The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[commando]

21 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

The people at Lincoln Project probably threw a virtual party when they found out they had gotten this far under his skin.

 

confirmed

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

10 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I'm not naive, we just disagree.

 

Except she's people who confirmed her story from 25 years ago. Multiple people. Plus she's got confirmation from the interns she was in charge of at the time that she was suddenly reassigned without explanation, which agree with her part of the story of what happened when she reported Biden for his conduct.

 

Yes. But you can't let what RT does or doesn't do affect your judgement. Part of why Putin is successful is that both truth and fiction are on RT. He does it deliberately. Either ignore RT or look beyond what's covered and into the evidence of the stories. Don't fall into the simple trap of RT=false.

 

The same reason any of us would call people who could corroborate our story from decades ago? This seems like anyone in Reade's place would do it. "Hey, do you remember when I told you {something}?"

 

Where is this coming from?

 

I agree. My point was that it does undermine the argument that Reade made this up recently, specifically since Biden became the front runner.

 

I agree that it hurts her credibility than if she'd told the same story throughout. But we also know that the story changing depending on who the victim was talking to is extremely common in these cases.

 

I think you and knapplc have blinders on for the candidate that you want to win to the exclusion of all evidence and reason. There's a lot of gray area between thinking Reade is credible and Biden is definitely guilty.

 

Again, you're operating from a place of zero skepticism of Reade. That corroboration only goes as far as we trust Reade's credibility and what she told them. Her reassignment in no way corroborates sexual assault.

 

At some point, the decisions people make matters. As in if someone chooses to appear on RT I'm less likely to care about what they have to say because I don't think people should legitimize RT. This damages Halpert's credibility for me. That's what this entire discussion is about.

 

Would you give this same deference to BIden if he, say, called any number of people just before they went on record defending him? Or would you be a lot more skeptical? Republicans know how this works - remember that tarmac meeting between Slicky Willy and Loretta Lynch?

 

Been covered. I just find the nature of Robinson's involvement and subsequent deletion of relevant tweets odd.

 

It does, if Reade told her neighbor the truth back in the 90s.

 

Fair enough. But the substance of the changes serves to undermine her credibility for some of us.

 

That's fine. You're welcome to think what you want about me. But put your critical thinking hat on here. Believe all women means giving women a platform to feel safe to tell their story and then doing the hard work of critically analyzing it. Which means applying skepticism when appropriate.

 

[Danny Bateman]

13 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

He's also admitted to telling Reade which reporters to speak to and which reporters will try and lie and twist her words - he thought the WaPo was out to get her. His getting his hands in this seems odd, huge Bernie supporter, he just re-hired Bernie's Press Secretary back to his company. 

 

Yeah, the Gray thing doesn't seem odd to me given she was already a contributor there. Her Twitter meltdowns were something to see though!

 

I don't know, maybe this is common practice for journos. But I doubt it and it just smells really odd.

 

10 minutes ago, commando said:

 

confirmed

 

 

 

Hot take: Con Air is a top 3 Nick Cage movie.

[FrantzHardySwag]

7 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Yeah, the Gray thing doesn't seem odd to me given she was already a contributor there. Her Twitter meltdowns were something to see though!

 

I don't know, maybe this is common practice for journos. But I doubt it and it just smells really odd.

The far left media has been heavily involved from day one - there was outcry from the lack of coverage by the national news - but in the last couple days Reade has cancelled interviews with Chris Wallace and Don Lemon. A lot of parts of this story just seem off. 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

Again, you're operating from a place of zero skepticism of Reade.

I've said repeatedly that her changing story hurts her credibility, but I'm the one who has zero skepticism. Where's your skepticism of Biden?

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

That corroboration only goes as far as we trust Reade's credibility and what she told them. Her reassignment in no way corroborates sexual assault.

But it does match her story that she was removed, whereas the Biden campaign has repeatedly said nothing at all happened. The interns says something happened. That doesn't prove what exactly happened, but it's evidence in support of Reade's claim and against Biden's claim.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

At some point, the decisions people make matters. As in if someone chooses to appear on RT I'm less likely to care about what they have to say because I don't think people should legitimize RT. This damages Halpert's credibility for me. That's what this entire discussion is about.

Fair point, and I agree that going on RT hurts her credibility. But does Halper's credibility matter much when judging the interview she had with Reade? Unless you've got specific points about the interview, then it seems like a tiny footnote to this whole thing.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

Would you give this same deference to BIden if he, say, called any number of people just before they went on record defending him? Or would you be a lot more skeptical? Republicans know how this works - remember that tarmac meeting between Slicky Willy and Loretta Lynch?

