DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Out of curiosity, is there any doubt in your mind? Are you at all skeptical about her story? I know we tend to speak in absolutes, because this is pretty much a debate setting, but I'm generally curious.

I'm definitely skeptical of both Reade and Biden. If it was just he said/she said, I'd be skeptical of Biden but more so of Reade. However, the people who are confirming Reade's story (variations of the story) are telling the same variations as Reade is. It's much more believable to me that she's told different versions over the years to different people than Biden's claim that absolutely nothing happened. Does anyone actually believe Biden that nothing happened at all?

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Her interview explanations aren't believable.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I find her explanations not only believable, but it's how everyday people behave especially if you've known someone who's experienced trama. For example, veterans with PTSD often tell different and conflicting versions of what happened to them. That doesn't mean I'm certain of Reade or her claims, but just that I don't find her explanations hurt her credibility.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I find her explanations not only believable, but it's how everyday people behave especially if you've known someone who's experienced trama. For example, veterans with PTSD often tell different and conflicting versions of what happened to them. That doesn't mean I'm certain of Reade or her claims, but just that I don't find her explanations hurt her credibility.

 

Can we stop with this? Nobody is the gatekeeper of this kind of knowledge. Nobody is the only one here with family or friends with trauma disorders, sexual assault victims, etc.

 

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

Just now, RedDenver said:

I'm definitely skeptical of both Reade and Biden. If it was just he said/she said, I'd be skeptical of Biden but more so of Reade. However, the people who are confirming Reade's story (variations of the story) are telling the same variations as Reade is. It's much more believable to me that she's told different versions over the years to different people than Biden's claim that absolutely nothing happened. Does anyone actually believe Biden that nothing happened at all?

I would put myself in the camp of thinking the story she tried to get out last year probably happened. I'm skeptical of this years story for reasons we've rehashed a dozen times so we don't have to do that again. I don't think my defense of Biden stems from Biden himself, but more a worry about the precedent it sets if we force someone to step down due to unconfirmed allegations (regardless of how believable or unbelievable they may be). I think we will have opened a door that will be hard to shut, and it will encourage that type of behavior from political enemies and more frightening, outside governments. 

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm definitely skeptical of both Reade and Biden. If it was just he said/she said, I'd be skeptical of Biden but more so of Reade. However, the people who are confirming Reade's story (variations of the story) are telling the same variations as Reade is. It's much more believable to me that she's told different versions over the years to different people than Biden's claim that absolutely nothing happened. Does anyone actually believe Biden that nothing happened at all?

 

It is a he-said/she-said. That she may be lying now doesn't change that she may have lied before, and to other people. All those people are not witnesses, they're relating versions of a changing story she's told over the years. She's told the same kinds of stories about her ex-husband, her father, and several other men. None have been charged.

 

If you're believing her about Biden, do you believe her about all of her accusations? Is she a supremely unlucky woman who has been serially assaulted her whole life, by many of the closest and/or most powerful men she's associated with?

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I would put myself in the camp of thinking the story she tried to get out last year probably happened. I'm skeptical of this years story for reasons we've rehashed a dozen times so we don't have to do that again. I don't think my defense of Biden stems from Biden himself, but more a worry about the precedent it sets if we force someone to step down due to unconfirmed allegations (regardless of how believable or unbelievable they may be). I think we will have opened a door that will be hard to shut, and it will encourage that type of behavior from political enemies and more frightening, outside governments. 

 

The Right would love to use this as a way to destroy #MeToo.

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Can we stop with this? Nobody is the gatekeeper of this kind of knowledge. Nobody is the only one here with family or friends with trauma disorders, sexual assault victims, etc.

No. I didn't say you can't use your own experiences to form your judgments and opinions nor did I say I'm some gatekeeper of such knowledge. Don't pretend that I did.

 

And none of that addresses the point I was making.

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

No. I didn't say you can't use your own experiences to form your judgments and opinions nor did I say I'm some gatekeeper of such knowledge. Don't pretend that I did.

 

And none of that addresses the point I was making.

 

You're saying because you know people who have suffered trauma and/or PTSD that you know her claims are credible.

 

You are not the only one who has people like that in their lives. It doesn't give you any special insight that others don't have.

[RedDenver]

15 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I would put myself in the camp of thinking the story she tried to get out last year probably happened. I'm skeptical of this years story for reasons we've rehashed a dozen times so we don't have to do that again. I don't think my defense of Biden stems from Biden himself, but more a worry about the precedent it sets if we force someone to step down due to unconfirmed allegations (regardless of how believable or unbelievable they may be). I think we will have opened a door that will be hard to shut, and it will encourage that type of behavior from political enemies and more frightening, outside governments. 

Good points. I think maybe some here think that my lack of disbelief of Reade is the same as saying I think Biden should step down or be removed, but that's not the case.

 

I think it's important to separate some things:

1) whether we believe Reade or Biden (or find them credible or not)

2) what consequences/actions should be taken

3) what level of believing the evidence (some doubt vs reasonable doubt vs beyond a shadow of a doubt vs etc.) is necessary to impose what consequences/actions from 2)

 

I think it's possible to find Reade credible, even believe her and not Biden, and still think removing Biden is not appropriate. In other words, I'd say to you that you don't have to defend Biden himself to defend against him stepping down because of the reasons you've mentioned.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You're saying because you know people who have suffered trauma and/or PTSD that you know her claims are credible.

False. In fact I said the opposite:

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I find her explanations not only believable, but it's how everyday people behave especially if you've known someone who's experienced trama. For example, veterans with PTSD often tell different and conflicting versions of what happened to them. That doesn't mean I'm certain of Reade or her claims, but just that I don't find her explanations hurt her credibility.

 

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

You are not the only one who has people like that in their lives. It doesn't give you any special insight that others don't have.

Again false. Again I actually said the opposite in the very post you're responding to:

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

No. I didn't say you can't use your own experiences to form your judgments and opinions nor did I say I'm some gatekeeper of such knowledge. Don't pretend that I did.

 

And none of that addresses the point I was making.

 

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

False. In fact I said the opposite:

 

Again false. Again I actually said the opposite in the very post you're responding to:

 

 

Whatever. This line clearly says what you're denying. If this isn't what you wanted to convey, fine. But that's how it came across.

 

Quote

I find her explanations not only believable, but it's how everyday people behave especially if you've known someone who's experienced trama.

 

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Whatever. This line clearly says what you're denying. If this isn't what you wanted to convey, fine. But that's how it came across.

I think you're trying to misinterpret what I'm saying so you don't have to address the point I'm making. If this isn't what you're doing, fine. But that's how it comes across.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I think you're trying to misinterpret what I'm saying so you don't have to address the point I'm making. If this isn't what you're doing, fine. But that's how it comes across.

 

Now I think you ire is up and you're just being disagreeable.

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Now I think you ire is up and you're just being disagreeable.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Can we stop with this? Nobody is the gatekeeper of this kind of knowledge. Nobody is the only one here with family or friends with trauma disorders, sexual assault victims, etc.

 

44 minutes ago, knapplc said:

You're saying because you know people who have suffered trauma and/or PTSD that you know her claims are credible.

You are not the only one who has people like that in their lives. It doesn't give you any special insight that others don't have.

 

28 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Whatever. This line clearly says what you're denying. If this isn't what you wanted to convey, fine. But that's how it came across

 

 

[teachercd]

26 minutes ago, RedDenver said: