The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Is it possible Reade is lying and the neighbor is misremembering or lying about the actual assault? Yes, it's possible. But it's also possible Biden is lying or misremembering. It's not about what's possible, but what's most likely given the evidence. The neighbor has nothing to gain by coming forward in this case and a whole lot to lose, so you'd have to think she'd be really certain before coming forward. She could have remained silent and the public would have never known.

 

In presidential politics, you can't seriously believe there wouldn't be an incentive for this kind of accusation. She definitely could have a lot to lose, depending on her motives, but she could also just be a dupe. People eat Tide pods because they saw an internet meme. There's nothing conclusory to draw about the neighbor coming forward like this. 

 

 

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

The secretary of the senate basically admits it's the right place, but they won't disclose the files, or if they even exist at all. 

 

 

 

Completely off topic, but it constantly bugs me looking at Biden's face that he's gotten work done. He looks half plastic.

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

In presidential politics, you can't seriously believe there wouldn't be an incentive for this kind of accusation. She definitely could have a lot to lose, depending on her motives, but she could also just be a dupe. People eat Tide pods because they saw an internet meme. There's nothing conclusory to draw about the neighbor coming forward like this. 

So now the neighbor needs to be lying/misremembering AND be motivated against Biden or a dupe. Despite there being no evidence that either of those is true, and the neighbor says she's still voting for Biden, in fact she's voting for him despite believing he has done what Reade claims:

Quote

 

LaCasse described herself as a "very strong Democrat," who supported Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren during the primaries and intends to support Biden in the general election.

 

She said she felt compelled to share "the truth" despite her personal politics.

 

When asked how she reconciles voting for someone she believes assaulted her old friend, LaCasse explained, "Biden isn't a bad guy. I think he's an OK guy. He just has this — this just happened."

 

Then she clarified: "And this happened, not just happened, this did happen." LaCasse declined to answer how she thinks other voters should consider this allegation as they weigh whether Biden should be president.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

The secretary of the senate basically admits it's the right place, but they won't disclose the files, or if they even exist at all. 

 

Is this the same Senate that's controlled by Republicans?

[FrantzHardySwag]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Is this the same Senate that's controlled by Republicans?

Bingo - and the Secretary of Senate - she was communications director for Mitch McConnell. The only reasons I can think of why they wouldn't release the docs:

 

1. They are trying to protect Biden, despite the fact he requested them released (seems odd for a republican senate)

2. They know nothing is in the files, and would rather speculation go on to help Trump (seems right on for a republican senate)

3. Only half the parties have signed off on the release, and Reade needs to sign off on their release before they disclose the files.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Bingo - and the Secretary of Senate - she was communications director for Mitch McConnell. The only reasons I can think of why they wouldn't release the docs:

 

1. They are trying to protect Biden, despite the fact he requested them released (seems odd for a republican senate)

2. They know nothing is in the files, and would rather speculation go on to help Trump (seems right on for a republican senate)

3. Only half the parties have signed off on the release, and Reade needs to sign off on their release before they disclose the files.

If the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to disclose, then I think we can safely assume they don't have the complaint.

[FrantzHardySwag]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to disclose, then I think we can safely assume they don't have the complaint.

So option 2, they know it doesn't exist, so instead of verifying Biden - they can continue to let speculation occur.

[teachercd]

What about...there is something but they don't want this to help the D's get rid of Biden and bring in who they really want?  

 

 

Ohhhhhhhh...conspiracy!

[RedDenver]

10 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

So option 2, they know it doesn't exist, so instead of verifying Biden - they can continue to let speculation occur.

Yes. I think their authority only applies to the National Archives records. I don't think the Senate has authority over U Delaware archived records, but I'm not certain.

[knapplc]

I'm going to move to the woods and live out my days eating tubers off the grid.

 

I have no idea who these people are, but this is just proof that 2016 taught us nothing. NOTHING.

 

 

So, let's just say for S&G's that the Democrats pull Biden over this rape allegation.

 

Who here thinks there won't be similar allegations against the next person up? 

 

And then we pull that person, who thinks person #3 won't have similar allegations?

 

Maybe not sexual assault, but something nefarious, something unprovable but not entirely defensible.

 

Show of hands - who really thinks this would happen? That this is an isolated allegation against Biden, and only Biden, and that there's a candidate out there who would be free of this stuff?

 

Anyone?

[teachercd]

If they use this to pull Biden...they will not use it on the next guy because the next guy is who "they" really want.  But they will use it again in the future.  

[RedDenver]

25 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I'm going to move to the woods and live out my days eating tubers off the grid.

 

I have no idea who these people are, but this is just proof that 2016 taught us nothing. NOTHING.

