Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

[theprestige]

This is why accusers can't be immune to accusation. Liars can absolutely be sexually assaulted, but an established liar would need to present evidence (or have a single account of the incident) to overcome the history of lying.

This is a terrible idea. Even established truth-tellers have to present evidence for their accusations. And trying to establish someone as a liar is a terrible way to get to the truth of their accusations. Either their accusation itself is consistent and supported by evidence, or it isn't. No rapist should go free just because their accuser lied about other things. No rape accusation should be believed just because the accuser told the truth about other things.

The world you want us to live in is a horrible world, and we should do what we can to avoid living in it. Even if that means 4 more years of President Trump. Which it won't, because Reade's accusation fails on its own merits, regardless of her reputation for trustworthiness.

 

[johnny karate]

This is a terrible idea. Even established truth-tellers have to present evidence for their accusations. And trying to establish someone as a liar is a terrible way to get to the truth of their accusations. Either their accusation itself is consistent and supported by evidence, or it isn't. No rapist should go free just because their accuser lied about other things. No rape accusation should be believed just because the accuser told the truth about other things.

The world you want us to live in is a horrible world, and we should do what we can to avoid living in it. Even if that means 4 more years of President Trump. Which it won't, because Reade's accusation fails on its own merits, regardless of her reputation for trustworthiness.

Hoo boy. I can just imagine your reaction if someone so egregiously misrepresented your argument.

 

[xjx388]

Soooo why not fact check that?

Biden never said any such thing.

Because it was Mumbles’ characterization. Why would I need to fact check what Mumbles just told me? I did not say Biden said any such thing.

 

[xjx388]

This is why accusers can't be immune to accusation. Liars can absolutely be sexually assaulted, but an established liar would need to present evidence (or have a single account of the incident) to overcome the history of lying.

What an excellent idea, this evidence you speak of...maybe we should apply it across the board and skip the whole “liar liar” routine?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What an excellent idea, this evidence you speak of...maybe we should apply it across the board and skip the whole “liar liar” routine?

The evidence needs to be presented first. So far all we have is the words of someone who has been proven to lie about many things and for many years.

What I mean by 'evidence' starts with a consistent account of the incident. None of this documented vacillation of "he did this" "actually he did this" "everything was fine". There isn't a single account to base the accusation on, there's several that contradict each other! She hasn't actually been able to *make* her accusation yet. What is there to believe?

Next she needs to face her own accusers. Biden has nothing to do with this.

 

[Stacyhs]

The evidence needs to be presented first. So far all we have is the words of someone who has been proven to lie about many things and for many years.

What I mean by 'evidence' starts with a consistent account of the incident. None of this documented vacillation of "he did this" "actually he did this" "everything was fine". There isn't a single account to base the accusation on, there's several that contradict each other! She hasn't actually been able to *make* her accusation yet. What is there to believe?

Next she needs to face her own accusers. Biden has nothing to do with this.

There is nothing Biden can do other than what he's done: deny it. If Reade had given a date, he may have been able to prove he was out of state that day...or at an all day event...or that he didn't go to the gym that day. But as it stands, he can't do a damn thing to prove his innocence. The only things we have to go on are their histories of known behavior and credibility despite what some here claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it was Mumbles’ characterization. Why would I need to fact check what Mumbles just told me? I did not say Biden said any such thing.

Why factcheck something that makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology?

I dunno, maybe because it makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology and no one else mentioned any such thing in this thread?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

There is nothing Biden can do other than what he's done: deny it. If Reade had given a date, he may have been able to prove he was out of state that day...or at an all day event...or that he didn't go to the gym that day. But as it stands, he can't do a damn thing to prove his innocence. The only things we have to go on are their histories of known behavior and credibility despite what some here claim.

She also hasn't given a date for the supposed campaign fundraiser that Biden allegedly wanted her to serve drinks at because he liked her legs. I find the stories about her credibility issues entertaining, but IMHO there are sufficient reasons to doubt her story(ies) without referencing other events. Including claiming to have been asked to serve drinks at a campaign fundraiser because Biden liked her legs when numerous former Biden employees have stated that he didn't ask junior staff members to do campaign work.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Why factcheck something that makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology?

I dunno, maybe because it makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology and no one else mentioned any such thing in this thread?

What do you mean by "C-change"? Do you mean "sea-change" which refers to a massive shift in the surrounding environment, or something else?

 

[xjx388]

There is nothing Biden can do other than what he's done: deny it. If Reade had given a date, he may have been able to prove he was out of state that day...or at an all day event...or that he didn't go to the gym that day. But as it stands, he can't do a damn thing to prove his innocence. The only things we have to go on are their histories of known behavior and credibility despite what some here claim.

If that’s the only thing we have, then we actually have nothing. Like we did before Reade’s character assassination.

Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’. Ya gotta have sumthin’ if you wanna be believed. -With apologies to Billy Preston.

The evidence needs to be presented first. So far all we have is the words of someone

Correct. That’s nothing. Words without evidence do not warrant action, unless that action is looking for evidence of the allegations.

A lie about an unrelated event many years removed is not evidence of anything other than that she lied about an unrelated event.

who has been proven to lie about many things and for many years.

Irrelevant. Even if she had a near-perfect record, words without evidence are not actionable.

What I mean by 'evidence' starts with a consistent account of the incident. None of this documented vacillation of "he did this" "actually he did this" "everything was fine". There isn't a single account to base the accusation on, there's several that contradict each other!

Ok, but women who are victims of sexual assault often behave in ways that are contradictory.

She hasn't actually been able to *make* her accusation yet. What is there to believe?

Nothing.

Next she needs to face her own accusers. Biden has nothing to do with this.

If women are going to face accusations, we shouldn’t expect them to be willing to come forward. Especially when the accusations mostly have nothing to do with the allegations but with unrelated events.

This is why we usually call women who come forward, “brave.” Usually.

 

[Stacyhs]

She also hasn't given a date for the supposed campaign fundraiser that Biden allegedly wanted her to serve drinks at because he liked her legs. I find the stories about her credibility issues entertaining, but IMHO there are sufficient reasons to doubt her story(ies) without referencing other events. Including claiming to have been asked to serve drinks at a campaign fundraiser because Biden liked her legs when numerous former Biden employees have stated that he didn't ask junior staff members to do campaign work.

IIRC, they also said that he specifically never had female staffers serve at functions as he didn't want them to be seen as waiting on him.

 

[xjx388]

Why factcheck something that makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology?

I dunno, maybe because it makes a C-change difference in Biden's apology and no one else mentioned any such thing in this thread?

Why don’t you take it up with Mumbles as he is the one who suggested it was a joke?

My point in that exchange was that apologists will write it off as a joke (as Mumbles did) or a gaffe (as others have).

Maybe you should berate the people who made the statement instead of the guy who responded to it.

 

[theprestige]

Hoo boy. I can just imagine your reaction if someone so egregiously misrepresented your argument.

The argument was, "an established liar would need to present evidence to overcome the history of lying."

I disagree with the basic premise. Their history of lying is irrelevant. They don't have to overcome sod all about their history. They just have to overcome the burden of proof for that accusation.

 

[Stacyhs]

The argument was, "an established liar would need to present evidence to overcome the history of lying."

I disagree with the basic premise. Their history of lying is irrelevant. They don't have to overcome sod all about their history. They just have to overcome the burden of proof for that accusation.

You'd better inform legal experts that credibility is irrelevant because they've got it all wrong.

IN THE AMERICAN criminal justice system, the jury evaluates witness credibility. Whether the witness is an eyewitness to an alleged robbery, an expert on accounting procedures, or a complainant in a sexual abuse case," jurors must determine if they believe the witness. Jurors are expected to make credibility decisions based on their common sense, which is also termed intuition or experience. This concept of common sense is considered essential to the jury's task. When jurors exercise their common sense in evaluating a witness' testimony, a full and fair credibility determination is presumed to follow.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1865&context=caselrev

At trial the judge must assess the credibility and reliability of witnesses. There is an important distinction between the veracity or truthfulness of a witness (credibility) and the ability of a witness to accurately relate his or her evidence (reliability). Both reliability and credibility are important aspects with respect to determining the truth and accuracy of any witness’s testimony. It is also important to note that a credible witness may not always be a reliable one and that a witness whose testimony is not credible on a particular point will also not be a reliable witness on the same point.
Turning to credibility, there are certain indicia of credibility that the trier of fact can use to determine a witness’s truthfulness. Examples include a criminal record containing offences of dishonesty*, some motive or interest in the outcome of the trial, bias, conduct, demeanour, collusion, or glaring inconsistencies in prior statements. Some or all of these factors may combine to lead a trier of fact to conclude that a witness’s evidence can be accepted as part of the fact finding process or not.

http://www.williampouloslaw.com/blo...edibility-and-reliability-of-court-witnesses/

*I don't think it would be considered much of a stretch to say that an extensive history of lying and dishonesty would be considered irrelevant even if it did not result in a criminal record.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's strange that credibility has no role in theprestige's opinion...

Actually, I find it hard to believe and insincere.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's strange that credibility has no role in theprestige's opinion...

Actually, I find it hard to believe and insincere.

I find it odd to double (hell, triple and quadruple down) on it when I've presented several legal sources that discuss its great importance in cases such as this one. What one thinks should be relevant and what is relevant are two different things. Prestige is entitled to his opinion even if it flies in the face of reality.

 

[theprestige]

I find it odd to double (hell, triple and quadruple down) on it when I've presented several legal sources that discuss its great importance in cases such as this one. What one thinks should be relevant and what is relevant are two different things. Prestige is entitled to his opinion even if it flies in the face of reality.

This isn't a court of law. You're not a trial lawyer. I'm not a jury. The claim is either supported by evidence or it isn't.

Credibility is important to me, just not in this particular context. Reade could be the most trustworthy person in the world, and I wouldn't convict Biden of raping her based on her say-so alone.

It's weird how much effort you've put in, over weeks, developing a point that's not even in contention, and doesn't actually make any difference here.

 

[Stacyhs]

This isn't a court of law. You're not a trial lawyer. I'm not a jury. The claim is either supported by evidence or it isn't.

Credibility is important to me, just not in this particular context. Reade could be the most trustworthy person in the world, and I wouldn't convict Biden of raping her based on her say-so alone.

It's weird how much effort you've put in, over weeks, developing a point that's not even in contention, and doesn't actually make any difference here.

No stranger than the weeks of effort you've put into countering anyone who disagrees with you. But I see a huge, gaping rabbit hole and I ain't Alice.

 

[xjx388]

You'd better inform legal experts that credibility is irrelevant because they've got it all wrong.


https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1865&context=caselrev

http://www.williampouloslaw.com/blo...edibility-and-reliability-of-court-witnesses/

*I don't think it would be considered much of a stretch to say that an extensive history of lying and dishonesty would be considered irrelevant even if it did not result in a criminal record.

It’s so much of a stretch that it’s actually inadmissible to introduce prior bad acts to impeach a witness.

 

[wareyin]

It’s so much of a stretch that it’s actually inadmissible to introduce prior bad acts to impeach a witness.

Sonsabitch, it's almost like your constant contrafactual claims should be given equal credibility as Reade after her claims in court of law!