The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Notre Dame Joe]

11 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

She’s a known grifter for the anti establishment wing of the party, her base wants her to take shots at the DNC. So her paycheck depends on her taking shots at the DNC. She’s there to reassure her base that Bernie = Good, Biden and DNC = bad. I’m sure some of her complaints are warranted but at the end of the day, her stuff is opinion based and also skews far left to the antiestablishment base.

The problem with blaming this on surly Bernie Bros is that the guns mysteriously went silent a month before the primary voting started.  If the hard left was serious about opposing Biden they would have whistled up a storm.

 

7 hours ago, funhusker said:

 

I'm pretty sure that's Clark Griswald!

I was thinking Robert De Niro:  WAS I AT THAT DINNER!?

[RedDenver]

On 5/2/2020 at 9:04 PM, knapplc said:

Krystal Shapiro. Ben Ball.

 

Same coin. Different sides.

 

Objectivity matters.

Interesting you should mention objectivity as I just watched this the other day:

 

12 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I mean it’s smart. She’s probably getting paid very good money to be one of the voices of the far left, and there will always be a base that wants to absorb that info. But at the same time there’s gonna be people like me who automatically dismiss people like Ball, and Hannity. These people have agendas. There are still many outlets that report just the news, and let you form your own opinion. 

Who? If there's any amount of analysis or evaluation of facts or events, then it'll be biased. Simply picking which stories get covered and which do not is a bias that exists even in pure factual reporting.

[teachercd]

9 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Interesting you should mention objectivity as I just watched this the other day:

 

Who? If there's any amount of analysis or evaluation of facts or events, then it'll be biased. Simply picking which stories get covered and which do not is a bias that exists even in pure factual reporting.

Yep...this is why I roll my eyes when dudes are like "here is a link" and "your link is wrong" 

 

It is all biased (and again, it makes sense that it is, it is how we are wired) so when dudes are like "That is an opinion piece not a report" I shake my head...it is all an opinion piece.  Good lord, even video of an incident can be biased depending on when it started to get filmed.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Yep...this is why I roll my eyes when dudes are like "here is a link" and "your link is wrong" 

 

It is all biased (and again, it makes sense that it is, it is how we are wired) so when dudes are like "That is an opinion piece not a report" I shake my head...it is all an opinion piece.  Good lord, even video of an incident can be biased depending on when it started to get filmed.  

Personally, I think this is a copout attitude.  

 

Is there or could there be bias in anything?  Sure.  And, we should always be aware of that.  BUT...there is a huge difference between a reporter researching a story, finding the facts, reporting it with a slight slant that is many times not on purpose, and someone who purposely wakes up in the morning knowing their goal in life is to twist the story around to meet their agenda.

 

This is a copout attitude because it assumes everything is the purposely twisted story so why even try to distinguish between the two.

[teachercd]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Personally, I think this is a copout attitude.  

 

Is there or could there be bias in anything?  Sure.  And, we should always be aware of that.  BUT...there is a huge difference between a reporter researching a story, finding the facts, reporting it with a slight slant that is many times not on purpose, and someone who purposely wakes up in the morning knowing their goal in life is to twist the story around to meet their agenda.

 

This is a copout attitude because it assumes everything is the purposely twisted story so why even try to distinguish between the two.

I don't think everything is purposely twisted.  I think it all has bias, just like you said it does.

 

It is how we are wired. 

[knapplc]

 

At least the choice is easy come November.

[TGHusker]

36 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

At least the choice is easy come November.

Nice play on the Reagan Ad.  Watching both video's there is a huge contrast between the GOP President of 2020 and the one of 1984. 

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

Here's the Woman who broke the Biden/Reade story, on Russia Today (Putin's Mouthpiece), badmouthing Biden and the democrats. The host endorsed Trump directly prior to the interview. GOP/Russia/Trump gonna try and keep this story alive all they can. They interfered with the last election, and they'll try to do the same this election. 

 

 

[RedDenver]

11 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Here's the Woman who broke the Biden/Reade story, on Russia Today (Putin's Mouthpiece), badmouthing Biden and the democrats. The host endorsed Trump directly prior to the interview. GOP/Russia/Trump gonna try and keep this story alive all they can. They interfered with the last election, and they'll try to do the same this election. 

 

 

Back to the oldies - attack the messenger as a Russian stooge.

[RedDenver]

NYT opinion piece on replacing Biden as the nominee. As much as I think Biden is a terrible candidate, I think the Dems pretty much have to stay with him if they want to beat Trump. There's no good way to switch candidates that won't cause a bunch of people to be immensely angered. Only in the case of "caught red-handed" type of evidence of Biden sexual assault would I say they've got to get rid of him.

 

[knapplc]

14 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Here's the Woman who broke the Biden/Reade story, on Russia Today (Putin's Mouthpiece), badmouthing Biden and the democrats. The host endorsed Trump directly prior to the interview. GOP/Russia/Trump gonna try and keep this story alive all they can. They interfered with the last election, and they'll try to do the same this election. 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Biden has never been credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault despite a career of public service spanning decades.

 

Yet, suddenly, this year, right when it became really clear he was going to be the Dem nominee, magically it's now time to bring about these accusations - one of which can't be proven at all, and the other has been debunked so thoroughly the original accusation was deleted.

 

This is not the last time this is going to come up, either. We've got six more months of this.

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Back to the oldies - attack the messenger as a Russian stooge.

Russia Today is straight Putin propaganda. Hard to take her seriously when she appears on it. 

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Yep. Biden has never been credibly accused of sexual harassment/assault despite a career of public service spanning decades.

 

Yet, suddenly, this year, right when it became really clear he was going to be the Dem nominee, magically it's now time to bring about these accusations - one of which can't be proven at all, and the other has been debunked so thoroughly the original accusation was deleted.

 

This is not the last time this is going to come up, either. We've got six more months of this.

Biden is currently credibly accused. Reade has four people that confirm she told them the story back in the 90's. That's more confirmation than Blasey-Ford had in accusing Kavanaugh. And 25 years ago is decades before it was clear he'd be the Dem nominee.

 

Look, I get sticking with voting for Biden because Trump is just awful but continuing to pretend that the accusations against Biden have no merit is getting pretty tenuous to say the least.

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Biden is currently credibly accused. Reade has four people that confirm she told them the story back in the 90's. That's more confirmation than Blasey-Ford had in accusing Kavanaugh. And 25 years ago is decades before it was clear he'd be the Dem nominee.

 

Look, I get sticking with voting for Biden because Trump is just awful but continuing to pretend that the accusations against Biden have no merit is getting pretty tenuous to say the least.

 

Accused? Yes. Credibly? Jury's out on that one. Not every accusation is credible simply because it's made.

 

Reade's four people have not all confirmed the same story. Her story has changed over just the past several months - so even if you're buying that "she told them the story" in the 90s, you'd have to establish exactly which version of the story that was. And we know that several versions of that story - including the alleged complaint she allegedly filed in the 1990s - don't even contain information about sexual assault.

 

So let's not lean to heavily on the word "credible."

 

Further, just because she recently changed her story to include an allegation of assault, that is the first time Biden has ever been accused of sexual assault - so my post is correct.

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Accused? Yes. Credibly? Jury's out on that one. Not every accusation is credible simply because it's made.

 

Reade's four people have not all confirmed the same story. Her story has changed over just the past several months - so even if you're buying that "she told them the story" in the 90s, you'd have to establish exactly which version of the story that was. And we know that several versions of that story - including the alleged complaint she allegedly filed in the 1990s - don't even contain information about sexual assault.

 

So let's not lean to heavily on the word "credible."

 

Further, just because she recently changed her story to include an allegation of assault, that is the first time Biden has ever been accused of sexual assault - so my post is correct.

Then I suggest not saying Biden has never been credibly accused. It's implying that the current accusation is not credible. However, there's independent confirmation that Reade told the story 25+ years ago. That's not to say that proves Biden is guilty, but the accusation has supporting evidence which makes it more "credible" than "not credible".