The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Landlord]

14 hours ago, RedDenver said:

However, this is now a court document showing that she told the story back in 1996

 

 

This is now a court document showing that she claimed she was having issues of sexual harassment in Biden's office. That's all.

 

No mention of impropriety by Joe Biden specifically, and no mention of assault/rape.

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Landlord said:

This is now a court document showing that she claimed she was having issues of sexual harassment in Biden's office. That's all.

 

No mention of impropriety by Joe Biden specifically, and no mention of assault/rape.

Correct.

 

We know that Reade's account has varied, so the content of the doc only supports one of the versions she's told. But it also shows that she was telling the story back to at least 1996. It gives credibility to the other people who say Reade told them around the same time period that indeed they were told back then. It's also evidence against some claims in this thread and elsewhere that Putin came up with this, the other people are lying and weren't really told back then, or that Reade made this up only after Biden became the nominee.

 

How much weight you give that evidence (how convincing it is) is up to the individual.

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Correct.

 

We know that Reade's account has varied, so the content of the doc only supports one of the versions she's told. But it also shows that she was telling the story back to at least 1996. It gives credibility to the other people who say Reade told them around the same time period that indeed they were told back then. It's also evidence against some claims in this thread and elsewhere that Putin came up with this, the other people are lying and weren't really told back then, or that Reade made this up only after Biden became the nominee.

 

How much weight you give that evidence (how convincing it is) is up to the individual.

 

She was telling a story, not "the" story.

 

She's told similar stories throughout her adult life. Don't you think that should be taken into account?

 

Putin may not have started her accusations of sexual impropriety. But he's found someone with connections to Biden who has made these allegations before. That's a useful tool to find, if you're the kind of person who is able to manipulate things like this, don't you think?

 

Trump and Putin are in regular communication. They talked yesterday.

[RedDenver]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

She was telling a story, not "the" story.

We know there's been variations in the story. The story has several different variations. Like how I can talk about the story of The Alamo and everyone knows what I'm talking about and that there's different accounts. I'm not sure how else to express in English that I mean the general story we're talking about even though there are several variations. I'll try to be more clear in future posts.

 

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

She's told similar stories throughout her adult life. Don't you think that should be taken into account?

Yes. I keep saying that her telling different versions at different times with different details should, of course, be taken into account. It's just that it seems like that's the only thing you're taking into account.

 

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Putin may not have started her accusations of sexual impropriety. But he's found someone with connections to Biden who has made these allegations before. That's a useful tool to find, if you're the kind of person who is able to manipulate things like this, don't you think?

 

Trump and Putin are in regular communication. They talked yesterday.

Do you have evidence Putin has found someone with connections to Biden? Because you're claiming that Reade is being manipulated directly or indirectly by Putin. And that's the kind of wild conspiracy stuff that I've seen from Trump and Kavanaugh defenders that ignores the evidence in favor of defending their guy.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Do you have evidence Putin has found someone with connections to Biden? Because you're claiming that Reade is being manipulated directly or indirectly by Putin. And that's the kind of wild conspiracy stuff that I've seen from Trump and Kavanaugh defenders that ignores the evidence in favor of defending their guy.

 

Biden is not "my guy," as you well know. This story stinks. I don't care if it's Putin or Trump or Reade herself wanting Bernie to become the miracle nominee, it doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

If you keep talking about how her manyvaried versions of this story need to be talked about, then I must have missed that amongst the dozens of Krystal Ball "got 'im!!" posts. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

Biden is not "my guy," as you well know.

Do you really still think this? Biden is now the most likely candidate to beat Trump, and as you've said many many times that's your only concern. Look at how far you're going to defend Biden at all costs.

 

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

This story stinks. I don't care if it's Putin or Trump or Reade herself wanting Bernie to become the miracle nominee, it doesn't pass the sniff test.

The old "sniff test" proof. And with a nonsequiter "Bernie to become the miracle nominee" dropped in there. Convincing stuff.

 

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

If you keep talking about how her manyvaried versions of this story need to be talked about, then I must have missed that amongst the dozens of Krystal Ball "got 'im!!" posts. 

We've talked about them. I've lost count of the dozens of times I've said that they should be considered and weighed. If you want to talk about them more, then by all means do so. It's like blaming me for not talking about Trump's allegations - I'm not responsible for giving equal posting to all possible discussion points.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Do you really still think this? Biden is now the most likely candidate to beat Trump, and as you've said many many times that's your only concern. Look at how far you're going to defend Biden at all costs.

 

The old "sniff test" proof. And with a nonsequiter "Bernie to become the miracle nominee" dropped in there. Convincing stuff.

 

We've talked about them. I've lost count of the dozens of times I've said that they should be considered and weighed. If you want to talk about them more, then by all means do so. It's like blaming me for not talking about Trump's allegations - I'm not responsible for giving equal posting to all possible discussion points.