 

 

So, let's just say for S&G's that the Democrats pull Biden over this rape allegation.

 

Who here thinks there won't be similar allegations against the next person up? 

 

And then we pull that person, who thinks person #3 won't have similar allegations?

 

Maybe not sexual assault, but something nefarious, something unprovable but not entirely defensible.

 

Show of hands - who really thinks this would happen? That this is an isolated allegation against Biden, and only Biden, and that there's a candidate out there who would be free of this stuff?

 

Anyone?

It's called swiftboating, and the Repubs will of course try it on any and every candidate. The birther thing fell flat against Obama, but other attacks have been successful. I don't think they should pull Biden over this unless something more substantial comes out, but then again I didn't think Biden was going to beat Trump anyway.

 

But if you didn't think Biden would be susceptible to these sorts of attacks, you don't remember 2004 or all the videos of Biden creepily touching women and girls. It's one of the big risks in nominating Biden.

[Danny Bateman]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It's called swiftboating, and the Repubs will of course try it on any and every candidate. The birther thing fell flat against Obama, but other attacks have been successful. I don't think they should pull Biden over this unless something more substantial comes out, but then again I didn't think Biden was going to beat Trump anyway.

 

But if you didn't think Biden would be susceptible to these sorts of attacks, you don't remember 2004 or all the videos of Biden creepily touching women and girls. It's one of the big risks in nominating Biden.

 

How can you have this level of awareness about how politics works and yet spend the last several pages being so gobsmackingly naive about some aspects of this situation?

 

There are huge, gigantic, visible-from-space red flags about her credibility, to the point one has to legitimately gauge if she's got ulterior motives and is trying to swiftboat Biden.

You know RT is a propaganda rag for the Kremlin and consistently peddles disinformation, right? They had to register as a foreign agent under FARA for crying out loud.

 

Why would Reade call her ex-neighbor from ~25 years ago out of the blue just prior to a huge story involving the neighbor breaking? What of people having their stories coached along by a rando progressive journo who then deleted his account of events?

 

The neighbor doesn't have to be lying or misremembering. If Reade was not initially honest with the neighbor, then all they could corroborate was the lie they were told.

 

Reade has changed or backpeddled SO many crucial details about this story. If the specific date or time of the alleged incident was known, Biden could either produce an alibi supported by evidence or fail to produce one. That's exactly what blew apart a bogus accusation this past weekend. But of course, the date and time are not known.

 

I know you're no Biden fan and that's fine but I think you're letting your opinion of him affect your ability to critically analyze the evidence here and admit that some aspects of this set of events are extremely suspect.

 

 

 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

How can you have this level of awareness about how politics works and yet spend the last several pages being so gobsmackingly naive about this situation?

 

There are huge, gigantic, visible-from-space red flags about her credibility, to the point one has to legitimately gauge if she's got ulterior motives and is trying to swiftboat Biden.

You know RT is a propaganda rag for the Kremlin and consistently peddles disinformation, right? They had to register as a foreign agent under FARA for crying out loud.

 

Why would Reade call her ex-neighbor from ~25 years ago out of the blue just prior to a huge story involving the neighbor breaking? What of people having their stories coached along by a rando progressive journo who then deleted his account of events?

 

The neighbor doesn't have to be lying or misremembering. If Reade was not initially honest with the neighbor, then all they could corroborate was the lie they were told.

 

Reade has changed or backpeddled SO many crucial details about this story. If the specific date or time of the alleged incident was known, Biden could either produce an alibi supported by evidence or fail to produce one. That's exactly what blew apart a bogus accusation this past weekend. But of course, the date and time are not known.

 

I know you're no Biden fan and that's fine but I think you're letting your opinion of him affect your ability to critically analyze the evidence here and admit that some aspects of this set of events are extremely suspect.

 

 

 

 

 

JEEZUZZZ EFFF YES.

 

It's amazing how easily the aware fall for just basic nonsense.

 

I don't for one second think @RedDenver is naive. Or unaware. But here we are, FOUR YEARS after "But her emails," and it's happening again.

 

It's confounding.

 

Scenario:  Bernie has decades of public service with no credible incidents of impropriety. He wins enough votes to be considered the odds-on favorite for the Dem nomination. 

 

Suddenly, out of the blue, there's an accusation, unprovable, damning if true, yet if it was Bernie the Bernie Bros among us would have us look past this and see the obvious Swift-Boating going on.

 

Just change the name. Just change the Dem nominee.

 

The story would be the exact same thing.

 

It is so obvious.

 

It's so easy to believe because the guy being accused isn't "my guy."

 

Maybe you have to not care about any of these candidates enough to see it. Maybe being unaffiliated is the best defense.

 

 

[teachercd]

This is awesome!