If it was Biden's neighbor who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, then absolutely I'd give Biden the same deference. But the meeting on the tarmac was COMPLETELY different. Lynch was overseeing the investigation into Slicky Willy's wife.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

Been covered. I just find the nature of Robinson's involvement and subsequent deletion of relevant tweets odd.

I can see calling it odd, but it's a huge leap to definitely coaching the witness. And maybe put "allegedly" or something to make clear you're not stating facts but conspiracies.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

It does, if Reade told her neighbor the truth back in the 90s.

No! The point I'm making is that it doesn't depend on the truthfulness of Reade's claim. The claim is that Reade only came up with the sexual assault claim AFTER Biden was leading the nomination. That claim is clearly false unless either Reade can time travel or the neighbor is lying/misremembering. Even if Reade lied back in 1996, it still shows that the sexual assault story predates Biden leading or even running.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

Fair enough. But the substance of the changes serves to undermine her credibility for some of us.

I agree, but it's a matter of degrees. There's a big difference between being skeptical of her stories and something like making the claim that no prosecutor would ever take her case because of it. I'm not arguing that Reade is entirely credible or that her shifting accounts should be ignored, but rather that it doesn't completely invalidate her claims or give some type of certainty that she's lying.

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

That's fine. You're welcome to think what you want about me. But put your critical thinking hat on here. Believe all women means giving women a platform to feel safe to tell their story and then doing the hard work of critically analyzing it. Which means applying skepticism when appropriate.

We completely agree on this point. No where have I expressed certainty about the issue or said that others should be certain. I find Reade's account more credible than others do mostly because of the contemporaneous confirmations. And I'm applying skepticism to Biden and not just Reade.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

The far left media has been heavily involved from day one - there was outcry from the lack of coverage by the national news - but in the last couple days Reade has cancelled interviews with Chris Wallace and Don Lemon. A lot of parts of this story just seem off. 

Well, MSM didn't cover the story for weeks, and Biden somehow didn't get asked a single question about while his surrogates did.

 

With Reade cancelling her interviews, I think she might be regetting coming forward. I wouldn't be surprised if she recants her story just to get out of the spotlight. I didn't realize this until recently, but it's common for victims to recant just to not have to face the backlash. From the NYT article (emphasis mine):

Quote

Ms. Reade’s account is not nearly as incredible as some have argued. In the course of my reporting, I have worked closely with many survivors of sexual assault. It isn’t unusual, in my experience, for survivors to exhibit behavior that seems unstable or erratic to others. They may initially disclose to investigators or journalists only a fragment of what happened, and then reveal more over time — some even falsely recant, either because they sense the police don’t believe them, or because they fear the consequences of pressing their claims. And victims often maintain relationships with their attackers or harbor mixed feelings about them.

 

[Danny Bateman]

31 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I've said repeatedly that her changing story hurts her credibility, but I'm the one who has zero skepticism. Where's your skepticism of Biden?

 

But it does match her story that she was removed, whereas the Biden campaign has repeatedly said nothing at all happened. The interns says something happened. That doesn't prove what exactly happened, but it's evidence in support of Reade's claim and against Biden's claim.

 

Fair point, and I agree that going on RT hurts her credibility. But does Halper's credibility matter much when judging the interview she had with Reade? Unless you've got specific points about the interview, then it seems like a tiny footnote to this whole thing.

 

If it was Biden's neighbor who had nothing to gain and everything to lose, then absolutely I'd give Biden the same deference. But the meeting on the tarmac was COMPLETELY different. Lynch was overseeing the investigation into Slicky Willy's wife.

 

I can see calling it odd, but it's a huge leap to definitely coaching the witness. And maybe put "allegedly" or something to make clear you're not stating facts but conspiracies.

 

No! The point I'm making is that it doesn't depend on the truthfulness of Reade's claim. The claim is that Reade only came up with the sexual assault claim AFTER Biden was leading the nomination. That claim is clearly false unless either Reade can time travel or the neighbor is lying/misremembering. Even if Reade lied back in 1996, it still shows that the sexual assault story predates Biden leading or even running.

 

I agree, but it's a matter of degrees. There's a big difference between being skeptical of her stories and something like making the claim that no prosecutor would ever take her case because of it. I'm not arguing that Reade is entirely credible or that her shifting accounts should be ignored, but rather that it doesn't completely invalidate her claims or give some type of certainty that she's lying.

 

We completely agree on this point. No where have I expressed certainty about the issue or said that others should be certain. I find Reade's account more credible than others do mostly because of the contemporaneous confirmations. And I'm applying skepticism to Biden and not just Reade.

 

I took time to read this and while I don't feel like going tit-for-tat on this all day, you raise fair points.

 

Overall my takeaway is that we should continue to be in wait-and-see mode with this stuff, always. Sure, we can reach conclusions on what we think is most likely true with specific allegations, but there can always be new evidence that comes to light that completely wrecks our perception.

 

So we decide what is most likely given the evidence and wait to see if additional evidence drops.

 

You and I have a very different idea of what most likely occurred here. And that's fine. No one will ever know the god's honest truth besides Biden and Reade. At this rate I don't feel it's fair to call Reade a liar anymore than I do that Biden is completely honest. I just think about things in terms of possibilities and probabilities.

 

Aside from the specifics of all this, I enjoy our back and forths. You're an intelligent dude and I appreciate your perspective.

[knapplc]

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Well, MSM didn't cover the story for weeks, and Biden somehow didn't get asked a single question about while his surrogates did.

 

With Reade cancelling her interviews, I think she might be regetting coming forward. I wouldn't be surprised if she recants her story just to get out of the spotlight. I didn't realize this until recently, but it's common for victims to recant just to not have to face the backlash. From the NYT article (emphasis mine):

 

 

No more needs to be done. She can recant everything now, and this will be the reason.

 

Welcome to But Her Emails 2020.

[Danny Bateman]

Biden picks up another big progressive endorsement.

 

 

[knapplc]

These numbers continue to head in the wrong direction for Trump.

 

I am agog to see what October Surprise he has in store to turn this around. 

 

 

[Landlord]

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

It's weird that everyone pushing this story has to keep editing and deleting and clarifying and reminding.

 

 

It's not that weird. Clear communication with clarity that can't be misrepresented is difficult and takes a lot of work and finesse. 

[FrantzHardySwag]

6 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

 

 

First he deleted his account...now he's deleting tweets.

What is it you are trying to argue? Brother tells the WaPo that he first heard the Biden story this spring, heard about Biden making her uncomfortable with shoulder touching back in 1993, Nathan Robinson self admits he reaches out to brother for him to clarify his story, brother then decides to text WaPo that oh yeah, he did know about the assault in 1993. His account being deleted is false, his tweets being deleted are known - people have the screen captures. He obviously realized it's a pretty bad look to be guiding the brother to revise his position from the initial interview. 

[knapplc]

20 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

 

 

First he deleted his account...now he's deleting tweets.

 

He clearly deleted those tweets. Go find them on his account.

 

Take as long as you like. We'll wait.

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

What is it you are trying to argue? Brother tells the WaPo that he first heard the Biden story this spring, heard about Biden making her uncomfortable with shoulder touching back in 1993, Nathan Robinson self admits he reaches out to brother for him to clarify his story, brother then decides to text WaPo that oh yeah, he did know about the assault in 1993. His account being deleted is false, his tweets being deleted are known - people have the screen captures. He obviously realized it's a pretty bad look to be guiding the brother to revise his position from the initial interview. 

 

Not only that, but near as I can tell, nobody at HuskerBoard made that claim.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Not only that, but near as I can tell, nobody at HuskerBoard made that claim.   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I think there may have been some confusion due to my word choice in a previous post.

 

I used the phrase "account of," meaning "description of" [events], referring to the deleted tweets you posted.

 

I think Red and Blitz may have thought I meant he deleted his Twitter account.

[FrantzHardySwag]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

He clearly deleted those tweets. Go find them on his account.

 

Take as long as you like. We'll wait.

And honestly it's sketch as hell a guy who wrote "We need to talk about Joe", "Trump will run rings around Joe Biden", "You don't really want to nominate Joe Biden", calls him an "ailing Biden", "Sanders needs to keep fighting", "Party needs to unite around Sanders", "A vote for Warren is a vote for Biden" "Progressives, Warren is not one of us", "Why you should be a Socialist", "Bernie proved he's still got it", "The problem with Joe Biden's chummy politics". The list goes on and on. This guy's entire history of articles is Pro Bernie, Anti Biden - and now he's advising Biden's accuser and her family? Just plain sketchy, and it makes it hard to rule out political motivations.