 

If Biden dies tomorrow I'm supporting the next person up. I'm not pro-Biden, I'm anti-Trump. You know this.

 

She literally wants Bernie to be the nominee. You've seen her tweets about that. 

 

 

 

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The old "sniff test" proof.

 

You have no proof that she's telling the truth. But you're defending her at all costs because her story sniffs out to you. Don't sniff at the sniff test when you're sniffing too.

[knapplc]

21 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And that's the kind of wild conspiracy stuff that I've seen from Trump and Kavanaugh defenders that ignores the evidence in favor of defending their guy.

 

Let's talk about this. What evidence am I ignoring? What evidence has been put forth that her accusation of sexual assault is true? Because when you get past the hearsay stuff she told other people, you're going to have to realize there's none.

[Landlord]

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Look at how far you're going to defend Biden at all costs.

 

 

People do this all the time in P&R and it's exhausting. Refuting or arguing against someone else's claims or position is not the same thing as defending the opposite.

 

Poking holes in Reade's inconsistent story is not defending Biden. Looking into Reade's weird Russia love obsession/connection is not defending Biden. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

But you're defending her at all costs because her story sniffs out to you.

 

See? Couldn't even get my post in before someone did it AGAIN  

[RedDenver]

45 minutes ago, Landlord said:

People do this all the time in P&R and it's exhausting. Refuting or arguing against someone else's claims or position is not the same thing as defending the opposite.

 

Poking holes in Reade's inconsistent story is not defending Biden. Looking into Reade's weird Russia love obsession/connection is not defending Biden. 

 

See? Couldn't even get my post in before someone did it AGAIN  

Fair enough.

 

But claiming to be independent also doesn't give some special insight into whether Reade is credible or not.

[Notre Dame Joe]

8 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

People should rightfully have their guard up, One of her lawyers is a Trump donor (He also is very good in this line of work, so no issues with her choosing him to represent her), the other lawyer DID write and edit for a Russian propaganda company named Sputnik. There was bipartisan agreement that Russia was/is trying to interfere with our elections in favor of Trump. Of course a lot of people are going to be suspicious of this, everything is timed perfectly for Trump/Russia's interests. Of course it could be a coincidence as well.

 

Most of the posters here didn't have a guard when Trump was investigated by special group of Hilary donors.  How did that work out?

 

6 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Polygraph tests have basically been proven to be unreliable.  This was a smart move for her because of what you said.  However, it really puts Biden in a no win situation.  Take an unreliable test that a lot of Americans think is more reliable than it is, or refuse.  

LINK

 

 

 

The classic lie detector test measures changes in pulse and perspiration on the assumption that the effort to lie is abnormal.  To an experienced politician/habitual liar it's not abnormal so the test wouldn't measure anything.  

 

Also they've done studies that indicate the biases of the man reading the test strongly affect what graphs he thinks register as 'true'

52 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Let's talk about this. What evidence am I ignoring? What evidence has been put forth that her accusation of sexual assault is true? Because when you get past the hearsay stuff she told other people, you're going to have to realize there's none.

 

What kind of evidence would you accept?

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

What kind of evidence would you accept?

 

Let's say we had audio of Biden saying he'd grab Reade by the pu&&y. That would be pretty damning, and I would think that would easily disqualify any candidate for any reasonable person.

[RedDenver]

49 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Let's talk about this. What evidence am I ignoring? What evidence has been put forth that her accusation of sexual assault is true? Because when you get past the hearsay stuff she told other people, you're going to have to realize there's none.

That's exactly the evidence you're overlooking. You can say it's not convincing enough evidence to find Reade credible, then fine we can disagree.

 

But you're trying to ignore or undermine that evidence with no evidence of your own. You've run around making insinuations that Reade is a puppet of Putin and that the people who confirm Reade's sexual assault story are lying without any evidence at all. Basically Reade and everyone that confirms parts of her story (stories) is a liar/misremembering. Not to mention when you claimed that no prosecutor would take Reade's case without any evidence to support that either.

 

You're claiming there's not enough evidence and then making statements without evidence.

[knapplc]

Just now, RedDenver said:

That's exactly the evidence you're overlooking. You can say it's not convincing enough evidence to find Reade credible, then fine we can disagree.

 

But you're trying to ignore or undermine that evidence with no evidence of your own. You've run around making insinuations that Reade is a puppet of Putin and that the people who confirm Reade's sexual assault story are lying without any evidence at all. Basically Reade and everyone that confirms parts of her story (stories) is a liar/misremembering. Not to mention when you claimed that no prosecutor would take Reade's case without any evidence to support that either.

 

You're claiming there's not enough evidence and then making statements without evidence.

 

Hearsay is not evidence. It is hearsay. It does not corroborate, and it does not get us beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Anything a second party says is less viable if they were not there and heard it secondhand. Further, that they only heard it from the person making the accusation makes it even less viable.

 

For the last two paragraphs, I'm saying unicorns are real and they exist in today's world. Present evidence that they don't.