The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

In most States the statute of limitations does not apply to sexual assaults.

 

but...not in DC:

 

[Ulty]

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Who would even conduct an investigation?  The police won't because the statute has run out. Blitz doesn't trust the press to do it, so who does that leave?

 

 

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

but...not in DC:

 

I suppose this is all the more reason for Joe to come out and talk about it...he can't get in trouble!

 

Heck...maybe OJ can help him find the guy that really did it!

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

One naturally wonders why this allegation is more important than those against Trump.

 

What's the evidence that it is more important? That we're talking about it? Half of the conversation is about how she doesn't seem credible, and another 30% is about why we're having the conversation.

 

I'm not sure it is more important than allegations against Trump. It's not getting covered much. There's no charges filed, Trump is currently in litigation. We all (on HB and across the nation) talked a lot more about Trump's Access Hollywood tape than we are about Reade.

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

Wanting her to be perfect with perfect recall and follow an ordered, logical string of behavior is really ignorant to sexual assault survivors and people who experience trauma.

 

Yeah, you're making a caricature of the argument here. There's a lot of space between "she's lying because she doesn't have perfect recall" and "It's weird and possibly important that her behavior has been pretty notably inconsistent without a compelling reason"

[knapplc]

27 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

but...not in DC:

 

 

Right. So who would even do the investigation?

[FrantzHardySwag]

 

[knapplc]

23 minutes ago, Landlord said:

What's the evidence that it is more important?

 

That for the last couple dozen pages two people have been the primary drivers of this conversation, posting about it over and over and over.

 

Yet neither of them have mentioned a word about Trump's allegations, even with active news happening around them in the past few weeks.

[Landlord]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

That for the last couple dozen pages two people have been the primary drivers of this conversation, posting about it over and over and over.

 

 

So two people (who are voting for Biden, and not for Trump) talking about Biden's allegations on a messageboard is proof or evidence that the Reade allegation is "more important". Ok.

 

 

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Yet neither of them have mentioned a word about Trump's allegations, even with active news happening around them in the past few weeks.

 

 

Here you go with this again. You also are not talking about Trump's allegations. Biden's allegation must also be more important to you?

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Yeah, I read that. Still doesn't answer:  Where was this person 25 years ago? Or in 2008? Or 2012? Or last year when Reade started talking to the press for the first time?

 

That she's only now coming out with this after Reade's latest version is concerning.  Because either Reade obfuscated the truth in every interview she gave from 4/2019 through last month or this woman is misremembering something she was told 25 years ago.

 

If this was Reade's truth, why not come out with that in her interview with The Union? Because clearly, according to this woman, she was telling people that truth 25 years ago.

 

Where was that truth in 2008? Or 2012?  Why is Reade NOW fine with disclosing everything that happened, but wasn't a year ago?

 

Frankly, that creates more questions than it answers.

 

Reade called her ex-neighbor prior to the Business Insider story about the neighbor corroborating her story was published. They subsequently interviewed the neighbor, which is paywalled, but the relevant bit:

 

Quote

McHugh: When did this come on your radar again?

 

LaCasse: Just recently. Tara called me and said, "Oh my gosh, this Joe Biden thing is coming up again." I said, "Oh my God, that." I had forgotten about it.

 

So her neighbor had forgotten but Reade called to remind her just prior to this story being published.

 

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

But, again, if Reade was willing to tell this story unprompted 25 years ago, why not tell it in any of the interviews she did before a month ago?  That's not explained away by her being a sexual assault survivor. These memories were available to her then, but not when she reached out to the press to tell this story? But now they are again?

 

Occam's Razor has to be applied at some point.

 

If I could put on my contrarian hat: That's right about when it became clear Biden would be the nominee.

 

One can draw several conclusions from the timing. As in Christine Blasey Ford's case, she may have seen the inevitable elevation into power a man she believed did something horrible to her and tried to sound the alarm. Bear in mind, though, that Blasey Ford wanted to remain completely anonymous and did so as long as possible until she was dragged into the situation by the media. So, if we're being generous to Reade, she wants to speak her truth about Biden so we can more fully assess his character prior to him taking the most powerful job in the world.

 

If we're not being generous, it's possible that pretext is false and she just saw it as a way to hurt Biden.

[knapplc]

Just now, Landlord said:

So two people (who are voting for Biden, and not for Trump) talking about Biden's allegations on a messageboard is proof or evidence that the Reade allegation is "more important". Ok.

 

 

TO THEM. Hence why they keep posting about it.

[teachercd]

Can someone explain to me why (on a message board, while we are all pretty much locked up inside with nothing to do) all of a sudden we "shouldn't be talking" about this?

 

 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said:

I was actually responding directly to the idea that her story can't change over the course of 25 years or she loses all credibility. 

 

No one has said that.

 

 

straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

 

noun

noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

1. 1.

   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

No one has said that.

 

 

straw man

/ˌstrô ˈman/

 

noun

noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen

1. 1.

   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

https://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/91866-best-andor-worst-posting-replies/

[Danny Bateman]

30 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Here you go with this again. You also are not talking about Trump's allegations. Biden's allegation must also be more important to you?

 

Humor me in a hypothetical for a minute on this.

 

It does not matter what we talk about as individuals. But it does matter what the media covers because that steers a lot of conversation as a society and it directly impacts what politicians have to respond to and talk about.

 

If we could revisit 2016 for a minute, Hillary was a trash candidate, obviously. But a huge part of the reason she lost was because the media's incessant focus on propping up her emails as a scandal, culminating in furious coverage in the weeks leading up to the election after Comey's letter. Most voters took that reporting and their subsequent perception of Clinton into the voting booths with them. It made it extremely difficult for her to generate media coverage of her policies and handed Trump an oft-used attack line against her. Because the media convinced us it was an extremely important story and a huge problem when it was not.

 

Again, playing devil's advocate: No one can say whether Reade's accusation is true or false definitively. We're all left to gather relevant facts and context and decide for ourselves.

 

However, if this situation becomes another emails story in the media, it's going to have the same vacuum effect on the media. It will swallow up all the disgusting, insane, corrupt s#!t Trump has done in the past 3.5 years (and prior to that, i.e., stealing from his own charity, scamming vulnerable people out of their savings with his phony college, cheating on every one of his wives, multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, etc.). Because people are stupid and recency bias is a thing. If we as a society decide everyone has already heard enough about Trump's misconduct and it's time to go whole hog on the Biden allegation, people are going to remember the latter better and are more likely to have that on their minds as they go off to vote.

 

IF it turns out this allegation is bunk and IF the media decides to treat it like the emails debacle, they've learned nothing about mistakes they made four years ago and we're all going to pay for it.

[Ulty]

7 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

The only reason I'm discussing it at the moment is because it's in the news and new evidence has come to light and I want to feel good about voting for him in November.

What possible outcome of this case will make you feel good about voting for him? You have been burying Biden for months, even before any of this stuff came out.