to touch another person intimately based on your own ideas about what a social norm is. You sure as hell should not be ignoring signs of discomfort blithely or purposefully. People in power situations the arise from job status, age or similar must be hyper aware.



The kids in the video above do not deserve being branded as freaks by you, even in latin.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's not like the Hunter Biden question was going away.
Click to expand...

You mean like it did for the last couple of months? It will go away again for a bit after this round of it gets stale. He'll bring back Obamagate at some point as well. He has a playlist of nonsense.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
It's conceivable that Trump will use Tara Reade as a reason why his own accusers shouldn't be believed.
Click to expand...

Conceivable, but unlikely. And unnecessary. It's not like any of his accusers are in the news right now, pressing their accusations.

You think any of them should try to get their claims back in the media, just so Trump can throw Tara Reade in their face?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
It's conceivable that Trump will use Tara Reade as a reason why his own accusers shouldn't be believed.
Click to expand...

A normal president in the same situation as Trump wouldn't go anywhere near bringing up Reade. But, Trump isn't a normal president. Hell, he isn't even a normal human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom