DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[TGHusker]

Just now, teachercd said:

Oh, i did get it wrong.

 

Sorry about that!

APOLOGIES ACCEPTED!    We all read too fast and speak to fast at times in the heat of a discussion.  If you have ADHD (I have a mild form of it - ok maybe more like moderate) it becomes esp difficult to slow down and pause and consider what is being said.  Need to follow Apostle James's words:  Be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

APOLOGIES ACCEPTED!    We all read too fast and speak to fast at times in the heat of a discussion.  If you have ADHD (I have a mild form of it - ok maybe more like moderate) it becomes esp difficult to slow down and pause and consider what is being said.  Need to follow Apostle James's words:  Be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger. 

Amen!

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

The court document from 1996 is irrelevant because it doesn't say anything about JOE BIDEN.

So Reade not naming the specific individual means that it has absolutely nothing to add? Even though it's about someone in Biden's office, and presumably Joe Biden worked in Joe Biden's office? Not even the tiniest amount of supporting evidence that the neighbor's statement at around the same time might have some more credibility?

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

So Reade not naming the specific individual means that it has absolutely nothing to add? Even though it's about someone in Biden's office, and presumably Joe Biden worked in Joe Biden's office? Not even the tiniest amount of supporting evidence that the neighbor's statement at around the same time might have some more credibility?

 

Yes, exactly. This document doesn't verify anything.

 

One of the biggest things you have to fight against is wishful connecting of dots. This corroborates nothing.

 

Let's be clear - the only thing anyone truly cares about is if Biden assaulted her, right?  It's uncouth & stupid to treat her like a lamp, and it's gross if he's too touchy with her.  She doesn't allege the latter, originally only alleged the former, and really those weren't dealbreakers. Right?

 

The dealbreaker is if he assaulted her. We're all off the ship if that's true, right?

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

Yes, exactly. This document doesn't verify anything.

 

One of the biggest things you have to fight against is wishful connecting of dots. This corroborates nothing.

Then you're just ignoring the evidence. One of the biggest things you have to fight against is wishful ignoring of dots.

 

And while you're focused on Reade's credibility, I don't hear you talk much about Biden's credibility. Keep in mind Biden and his team keep saying absolutely nothing happened. Do the contemporaneous accounts and now the documented contemporaneous statement undermine Biden's credibility?

[teachercd]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Then you're just ignoring the evidence. One of the biggest things you have to fight against is wishful ignoring of dots.

 

And while you're focused on Reade's credibility, I don't hear you talk much about Biden's credibility. Keep in mind Biden and his team keep saying absolutely nothing happened. Do the contemporaneous accounts and now the documented contemporaneous statement undermine Biden's credibility?

Amen!

[Landlord]

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Remember this when the next Reade newsy bit trickles out.

 

Reade isn't some rando person who just happened to decide to come out with this allegation after Biden became the nominee. If she was, her story wouldn't be being doled out piecemeal over several weeks to keep these allegations in the news like this, with more and more stuff coming out every few days.

 

This is all part of the smear campaign.

 

 

Issues of credibility aside, do you see what is happening with Reade and presumably the Republican bad actors pulling her strings to be different or worse in intention and strategy than Dems with Blassey-Ford?

[knapplc]

33 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Then you're just ignoring the evidence. One of the biggest things you have to fight against is wishful ignoring of dots.

 

And while you're focused on Reade's credibility, I don't hear you talk much about Biden's credibility. Keep in mind Biden and his team keep saying absolutely nothing happened. Do the contemporaneous accounts and now the documented contemporaneous statement undermine Biden's credibility?

 

Joe Biden has - PRIOR TO TARA READE - never been accused of sexual assault, despite a decades-long career in government. He's been potentially a target that whole time, but nothing comes out until he runs for president. It's not a coincidence.

 

All the women who have worked with Biden throughout his career vouch for him. He's regarded as a champion of women's rights.

 

I'd say he has credibility.

 

I'll also say that, unless I'm misremembering, Harvey Weinstein had a decent amount of credibility until all the accusations came out. But we all know he's a bad guy now.

[teachercd]

Aren't there like...videos of him being super creepy with kids?

[ZRod]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Joe Biden has - PRIOR TO TARA READE - never been accused of sexual assault, despite a decades-long career in government. He's been potentially a target that whole time, but nothing comes out until he runs for president. It's not a coincidence.

 

All the women who have worked with Biden throughout his career vouch for him. He's regarded as a champion of women's rights.

 

I'd say he has credibility.

 

I'll also say that, unless I'm misremembering, Harvey Weinstein had a decent amount of credibility until all the accusations came out. But we all know he's a bad guy now.

There were quite a lot of rumors about Harvey before he was arrested. South Park even referenced it.

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Joe Biden has - PRIOR TO TARA READE - never been accused of sexual assault, despite a decades-long career in government. He's been potentially a target that whole time, but nothing comes out until he runs for president. It's not a coincidence.

 

All the women who have worked with Biden throughout his career vouch for him. He's regarded as a champion of women's rights.

 

I'd say he has credibility.

 

I'll also say that, unless I'm misremembering, Harvey Weinstein had a decent amount of credibility until all the accusations came out. But we all know he's a bad guy now.

To the bolded: of course it's not a coincidence!! Do you think Blasey-Ford came forward when Kavanaugh was being considered for the Supreme Court just by coincidence? Running for President is the kind of thing that could get a victim that hasn't come forward before to actually come forward.

 

And your last paragraph describes why the rest of your post isn't too convincing. Someone has to be the first to come forward. And if they're the only one, it shouldn't diminish the crime. But whether there's one or a hundred accusations, we should still weigh the evidence.

[knapplc]

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

To the bolded: of course it's not a coincidence!! Do you think Blasey-Ford came forward when Kavanaugh was being considered for the Supreme Court just by coincidence? Running for President is the kind of thing that could get a victim that hasn't come forward before to actually come forward.

 

And your last paragraph describes why the rest of your post isn't too convincing. Someone has to be the first to come forward. And if they're the only one, it shouldn't diminish the crime. But whether there's one or a hundred accusations, we should still weigh the evidence.

 

Why not when Biden was on Obama's ticket as VP, then? That doesn't make any sense.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

Why not when Biden was on Obama's ticket as VP, then? That doesn't make any sense.

Reade talks about the reasons why in the interviews she's done. Maybe go watch them if you want to understand her decisions.

 

But the TL;DR is that she supported Obama before Biden was his running mate and didn't want to hurt Obama's chances of winning. And her daughter was a teenager at the time and she didn't want her to have to go through this.

[FrantzHardySwag]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Then you're just ignoring the evidence. One of the biggest things you have to fight against is wishful ignoring of dots.

 

And while you're focused on Reade's credibility, I don't hear you talk much about Biden's credibility. Keep in mind Biden and his team keep saying absolutely nothing happened. Do the contemporaneous accounts and now the documented contemporaneous statement undermine Biden's credibility?

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.

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Reade talks about the reasons why in the interviews she's done. Maybe go watch them if you want to understand her decisions.

 

But the TL;DR is that she supported Obama before Biden was his running mate and didn't want to hurt Obama's chances of winning. And her daughter was a teenager at the time and she didn't want her to have to go through this.

 

Her interview explanations aren't believable. She supported BIDEN in writing.

 

She was fine with Joe Biden until she wasn't. And then she says he made her feel like a lamp. And then she says he sexually assaulted her. Among those flip-flopping points of view she was vociferously singing the praises of alternately Vladimir Putin and Bernie Sanders.