Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Do you think someone should be convicted of rape only on the basis of the credibility of their accuser? (yes or no)

Do you think someone should be acquitted of rape only on the basis of the credibility of their accuser? (yes or no)
Click to expand...
Of course, all the evidence - and just the evidence - should be considered, but evidence has to be evaluated, and a witness’s testimony without other corroboration -like a he said she said - is evidence for which the only way to evaluate it to judge the credibility of the witness.
 
Paul2 said:
Of course, all the evidence - and just the evidence - should be considered, but evidence has to be evaluated, and a witness’s testimony without other corroboration -like a he said she said - is evidence for which the only way to evaluate it to judge the credibility of the witness.
Click to expand...

When there's no evidence, the accuser's credibility doesn't matter. You're not going to put someone in jail just because their accuser has a reputation for telling the truth.
 
theprestige said:
When there's no evidence, the accuser's credibility doesn't matter. You're not going to put someone in jail just because their accuser has a reputation for telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Reade didn't make this accusation to put Biden in jail. Otherwise she would have named him in the police report.

You keep confusing Reade's accusation in the court of public opinion with an accusation in a court of law.
 
wareyin said:
Reade didn't make this accusation to put Biden in jail. Otherwise she would have named him in the police report.

You keep confusing Reade's accusation in the court of public opinion with an accusation in a court of law.
Click to expand...

If Reade had a reputation for telling the truth, would you have believed Joe Biden raped her on that basis alone, absent any other evidence?
 
Ziggurat said:
He didn't. His actions probably killed thousands, in a direct and easily forseeable way.



Of course not. He's a Democrat. You have openly stated multiple times that you are in favor of lying for partisan advantage. The truth isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

Uranium One justifies anything and everything. The ends justify the means. Besides, we're only talking about Trump and Trump supporters. They aren't good enough to be treated honorably or with basic human dignity.
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
THis one bothers me more than anything else. Posing as an expert witness when you aren't means that some people could require a retrial - potentially dragging victims through the process all over again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. This is the US, it's not safe to assume a shaky conviction will result in retrial.
 
Looks like Klobuchar's chances of getting the VP spot may have dropped. Apparently she chose not to prosecute the Police Officer who murdered Floyd in a previous excessive force citation while she was the county attorney. Whether or not that action was justified, it will definitely cause Biden to lose votes if he picks her.
 
theprestige said:
If Reade had a reputation for telling the truth, would you have believed Joe Biden raped her on that basis alone, absent any other evidence?
Click to expand...

For most people, I would think that the next step would be to evaluate whether there are any problems with the story. In this case, there are a number of holes - starting with her changing her story from Biden making her feel uncomfortable by touching her neck and hair to Biden assaulting her (and her brother forgetting to change his story to match hers) - that have only grown larger with time (e.g., other former Biden staff members stating that she wouldn't have been asked to serve drinks at a campaign fundraiser).
 
Travis said:
As terrible as it is on some level that will likely be a factor. With a few notable exceptions Democrats like our potential presidents to be good looking.
Click to expand...

Biden isn't picking his VP to get Democrat votes, though. Is he? I thought the whole premise of this election was that this is one demographic he's already got sewn up.
 
theprestige said:
Isn't the biggest problem with the story that it has no evidence?
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with the story is that it requires too many coincidences and unusual events. Some might claim that there is evidence: that she told several people about an assault within a few years afterwards (I think that it is highly questionable that she did so).
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
The biggest problem with the story is that it requires too many coincidences and unusual events. Some might claim that there is evidence: that she told several people about an assault within a few years afterwards (I think that it is highly questionable that she did so).
Click to expand...

Who is your intended audience, for this appeal to incredulity? I hope it's not me.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The biggest problem with the story is that it requires too many coincidences and unusual events. Some might claim that there is evidence: that she told several people about an assault within a few years afterwards (I think that it is highly questionable that she did so).
Click to expand...

Of the 3 people now claiming that she did tell them years ago, 2 have completely changed their stories (both were consistent with Reade's claim that it was not sexual up until a month or so ago, now both are consistent with the claim that it was sexual assault). The third didn't even remember until Reade called her to remind her. It's not difficult for skilled con artists to make people remember things that didn't happen, or alter key details in a distant memory. At least one witness (in the NPR article iirc) claimed that she felt Reade was attempting to use her in that manner.
 
theprestige said:
Clearly some of us are able to respond ad infinitum. What is it about this story that makes you feel like you haven't yet responded enough?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, deep thoughts again! Tell you what, what is it about this story that makes you feel you haven't commented enough? You certainly aren't treading new ground in your arguments.
 
Perhaps it's time for a moderator to split this thread, so those who want to have their self-described infinite argument over Reade's credibility can troll each other elsewhere? It's obvious none of those involved are ever going to move on from that subtopic, and their childish exchange is preventing everybody else from discussing the topic. Which is Biden, not the nature of credibility or other posters' feelings on the nature of belief.
 
wareyin said:
Hmmm, deep thoughts again! Tell you what, what is it about this story that makes you feel you haven't commented enough? You certainly aren't treading new ground in your arguments.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you'll be going to the polls in 2024 saying, "Abrams for president, and Reade can't be trusted." Like a modern Scipio, except Scipio had more of a point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom