Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

"SKDKnickerbocker, the firm that Time's Up hires to do PR support for their legal cases, was founded by Anita Dunn, who is an adviser to Joe Biden. This fact has attracted the attention of many pro-Sanders people on social media who are eager to sense an "establishment" conspiracy, which is understandable. But considering the multiple reasons that Time's Up had to say no to Reade before involving the PR side — she has no legal representation, she's not suing anyone and the whole story could potentially be interpreted as electioneering — there's no reason to believe that Dunn ran interference to quell Reade's story."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

9 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

"SKDKnickerbocker, the firm that Time's Up hires to do PR support for their legal cases, was founded by Anita Dunn, who is an adviser to Joe Biden. This fact has attracted the attention of many pro-Sanders people on social media who are eager to sense an "establishment" conspiracy, which is understandable. But considering the multiple reasons that Time's Up had to say no to Reade before involving the PR side — she has no legal representation, she's not suing anyone and the whole story could potentially be interpreted as electioneering — there's no reason to believe that Dunn ran interference to quell Reade's story."

I'm gonna add another quote because it describes exactly how I feel about the situation, 

"Some Sanders supporters are lobbing wild accusations of a cover-up by the mainstream media and Time's Up for not publicizing Reade's story. In turn, some Biden supporters are being reckless — whether by assuming Reade is lying, or by spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories about her, or both. No doubt some folks on either side of the political divide would be reacting the same way no matter what, but the situation has been made significantly worse because of the slipshod manner in which Reade's allegations were reported and released."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

"SKDKnickerbocker, the firm that Time's Up hires to do PR support for their legal cases, was founded by Anita Dunn, who is an adviser to Joe Biden. This fact has attracted the attention of many pro-Sanders people on social media who are eager to sense an "establishment" conspiracy, which is understandable. But considering the multiple reasons that Time's Up had to say no to Reade before involving the PR side — she has no legal representation, she's not suing anyone and the whole story could potentially be interpreted as electioneering — there's no reason to believe that Dunn ran interference to quell Reade's story."

 

droids.jpeg.2ffc5f17c782d10c3fdc2b607c7e6c33.jpeg

 

 

7 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I'm gonna add another quote because it describes exactly how I feel about the situation, 

"Some Sanders supporters are lobbing wild accusations of a cover-up by the mainstream media and Time's Up for not publicizing Reade's story. In turn, some Biden supporters are being reckless — whether by assuming Reade is lying, or by spreading ridiculous conspiracy theories about her, or both. No doubt some folks on either side of the political divide would be reacting the same way no matter what, but the situation has been made significantly worse because of the slipshod manner in which Reade's allegations were reported and released."

 

Yeah, this is all pretty much Reade's fault.

 

</s>

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Gage County said:

 

droids.jpeg.2ffc5f17c782d10c3fdc2b607c7e6c33.jpeg

 

 

 

Yeah, this is all pretty much Reade's fault.

 

</s>

Did I blame Reade? I think her story should be heard, but at the end of the day I need facts. I've said it 1000x f#&% Biden if he actually did this, but there are no facts. All this is, is Bernie voters calling Biden a rapist, and Biden voters calling Reade a liar. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Nit pick: her story changed back in January when Biden looked like he was going to lose.

 

I agree with your other points though.

 

Fair enough. So the public reporting from the Intercept/Halper changed this month but she was speaking with Times Up as early as January.

 

I think my earlier diagnosis that other outlets don't find her credible was wrong. It's more likely that major media outlets feel burdened by a higher standard of journalistic rigor than the Intercept and haven't been able to independently confirm key details of her story. If Reade's corroborators are not speaking to Salon I doubt they're talking to WaPo or CNN.

 

 

Quote

The timeline shows that Reade's involvement in the online world of Bernie fandom coincided with her escalation of accusations against Biden. To be clear, this does not mean she's lying. But taken along with the other discrepancies in Reade's accounts — which are also, on their own, not reasons to discredit her — it's enough to make publications take a slow and careful approach to amplifying this story. 

 

"Other outlets, for good reason, do their own reporting on stories like this," Grim told Salon. "As they do, I expect we'll see more coverage."

 

Salon asked Grim and Halper about their reporting process, but got few answers. Halper confirmed Reade had been connected to her through a woman on Twitter. Grim confirmed that he and Reade have been in contact since early March. (Grim has relevant experience here: He broke the story about Christine Blasey Ford writing to Sen. Dianne Feinstein with her accusation that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her in high school.) 

 
Grim and Halper have both publicly said that they spoke to Reade's brother and friend, who both confirmed that Reade had told them about the alleged assault when it happened. Attempts to reach the brother and the friend — key steps in reporting a story like this independently — have proven fruitless for Salon. Reade did not respond to Salon's request for her friend's identity, and Reade's brother has not responded to Salon's requests to talk. 
 

In light of these details, Salon concludes that mainstream outlets who are being criticized for not writing about Reade's allegations probably aren't making that choice because they're covering up for Joe Biden. What's more likely driving the silence — so far — is a genuine reluctance to dive into a story that contains such a high number of complicating factors and proves difficult to pin down, especially with the coronavirus emergency dominating the news cycle. 

 

So I don't think it's any conspiracy these outlets aren't covering this. It's probably that they haven't been able to verify specific details in such an explosive, complicated story - yet.

 

Which again makes me think the best approach here is to wait and see how it unfolds and hope for the best.

Link to comment

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Fair enough. So the public reporting from the Intercept/Halper changed this month but she was speaking with Times Up as early as January.

 

I think my earlier diagnosis that other outlets don't find her credible was wrong. It's more likely that major media outlets feel burdened by a higher standard of journalistic rigor than the Intercept and haven't been able to independently confirm key details of her story. If Reade's corroborators are not speaking to Salon I doubt they're talking to WaPo or CNN.

 

 

 

So I don't think it's any conspiracy these outlets aren't covering this. It's probably that they haven't been able to verify specific details in such an explosive, complicated story - yet.

 

Which again makes me think the best approach here is to wait and see how it unfolds and hope for the best.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

In light of these details, Salon concludes that mainstream outlets who are being criticized for not writing about Reade's allegations probably aren't making that choice because they're covering up for Joe Biden. What's more likely driving the silence — so far — is a genuine reluctance to dive into a story that contains such a high number of complicating factors and proves difficult to pin down, especially with the coronavirus emergency dominating the news cycle. 

 

Because Professor Looney Toons Ford didn't have any 'complicating factors' when the media declared war on Kavanaugh.  :sarcasm

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, teachercd said:

Do you mean a conviction or an accusation?  

I'm assuming @BigRedBuster meant an accusation that you believe regardless of the outcome of the legal system. For me it would depend on the facts and circumstances and not just the category.

3 hours ago, teachercd said:

 

I don't really have a problem with peoples stories changing a bit, I think that is normal.  I remember most things very well but I have not really been in a situation that is comparable to something like that.

 

I actually think I would be more worried if the story didn't change a bit...it would seem very scripted.  

 

 

I believe she offered an explanation as to why the she changed the grisly details.  I don't understand why that link wasted so much time talking about Russia.  As if victims are forever locked into one viewpoint on foreign policy. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Fair enough. So the public reporting from the Intercept/Halper changed this month but she was speaking with Times Up as early as January.

 

I think my earlier diagnosis that other outlets don't find her credible was wrong. It's more likely that major media outlets feel burdened by a higher standard of journalistic rigor than the Intercept and haven't been able to independently confirm key details of her story. If Reade's corroborators are not speaking to Salon I doubt they're talking to WaPo or CNN.

 

 

 

So I don't think it's any conspiracy these outlets aren't covering this. It's probably that they haven't been able to verify specific details in such an explosive, complicated story - yet.

 

Which again makes me think the best approach here is to wait and see how it unfolds and hope for the best.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

The NYTimes wrote a story after Ford went public with her story after initially maintaining her anonymity during a SCOTUS confirmation hearing. She chose to speak to the Washington Post and had therapist notes and her husband's word to corroborate her accusation.

 

To date Reade has spoken exclusively to smaller progressive media outlets. Which probably means as the article notes, major outlets haven't been able to obtain things like notes or testimony to corroborate her story. And in this case, the Times and the New Yorker can't cite an interview with a journalist pillar like the Post as source material.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

14 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

Joe, before I or anyone else invests any time engaging with you on the subject, point blank, do you have any problem with the litany of sexual abuse and assault accusations against President Trump?

 

Of course I have problems with the entire caste of characters and put forth the exact same questions I'm asking about the Biden accuser.  

 

Do you have any problem with condemning Trump while apologizing for Clinton?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Of course I have problems with the entire caste of characters and put forth the exact same questions I'm asking about the Biden accuser.  

 

Do you have any problem with condemning Trump while apologizing for Clinton?

 

Yeah I've got mixed feelings on Slick Willy. He was a good president but clearly a scummy person. But at the same time a lot of the stuff that made or continues to make the rounds in right-wing circles about him/them is batsh#t insane.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...